Crimes Amendment Bill

I move, That the Justice Committee’s powers be extended under Standing Order 298(1) to consider the amendments set out in Amendment Paper 436 in my name, and, if it sees fit, to recommend amendments accordingly, despite Standing Order 264(2).

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is extraordinary that here we are under urgency, that the Government is more interested in getting through the debate as quick as possible, that they have rushed this through to the extent where they haven’t even fully included what they intended to put in the bill. It is extraordinary that the Minister has to come to the House and move a motion that the select committee consider this Amendment Paper when if he’d done his job properly, it would have been included in the bill to begin with.

This isn’t a situation where we are in a second reading and the House is set to consider the committee of the whole House stage. This bill has only just been introduced and we have just debated it at first reading, and now he moves that this House move an instruction, essentially, to the committee to consider this Amendment Paper. The Minister should be embarrassed. Why on earth didn’t he do his job in the first place and make sure that the things he wanted to propose were included in the bill?

And then we have to sit through an hour of pretty pitiful attempts to do an audition to become a Minister from the backbenches of the National Party. I hate to put it to them: they were not very good auditions and I don’t think they’re going to work. If they were really a Government that was laser focused on crime, they can’t be very laser focused when they don’t—

Carl Bates: If you knew your numbers, it wasn’t an hour. Simple maths.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —even include the things that they want to propose. There’s a reason that Carl Bates is yelling out, because my comment about them never becoming a Minister has hit a nerve. It has hit a nerve—

Carl Bates: I was talking about your maths—your inability to do maths.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —because he knows that the truth is being spoken. Getting louder, Mr Bates, doesn’t plead your case even better. There’s a reason he always sits by himself, and there’s a reason he’ll never be a Minister, and it’s on display right here today.

This is an embarrassment. Why are we, as a Parliament, having to sit under urgency, yet again, by a Government that is scared of debate from the public? We’ve just had the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill go through all the stages, we’re about to have the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill go through all stages, and yet here we are with a bill that is incomplete.

Paul Goldsmith has not done his job. He is a part-time Minister, as far as I’m concerned. He’s too busy running around trying to defend $3,200 lunches by Sunny Kaushal under his administration. He should have been concentrating on the bill. This Amendment Paper doesn’t actually propose anything that is egregious, necessarily. The point of this debate and the reason that it is actually debatable is because when Standing Orders were scribed, they envisaged when a Government made a mistake like this that it warrants time of the House to discuss it.

That is significant. It is so significant that they said that if a Government isn’t going to get its act together and isn’t actually going to do the work properly, it has to come down to the House and move a motion that the select committee consider an Amendment Paper to change a bill that we’ve only just debated at the first reading, that has only just been introduced, then, yes, that does warrant putting aside the time of the House to debate it.

Now, we’ve got backbenchers on the other side who are desperate to get home and they’re packing a bit of a sad—

Carl Bates: No, happy to be here. Happy to do the work.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —because their Ministers have put Parliament into urgency. There’s Carl Bates again; off he goes. Still not going to work, brother. Keep at it, though. Keep at it. I’ll tell you what: if you yell loud enough, the people that are about to vote you out in Whanganui might hear you.

Look, this is a disgrace. They should not have had to rush things through urgency. If they weren’t so focused on getting things through so quickly, I reckon they wouldn’t have made this mistake. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that we are nearly at the end of the year. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that this is a good or a bad idea; that is actually irrelevant in this debate. This debate is purely and simply about why we are having to put aside Parliament’s time to fix up Paul Goldsmith’s mistake. Why didn’t he just have this sorted to begin with? If they had their ducks in a row, we would have been able to debate the substance of this.

Now, just to prove the point that this is a monumental muck-up, Paul Goldsmith put out a press release today celebrating the passage of the first reading of this bill which included this. He didn’t even know that this wasn’t included. And today during question time, when he was facing a patsy from one of his mates, he talked about this as one of the benefits of the bill.

Well, it’s not even in the bill and it won’t be until Parliament agrees to this motion. He got ahead of himself yet again. I reckon it’s because they didn’t even know. They didn’t even know that they had made a mistake until they’d issued a press release, until they had done question time about it and said, “This bill is so good, we’re going to be able to issue fines to shoplifters.” Then they’ve realised, “Actually, we didn’t include that. We’re going to have to move a motion in the House so that the select committee can debate this.”

