Electoral Finance Bill

Madam Speaker, the House has decided that you should be recalled. We are debating Part 1 of the Electoral Finance Bill. As the Chair, I considered that we had had sufficient time to debate the issue and the clauses. However, members felt that there was insufficient time given. As the sole judge of relevancy and as the Chair of the Committee, I judged that it was time to put the question. However, members have not agreed with that, and they have asked that you be recalled.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Recalling the Speaker to the Chamber is not a decision that has been made lightly. We realise that when we recall the Speaker to the Chamber, the Speaker is immediately put into a difficult position, because the person who is acting as the Speaker’s representative—in fact, the Chairman of the Committee—is doing so with the best wishes of the House perched firmly upon his shoulder and with the authority that you carry as Speaker. However, this bill is not one where there is a clear-cut opinion, and if we look at the public opinion on this matter, then that assertion is well backed and very clear.

In this case we are also aware that at the moment the Government itself is conducting negotiations with other parties to see which of the many, many amendments the National Party has put forward in the name of Chris Finlayson, our shadow Attorney-General, may win the vote of the House. It seems to us that each of those amendments, along with the particular clauses that those amendments relate to, should be debated thoroughly by this House.

The proposition was put to us that this is not a substantial part in the whole bill. People need to understand that there are some 19 clauses in this part, so there are 19 points of law that the House has to consider under this part. There are 17 amendments proposed to this part and, as I said before, a good number of those are being considered by the Government as we speak. We have discussed only four of those amendments through the last 1 hour and 40 minutes of debate, meaning that there has been only a cursory consideration of these matters by the House.

This is an extremely important bill, because it limits the rights of some New Zealanders and it enhances the rights of some other New Zealanders. Our argument is simply that when members are wishing to take a call and when there has been virtually no incidence of repetition through the debate so far—and we would suggest that Hansard would verify that claim—then there is still time, surely, when we have so much time between now and the Christmas break, to consider all of the matters in this very, very important bill, and also to consider some of the matters in the House that we know are being discussed in some of the back rooms of Parliament tonight.

I support the position taken by the Chair, and in doing that I will make five distinct points. Firstly, the time of the debate, according to our records here, is 2 hours and 20 minutes of debate, followed by 15 minutes of discussion. It began at 4.32 p.m., so a considerable time has been spent on this part. Secondly, certainly we accept that there has been a range of speakers and viewpoints, but the bulk of the speakers in that time have been from the National Party. Thirdly, the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, has been the Minister in the chair right through that period and he has responded to each issue raised as we have gone through. So there has been genuine debate, and that is exactly what this part of the bill’s progress is about. Fourthly, as has been mentioned, there are three further questions to be put—the two further parts of the bill and then the initial clauses and commencement—so a lot of the issues raised will be covered in those further debates. Lastly, there is a mechanism in the House by which it is possible to structure debate on significant bills, which is to go to the Business Committee and raise proposals for how that can be structured. I have attended the last few meetings of the Business Committee and I am not aware at all that the National Party has raised those matters. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As you heard from previous speakers, Madam Speaker, there has been extensive debate on this bill. I can think of many occasions when we have had far fewer speeches on any number of debates that I have listened to in the House. I can say fairly that the National Party, in my view, has been well represented. I can tell you, just as a matter of interest, that there have been many comments from the National Party to the effect that the bill is a nonsense and is not worth pursuing, and that was also those members’ attitude in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I say this only to make the point that I am amazed at the seriousness with which National members pretend to take this closure motion and at the hurt feelings they tend to portray, because I can tell the House that that is not what they have portrayed hitherto.

There is also a procedural matter to consider here. What happened was that the Chairman indicated that he would take a final call and he turned to do that, but the National Party challenged it through our senior whip, and there was a series of points of order about it. During those points of order David Benson-Pope rose to argue that putting the closure motion would be the appropriate thing to do. After those points of order the Chairman said that the question was whether the question should now be put, but no Labour member or any other member of this House, including David Benson-Pope, actually moved the motion that the question be now put. So that vote was—

David Benson-Pope: Did so!

PHIL HEATLEY: No, Hansard will show that the members opposite never actually moved the motion. The Chairman put that question to the Committee before a member had moved it. David Benson-Pope took a point of order, but he never moved that motion before the Committee.

I want to canvass what I think is now a very serious issue with regard to one of the most major constitutional reforms that this Parliament may process. I expressed before, when Mr Ross Robertson was in the Chair, that he and I were probably the only two members in the House who have been here as long as this. I have been through debate after debate in this House where members of both Opposition and Government have repeated the same old mantra time and time again, and I think we are so sick of it that we would have liked to see a closure, as well. But tonight I have specifically followed every speech. Not only are there 19 clauses in this bill but also in some cases those clauses fragment—like clause 5, which fragments into clause 5(1), clause 5(2), down to clause 5(2)(da).

The speech I gave focused solely on clause 5(2)(g). If the Chairperson of this Committee were to rule that there had been repetition and irrelevant debate, then I would go with his ruling. But I do not believe that anybody listening to tonight’s debate would say that had yet been the case. I know that there are members on the Opposition side of the Chamber who still have points on fresh fractions of clauses within the 19 substantive clauses, and I see no reason, as long as those people are given a right to make the claims and arguments that they want to, and as long as they are not repeating themselves, why this House would not want to allow that to happen. I think that there would be a severe breach of the democratic right of this Parliament should that debate be shut down.

I will respond just very briefly to the statements made by Mr Heatley. It is my understanding of events—and it is confirmed by my colleagues sitting beside me—that this discussion, and ultimately your recall, Madam Speaker, started when I was granted the call by the Chairman of the Committee and I moved, in the proper language, the closure motion.

I thank members. We have had sufficient argument on this, so I thank the member. As members have said, and as I appreciate, the point is an important one. But I would refer members to Speakers’ rulings 60/7 and 60/8—but in particular Speakers’ ruling 60/7—where the position is set out quite clearly that in these instances the Chair is the sole judge of whether a closure should be accepted. The Chairperson has been the person who has listened to the debate, and, even though I have also listened to the debate, it is the Chairperson who has been in the Chamber listening to the debate who is the best person to judge that. It is not for the Speaker, in accordance with the Speakers’ rulings, which I uphold, to second-guess the Chair’s judgment in that respect. Of course, if in fact the Committee does not agree with the Chair’s decision to accept the closure, then it is always open to the Committee to vote down the question—and that question be now put.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Preliminary Provisions (continued)