Points of Order — Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Order of the Day Discharged

In accordance with Standing Order 71, I move, That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be discharged.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand that it can be done only by leave. So the question is—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will read you Standing Order 71(1): “An order of the day may be discharged or postponed—(a) on motion without notice, or”—and this is the salient point—“(b) by the member in whose name the order stands informing the Clerk accordingly.” That means anyone. There is no restriction here on the moving of that motion, and I so move.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brownlee. I understand it can be discharged only if it is called, and the bill has not been called.

GERRY BROWNLEE: With all due respect, Mr Assistant Speaker, can you point to the Standing Order that says that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The practice is a convention of the House, and it has been for some time.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Assistant Speaker, with all due respect, it used to be a convention that people had to wear morning suits in this House—that changed, because someone stopped wearing one. To say that the Standing Orders are subject to the whim of the day is quite wrong. This is a Standing Order that does not disempower any member from moving accordingly. National Party members know why the Government has taken this action today, and we do not like it. The Standing Orders are not there for the Government; they are there for Parliament and for parliamentarians. So, Mr Assistant Speaker, I ask you to put my motion.

In relation to this matter, my understanding is that it is in the power of the House to decide whether an item of business is taken. The Minister moved that the second Government order of the day be delayed. The House has voted on that and it has been delayed. Now we should move on to the third Government order of the day.

With all due respect to the senior Labour whip, why on earth does he presume that the provisions of the Standing Orders do not apply to all members? What is it that gives the Government members the presumption that the Standing Orders are there only for them?

There is one point that the member overlooks—you have ruled, Mr Assistant Speaker. You are in charge here, not him. Until that changes, he cannot change the rules. As I understand it, you have ruled and he is challenging your ruling. He has a course of action he can pursue on that, but he cannot challenge your ruling.

Mr Assistant Speaker, if I was challenging your ruling, then, presumably, you would have ruled that only the Government can use Standing Order 71. If that is what you have ruled, then let us get that in writing and let us make that the new rule.

Thank you, Mr Brownlee. The motion is out of order. An order of the day can be discharged only if it has been called. A simple motion to discharge can be moved only by the member in charge.

With respect, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is this a point of order? I have actually ruled, Mr Brownlee.

GERRY BROWNLEE: You have told me what you understand the rulings are, but you do not make any reference to the Standing Orders to back up your position. [Interruption] The member on the other side of the House says that I am challenging the Speaker. I am not. I am protecting the rights that members of Parliament are granted under the Standing Orders that we all agree to operate under. I say to Mr Cosgrove that no one member of this House is more or less elected than anybody else, and we cannot have the Speaker deciding that the Standing Orders are there for the exclusive use of the Government. That is not what the Standing Orders say. I cannot find a Standing Order that states that an item on the Order Paper can be discharged only if it has been called, and I cannot find a ruling in Speakers’ Rulings to that effect, so they cannot exist. All I am asking is that my motion, which is properly put, is considered by the House.

The discharge of a bill is quite a serious issue, and to do it without any consultation with any other party is a very serious issue. New Zealand First members would have listened more intently to Mr Brownlee, or taken him a bit more seriously, if he had had the courtesy to come and talk to New Zealand First beforehand. We are in no position to say, one way or the other, whether New Zealand First is united on what he wants, and I suggest that that applies to all the parties. I think Mr Brownlee should respect the convention of the House that one deals through the whips to put an issue to the respective parties. Then he might get a more harmonious answer. To ask us to discharge a bill just because he has stood up and asked us to do so is really not acceptable.

Thank you, Mr Brown—

Gerry Brownlee: May I speak to that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member may speak to it, then I want to raise another issue with the House.

The option is there, of course, for New Zealand First, if it does not know what to do, to abstain when the motion is put.

I refer members to page 164 of the third edition of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, by David McGee. Under the heading “Discharge on motion”, it states: “An order of the day may be discharged on motion. Such a motion does not require notice and is moved immediately the order of the day is called by the Clerk.” That is where we are now. I now call on Government order of the day No. 3.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled, Mr Brownlee.