This is an embarrassing moment for Paul Goldsmith, and I hope it gets covered by the media because he should front up to this. Why are they putting Parliament through urgency when they haven’t even got their act together and they haven’t even got their ducks in a row?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Madam Speaker.

They are 10-minute calls.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Kieran McAnulty made a fair point, which is that it would be good for the public to know why this one got missed off the initial cut. The theory that I put forward in the first reading speech is that he got a call from the Prime Minister, he had to meet his key performance indicators, he cleared his whole desk of all the work that he hadn’t done, got it in a bin, gave it to the officials to go and draft up a bill, and this one stayed on the desk. I reckon this one was still on his desk, and he missed it when he did the clear-out to figure out what was going in this bill, because this one is not in it. This is introducing, as we understand, a ticketing system for retail crime. Even though, as mentioned, the Government’s press release included this as part of the mechanisms, or the provisions, in the primary legislation, it is in fact an incorrect media statement because the provision for infringement notices for retail crime is in this Amendment Paper, not in the primary legislation. I think the general public needs to know—if this Government is passing, under urgency, bills when they don’t even have their act together to get everything in the primary legislation—what the reason for this is. Was it missed off? What’s the purpose for doing that?

I’ve got another problem. The problem, with this situation that we’re trying to fix, is that the number one concern of retailers is that when they’ve had retail crime occur, they call the police, and no one comes. That’s the problem; they want a police officer to turn up at their premises when a crime has happened. Now, the Government’s response to this problem is to issue tickets. Well, that’s great, but who’s going to issue the ticket? There’s still not a constable to turn up to issue the ticket. I’m interested to know—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order. My understanding is this debate is not on the merits of the policy that we’re discussing; it is purely and simply on the motion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ve just taken some advice, and the Minister is correct; it’s very constrained to the motion question.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to seek your guidance because, if I heard it correctly, within the motion that the Minister moved, it included the Amendment Paper number. Therefore, the Amendment Paper number, or the numbered amendment that this pertains to, is also part of the motion that’s debatable. I’m just seeking your guidance on that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll just double-check that. In response to that point of order, the detail in the Amendment Paper itself is not debatable; the powers that it is giving to the select committee to make recommendations or consider the Amendment Paper is the purpose of this debate.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: So we can talk about Paul Goldsmith not doing his job, but we can’t talk about the amendment? That’s clear. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Right. As long as we all understand. Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Right, back to the point of this being an almighty stuff-up, because that’s what the topic is. I’m really interested to know, from the Minister, if he’d like to take a call, as to how exactly this occurred.

The other point I’d like to raise, in relation to this—I think that this is important because, if we think about it procedurally, this was not included in the main bill. There was no ability to debate it in that part, so the problem we have is that, currently, the police infringement system is at end of life—the police infringement system is at end of life. There is no further capacity to issue tickets. This movement kicks out the implementation date by six months; that’s what’s going on in this here. It kicks it out by six months or by Order in Council—so we’ll do it when we feel like it or when six months kicks in. The reason for this is that Police are busily building the system, without funding, to make this happen. The real reason we’re here is that there is currently no capacity in the police system to issue additional infringement notices. I suspect the Minister has been informed of this late in the piece. He’s figured out that the current police system can’t handle additional workload, and so this bill is kicking the implementation date down the line while people busily try and build an electronic system, not the manual system—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m just going to interrupt the member there. I was waiting on you to come back to the debatable point.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This is an astronomical stuff-up on the side of the Government because there’s no system in place to deliver what they’re promising in the amendment bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the motion be amended to insert “and Standing Order 295(1)(b)” after “Standing Order 264(2)”.

I do want to speak to the referral motion specifically. Now, the previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen, is absolutely correct in the sense of the potential fish-hook that this motion will bring because what the Standing Order 264—by the way, thank you to the previous two speakers for buying me some time to actually look at the Standing Orders and what it entails. Standing Orders 264(2), if I heard it correctly, is that, basically, what the Minister is doing is waiving a bill that may make consequential amendments to a number of Acts affected by its provisions.

