Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am very concerned about the statement you have just made in respect of the points of order that I and my colleague John Carter have made. The leave applications we sought were perfectly within the Standing Orders. Of course, there is a convention that we should not abuse those provisions, but I find it quite ironic that when the Government abuses Standing Order 38, which is very explicit and was never intended as a mechanism for shutting down the House, you refuse to make any negative comment, at all. I would have let the matter rest if you had made even the comment that it was unwise for Dr Cullen to do as he did last evening. I ask you to reflect on the comment you have just made in respect of myself and Mr Carter, when I am complying absolutely with the Standing Orders in terms of the points of order I am raising, that suggested I am doing anything other than acting quite properly, within the strict interpretation of the rules we are obliged to obey.

Ruling on the point of order that has been raised, I say that I merely reminded members that if they continue to work their way through the 370-odd Standing Orders, then they will bring themselves and the House into disrepute. [Interruption] I am not finished. On the other matter the member raised, yes, that matter was raised in an earlier point of order during the proceedings of the House today. That matter was fully discussed at some length. The ruling at that time was that if members are unhappy with that particular Standing Order, then they should take it to the Standing Orders Committee. But the Standing Order was followed as written. That was my ruling.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The fundamental point on which it is essential for this House to operate is the Standing Orders, but we also have conventions. Under your ruling, many Standing Orders can be abused in exactly the same way that Dr Cullen did last night. We rely on conventions and good faith in this House for this democracy to function. If the Speaker is to take a very narrow interpretation when it involves the Government but a very broad interpretation when it involves members of the Opposition, then that, in my view, will break down the great traditions of this Parliament that enable it to operate effectively as the democratic institution of our nation.

Madam SPEAKER: I did not rule; I merely counselled members to think carefully.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether there is a Standing Order that will allow me to make the comment I want to make, but I feel that I am obliged to make it. I am a long-serving member of this House, and, indeed, one who I think has some respect in it. I am concerned that what we have seen in the last 24 hours is an abuse of the Standing Orders. I respect this House absolutely, and it gives me a lot of disappointment that I am here now making these points of order, which I intend to continue with for some time. The point the Speaker made was absolutely right; it will bring the House into disrepute. The problem we have is that we as the Opposition have no other means of making the point that the Government took the opportunity to misuse the Standing Orders in a way that was never intended. The only way we can fight back is by doing exactly the same thing as that. Indeed, the difference is that we are doing it within the Standing Orders. I am disappointed that I have been driven to this point, but I intend to continue to do what I have been doing for some little time, in order to drive the point home to the Government that what goes around in this place comes around.

Madam SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. The point I was making is that it is a matter of debate. There has been considerable debate on it. Obviously, members will make their judgment, as will the public.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps we could resolve this issue. You have seen fit to provide counsel to myself and Mr Carter in respect of the use of the Standing Orders. I think it would help considerably if you saw fit to provide some counsel to the Leader of the House about his use of Standing Order 38.

The application of Standing Order 38 was in accordance with the Standing Orders. It is a question for comment by the public and by members of this House, not by the Speaker. My role was to apply the Standing Orders as they are written. I have done that. If the Standing Orders are not acceptable to the members of this House, then I suggest that the Standing Orders Committee should look at them.

I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 4.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought for Standing Order 4 to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is.

I seek leave for the 2½ hours of members’ time that was lost as a consequence of the actions of the Leader of the House last evening to be set aside for Thursday 5 May.

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

I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 5.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 5. Is there any objection? There is; it will not be tabled.

I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 6, “Amendment or revocation of Standing Orders”.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 6. Is there any objection? There is; it will not be tabled.

I seek leave to table Standing Order 7, “Functions of Standing Orders Committee”.

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

I seek leave for the 2½ hours that was lost last evening as a consequence of Dr Cullen’s not being able to provide the Minister required in accordance with the Standing Orders to the House. I think the date is important. The date that I was indicating for that time be set aside is on Tuesday, 10 May.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that date. Is there any objection? There is.

I seek leave to table Standing Order 8.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table Standing Order 9, “Official report”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table Standing Order 10, “Custody of Journal and records”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table the whole damn book and have it put on each member’s desk, so that we can all study it at our leisure.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table the Hansard pre-print of the part of the debate this afternoon when members addressed the granting of leave for matters not earlier contemplated by the rules, which I have just received.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave for the House to sit on a members’ day so that the time that was lost from last evening’s business as a consequence of there being no Minister in the House, as directed by Dr Cullen, Leader of the House, may be made up on Wednesday, 11 May, immediately following question time in the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to speak in support of this particular point of order. It was my bill that members were almost able to complete—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): What is the point of order?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Seek leave.

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave, basically, to support Nick Smith’s seeking of leave that time be made available on Wednesday, 11 May, to make up time so that members can complete the business that was intended to be completed last night.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier in the proceedings today a number of members who had interrupted a point of order were asked to leave the House. Dr Nick Smith quite audibly interrupted Sue Kedgley. I think that if that is the standard of behaviour that has been set earlier today, Dr Smith deserves to go, as well.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry, I did not hear Dr Nick Smith do that.

Maybe you could invite Dr Smith to confirm whether he did it. I am sitting opposite him. I heard him call out to Sue Kedgley: “Just table it.” He quite audibly interrupted her during the point of order. You could ask him the question. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to Ms Kedgley that I am on my feet. I say to members that we are going from the sublime to the ridiculous, and I will now caution members. Dr Smith has his first yellow card. He is a good sportsman, so he knows what that means in association football.

I felt obliged to say that I did believe that in the circumstances, Dr Smith was trying to assist me rather than to interrupt in a disorderly fashion.

I seek leave, quite specifically, for Sue Kedgley’s bill, which was not able to proceed last evening, to now be considered by this House at this very moment, it having been interrupted by the Government using the tactic, and the abuse, of Standing Order 38 by not requiring any Minister to be in the House at that time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I have some clarification that no one objected, so that means that the bill can be considered? Does that mean immediately?

Hon George Hawkins: I did.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Was there objection? There was. I am sorry, I did not hear it. There was objection, I say to Mr Carter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was very clear that, following my point of order in respect of Sue Kedgley’s bill, you ruled quite clearly that no objection had been raised by Government members. No Government member jumped to his or her feet and took a point of order, so my view is that the proper item at the top of the House’s agenda is—quite properly—the bill in the name of Sue Kedgley, which is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill.

The Government does not object if members now move immediately to conclude the first reading of Ms Kedgley’s bill.