Now, the reason I’m assuming that the Minister has brought this to the House’s attention and requires a debatable motion on this is because of the fact that the principal bill itself, which is the Crimes Amendment Bill, can only have one principal Act attached to it, which is the Crimes Act. However, the Amendment Paper 436, that both of the two previous speakers has spoken on, is not a consequential amendment to the Crimes Act. In fact, it’s a separate and distinct amendment, which is the Summary Offences Act 1981. That is the problem: it should be a bill that is introduced separately because it amends a separate Act, and it should have been brought separately to the House as a separate bill, not an Amendment Paper on another unrelated, semi-related but not consequential amendment to another bill.

The question then is: why did the Minister choose to include this as an amendment rather than a distinct separate bill that amends a distinct separate principal Act? That is what we’re waiving here, I’m assuming, when it comes to Standing Order 264(1).

But I think there’s more to this. The reason for that is when I saw the Minister had released this amendment bill, I did wonder, you know, what is this Amendment Paper that is inserting a separate thing that amends the Summary Offences Act? I’m trying to think of other instances where something like this could have happened. The only example that I could think of, while just doing some quick Hansard research, was I remembered that last year in Budget urgency—because it was literally my first Budget urgency in this House—the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, the Hon David Parker, and also the Hon Kieran McAnulty having this really intense discussion on a bill, with points of order on something that I had no awareness of, but I do remember it had something to do with a particular motion.

So I went back and tried to dig it up and I think it possibly is something along the lines of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill, and that was the motion and instruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. And this is the thing, because it’s trying to use a similar power in terms of the referral motion here as I think what they’re trying to do in the other referral motion, which is that the committee’s power be extended. This was also moved, actually, by the Hon Paul Goldsmith as the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, that the committee’s power be extended under Standing Order 295(1)(b) to consider an out-of-scope amendment set out on Amendment Paper 41 in the name of the Hon Simeon Brown.

This is where it got me thinking on how these sort of things tie into each other. This is where I thought in terms of my amendments that I’m coming to—and, you know, understanding that other people may want to speak on both the motion itself as well as my amendment to the motion—is the introduction of Standing Order 295(1)(b). It is curious when it comes to Standing Order 264(2)—if that’s indeed the one that the Hon Paul Goldsmith has moved—because it just simply says bills are to relate to one subject area, but it may not necessarily expand the scope of the select committee. Maybe it does, but, basically, it just says to avoid the bill making consequential amendments.

I already mentioned that the Amendment Paper that is in question here may be amending a separate bill altogether, so under the strict reading of the Standing Orders it cannot be considered a consequential amendment. But going back to the other one that we were considering, Standing Order 295(1)(b), it is in terms of the speech of the member moving the first reading. This says, “(1) The member moving the bill’s first reading must, on the commencement of that member’s speech,— … (b) if it is proposed to move for any special powers or instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill, indicate the terms of that proposed motion.”

I guess, in this case, what I’m trying to do with the Amendment Paper—and potentially now with that amendment the Minister’s able to speak on it and contribute and have another go at this—is whether simply moving the amendment around Standing Order 264(2) is sufficient enough to provide the power to the select committee to actually do what they need to do, which is consider an amendment that is not a consequential amendment to the principal Act.

However, with my amendment of Standing Order 295(1)(b), it does, potentially, specify the required special power that’s needed and explicitly states in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill, indicating the terms of the proposed motion, which is the consideration of this amendment, which is Amendment Paper 436.

So I do want to check with the Minister, now that the Minister can have another go at speaking on this—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he, though?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, will he? That’s an excellent question. Will the Minister consider taking a call and addressing some of these broader concerns of this? And, you know, we love the fact that we’re talking about Standing Orders. This is my jam: anything constitutional, everything Standing Orders related. But I do want to know just simply if the motion that the Minister moved is sufficient to allow for that power. I do want to check if the Minister is willing to take another call and address the Amendment Paper that I raised in terms of Standing Order 295(1)(b).

I’ll also be interested to hear in terms of other people’s thoughts on that potential amendment in terms of the dichotomy that we have created and the power that is granted, because, again, this is a very interesting and peculiar parliamentary power that we’re looking at here for a select committee to be granted the additional ability to consider two different—OK, technically not two different subject matters; I want to clarify that because I do think that if we want to consider two subject matters, the Minister, I’m assuming, will also have to move an amendment that waives Standing Order 264(1), which is “Except as otherwise permitted by the Standing Orders, a bill must relate to one subject area only.” I’m assuming—because the referral motion, as far as I could hear, doesn’t actually exempt the House or the select committee under Standing Order 264(1)—we’re still considering this bill under one subject matter. It is simply the consequential amendment portion.

But again, I will be interested to know why there has been a separate thing that has been introduced that couldn’t be introduced as a separate bill altogether, why it has to be tied into the Crimes Amendment Bill, whether those two things indeed are considered as two separate subject matters, and whether we should really consider an amendment that also includes Standing Order 264(1) because that potentially expands it out even further?

I am interested in what other members think of both the waiving of Standing Order 264(2), but also my amendment, which I will hand over to the Clerk shortly, of the inclusion of Standing Order 295(1)(b).

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, as colleagues have said, this is a little bit embarrassing—this is a little bit embarrassing. It’s starting to feel like there might be a biscuit tin in the Minister’s office and every now and then he just kind of puts his hand in there and picks out a random handful of ideas and chucks them all in one bill and, this time, one’s happened at late notice. But it looks like chaos. It really does look like chaos. This is our justice policy.

But I think what my concern is, is that, really, this bill being introduced at this stage under urgency really proves my point about the type of things that shouldn’t be introduced under urgency. The reason for that is that this is a bill that—and I won’t talk about the substance, but it does introduce policy, but it also delays the implementation of that policy. It’s saying, “Let’s introduce this new law that’s very, very urgent. But hang on, we’re going to delay when it comes into force by up to six months because we’re not ready.” Now, come on, like, that’s extremely clear in terms of something that should not be introduced in urgency.

What I’m speaking to is whether this amendment should be here at all, whether it’s appropriate for it to be considered as a matter under urgency, which it clearly—clearly—isn’t.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I remind the member; we are talking about the select committee’s powers to consider this.

VANUSHI WALTERS: The referral to select committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Yes.

VANUSHI WALTERS: My view is that it shouldn’t be referred to select committee under urgency, because that is the nature of how the bill is being proposed to be referred to select committee. But the issue of why we’re here again and why the Minister feels that he needs to refer the bill to select committee, in my view, is a bigger issue for this House, and it is about the House’s time.

While it is, in my view, embarrassing that this referral is having to happen, it’s also indicative of a House who, potentially, has insufficient time to be able to consider what it needs to. I’d like to speak to what we should be doing, what a House should be doing, instead of referring this kind of tack on to select committee to be considered, which I do think is not the proper process. I think there are other things that this House could be doing to improve our processes.

This is a beautiful time to consider it, because we have a Standing Orders Committee who are currently considering what are the best-practice processes that we should have to enable legislation to go through the pipeline to avoid the mishmash bill situation, to avoid bills having to be referred to select committee last minute. Geoffrey Palmer speaks very well, kind of on repeat on these issues, and perhaps, at some stage, the House will take notice. But he speaks, as a start, to the number of MPs in the House, to the fact that it has remained the same for a considerable number of years.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Come back to the debate and point.

VANUSHI WALTERS: What I’m speaking to is the things we could put into place so that we don’t need to think about referring matters like this to a select committee. The procedures of the House are not adequate and I’m outlining why we’re in the place we are, that the Minister has to—his only course of action to be doing this.

If we had more MPs, more House time—if we had, you know, more MPs with more select committees, then there would be more House time. If we had more House time on the agenda, that would also allow the Minister then to do, as colleagues have suggested—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry to interrupt the member again, but this is a very tight debating point. It’s starting to expand in your discussion. Please, come back to this.

VANUSHI WALTERS: Absolutely. I’m just indicating that there’s work that could be done to avoid this very scenario where the House is spending additional time debating a referral to select committee. We don’t need to be having this debate. We’re having this debate because we don’t have adequate measures.

Let’s say that this motion fails—let’s say this motion fails. What are the Minister’s options at that stage if he truly believes that this policy needs to get through the pipeline urgently? Well, it’s not the end of the world if this motion fails, because the Minister could then talk to the select committee and suggest that they consider other issues as well. The select committee themselves can then make a decision; the chair can make a decision. Then if there’s a challenge from any parties, it would then go to the Speaker to make a decision as to whether that new issue was in scope or out of scope. The select committee could actually consider other issues on their own vote and a chair’s decision that would allow them to consider this issue without this being referred to select committee; I believe it’s happened before in finance and expenditure. It’s not entirely the end of this issue if this motion doesn’t fail.

I think that’s important for the House to know before it goes to a vote on whether we should be referring it to select committee or not. But then, of course, it’s ultimately up to the Speaker of the House to determine whether the issue is heard or not. So I can understand why the Minister would want, for clarity’s sake, to have the debate and the discussion at this end of things as opposed to it continuing to be an embarrassment over the course of the coming three months, as, perhaps, an excellent select committee—we have an excellent select committee chair—says, “Well, no. We’re not going to accept this because, really, the Minister should have been organised, should have put it in the original bill, and we will not use our powers to now look beyond the scope and make a referral to the Speaker that it be accepted.” I can completely understand that this, of all the embarrassing options available to the Minister at this stage, this is probably the least embarrassing one.

But I would put it to have, if I could, that, actually, that is the option that is the most appropriate in this case, because it is clearly a mistake on his part, and really an independent group, as select committees are, is the appropriate place for a discussion to happen about whether it is appropriate for this additional different issue to be included or not. Unfortunately, the Minister isn’t leaving it to the select committee chair to do that, which I think is really unfortunate because he is a very fair chair and I’m sure he would consider whether, in fact, this issue should be included or not. I do think that that’s a shame.

Now, there is another question here, which is whether the scope of the Standing Orders is sufficient and whether this is, again, the best option or not in terms of including matters that are outside the scope of bills. I do wonder whether the Business Committee presents another option in terms of the Minister’s avenue of including this issue as a matter for discussion as we head into next year, and if it is an option, why the Minister didn’t consider going through that pathway in terms of having a robust debate, perhaps over a longer period of time, about whether it was appropriate or not.

Now, you know, I’m very goodwilled. Perhaps the Minister wanted the House to have the full discussion. In many ways the House as a whole is the most appropriate place for this discussion to be had. But I would put it to him that, actually, it is to avoid the embarrassment of having to table an item at Business Committee and further expose, for a longer period of time, the fact that a mistake has been made.

I think it is unfortunate that we’re having to use the House’s time—the House’s time is very valuable—due to a mistake—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Extremely valuable.

VANUSHI WALTERS: It is extremely valuable—that the Minister has made. I do think it points to chaos in terms of those ministerial offices. I think the public should be very worried that these matters either weren’t considered when the bill was first created, or people believe that it was included, and it was simply misplaced or ignored in the final version that was submitted.

Now, the other problem that we’ve got is the fact that, given this is an amendment, it didn’t go through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) vet, and, therefore, my view is the Minister should be submitting this as a new bill as part of good process. The House deserves to know whether there’s consistency or not with the BORA vet. The House deserves to know what the regulatory impact of this particular bill will be.

There’s been a habit of making significant amendments by this Government at late notice, and I don’t believe that that produces the best legislation. I think, as a matter of principle, we should potentially consider objecting to this proposal. Hopefully, that will mean in the coming months, Ministers will be very careful about the legislation that they’re submitting to this House.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m not going to take the full time. My dear mother, who’s not with us now, had this saying which she used quite often: “I am sick and tired of you making the same silly mistakes.” I heard that all too often myself. But I think it’s very, very appropriate—that, in urgency once again, we have an experienced Minister making the same silly mistakes. This Government, over the last 12 months, has had more urgency, more desperate legislation, than anyone else. Once again, at the eleventh hour, when the poor people who might be out there watching TV and watching Parliament at home going, “What the hell is going on? They’re in urgency and nothing seems to be happening.” Well, they might say, “Well, the Opposition’s holding out.”—we have a responsibility, in Opposition, to keep the Government honest. When it makes those silly mistakes, we have to expose them. So it would be irresponsible to the country if we were not to debate these issues properly.

The Minister of Justice has been around for quite a long time, there’s no excuse for being naïve or not being aware of the challenges here. But to bring in after—after—we’ve had a debate in the House, an Amendment Paper—436—to then try and refer to a select committee without any scrutiny of the House is simply irresponsible and actually flouting—flouting—the principles of democracy in this country. There’ll be many people out there who know that’s actually the way this Government has operated. But to do it so blatantly, as we approach Christmas, as everyone’s looking for a break, and this Government, once again, trying to slip in a piece of legislation and an amendment that should have the scrutiny of the whole House.

I’ve got some very smart and astute colleagues who’ll refer to the technical points of this debate, but for the public out there who are saying “What’s this all about?”, I’ll just read out the principles. Can I just quote, it’s an explanatory note of the Amendment Paper—and it’s not to get into the amendment, Madam Speaker, I’m not doing that; it’s to try and explain what an amendment means, why everyone is getting excited about an amendment to a piece of legislation that’s just been debated. It says, “Clause 2 of the Bill is amended to provide for a delayed commencement for the provisions contained in this Amendment Paper. These clauses will come into force on”—

Simon Court: Madam Speaker, point of order. Apologies to the member on his feet. It’s quite clear, in Standing Order 298(3), that the debate “may not extend to the principles, objects, or provisions” that the member was just speaking on. Madam Speaker, I just ask if you’d give some guidance to the member.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I don’t need guidance, and I don’t think the House does, because we’ve already made it really clear. If we cannot keep the debate tight, then that will be it.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. I guess, many people out there will be confused as to what is a piece of legislation, or a bill, introduced under urgency and tabling it, and then what’s an amendment—you know, before there’s been any debate.

I guess, in summary, if I can, this is a substantive change to a piece of legislation that’s not just an amendment; it’s actually a delay provision. The question is: why would the Government try to slip it in at the last minute? To be kind, it might just be an honest, stupid mistake. It might be. But we’ve had no opportunity to debate this and the principles of provisions of it—we’re not allowed to do it in this debate. So if it was to go through, then it just slips straight into select committee without any scrutiny of the House. That’s kind of unconstitutional. I appreciate the Standing Orders on this, and I’m not going to deviate from that, Madam Speaker, but that’s why we are all concerned about the process. It is a process that, once again, challenges the constitutional arrangements of our democracy.

We’ve had, as I say, more urgency in this period of Parliament, under this coalition Government, than I’ve ever seen in my time in Parliament—that’s a couple of years! It is really important that we do everything that we can. I’ll be followed by astute lawyers who will go to the detail of this and the Standing Orders, and I would never profess to be an expert on Standing Orders—I’ve got a lot smarter people around me—other than to know that the principles of Parliament and the oversight of legislation are something that our ancestors fought for—fought for—died for, and we have a responsibility to uphold. And any coalition Government, just because it’s got the numbers, that thinks they can come in and just ram anything through Parliament—we in Opposition have a responsibility to stand up and point out—

Stuart Smith: This is a general debate.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —the risks of that. Well, it is. It’s a general debate on the provisions of democracy, and on the Standing Orders of this House, which are supposed to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): To interrupt the member, it is not a—

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —to guide how we operate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It is not a debate on democracy; it is a debate on the select committee’s powers, under that Standing Order, to consider the amendments.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess that the process we are overseeing here, with—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): And that point’s been well canvassed and well made.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —the tabling of this amendment, I would suggest it does go to challenge the principles.

Madam Speaker, I said I’d never unnecessarily waste the time of this House, and I will hand over to my colleagues, but it is absolutely essential that people understand that this is another silly mistake. My mother—and myself—would be sick and tired of this over and over and over again.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The amendment moved by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan is out of order as being of no effect. The Minister complied with Standing Order 295(1)(b) during his speech on the bill’s first reading.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. As I know the House is never able to go backwards, it is frustrating. I want to bring that to you, in terms of the amendment. There were, if I can count, three speakers who spoke to the original paper, and then, when our Green colleague put his amendment on the Table himself, two others spoke to it. As we look at the Standing Orders and how it works, these are debatable motions, which should have fulsome engagement. I just want to ask that you consider that and take it on board, because I think there is frustration because of this and because of what has happened previously in other processes in this House. There is frustration in the Opposition about this, and we need to make sure our voices are heard.

Speaking to the point of order—thank you, Madam Speaker; I don’t want to take up much time at all—I just wanted to point out that, actually, the debate had got very broad. That’s how it, quite rightly, in my view, went to the vote.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order—

We don’t need any more debate on it. I take your point; however, it may be seen to be like that to you, but I gave several warnings about the breadth of the debates that were happening. There were five speakers that spoke on it, for about 40 minutes, and it was a simple, very tight question that was being put, and I think, in my opinion, it was well canvassed.