Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill

I seek leave for the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill to proceed directly to its third reading following its being read a second time, and for there to be no debate on the third reading.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Our understanding is that there will be a 2-hour debate. If we look on the Order Paper today, we see that the bill is set down for twelve 10-minute speeches, which is 2 hours. We are comfortable to have—

David Benson-Pope: Oh no!

LINDSAY TISCH: I suggest that the senior Government whip should not interrupt when I am speaking. I am making a point here; I am trying to help the House. We are quite comfortable about having a second reading, not having a Committee stage, then going straight to a third reading without any debate, if we can ensure that we actually get more than the three speeches that we would normally be allocated. Of course, if we skip the Committee stage and the third reading, then we will have only three 10-minute speeches. We would like the opportunity to have, at least, the six 10-minute speeches that we would have if there were a second reading and a third reading. We are looking to help the House. I am asking for your consideration on that matter.

The problem we have here is that we had a discussion at the Business Committee yesterday—I cannot remember whether the member was there, but certainly Mr Brownlee was—and we had an agreement for twelve 10-minute speeches, with no variation. One party, United Future, had some uncertainty about its position, and its members were going to let it be known at this point if they opposed this particular leave being taken. We had a clear understanding. There were no fish hooks and no “yes but maybes”. I simply ask members to reflect that we need the Business Committee process to be a good-faith process and to work, and we need people to stick to what they say there for this House to run, for all our sakes. I ask members not to try now to relitigate something about which the Business Committee reached a clear understanding yesterday.

I was at the Business Committee, and I am not sure that the minutes would indicate that the situation was as clear as the Acting Leader of the House is proposing was the case. Certainly, our taking the bill through all stages today was agreed to. There was discussion about whether we needed to have the Committee stage, given that most of us at the Business Committee understood that no amendments would be moved, because quite a bit of work has been done by Tim Barnett, myself, and other members in the Canterbury district to ensure that various people who had concerns about aspects of the bill have had those concerns allayed, at least to the point where they are comfortable for it to rest with the resource management process, as opposed to the bill itself. The United Future representative on the Business Committee, Mr Copeland, raised the possibility that his party might not be able to agree to that arrangement. Mr Speaker then said that, very well, we will leave it at that, that the person moving the motion, or responsible for the bill, can seek leave at the start of the proceedings, and if leave is granted, then so be it.

I suggest to the Labour Party members that a lot of work has been done by a lot of people behind the scenes on this particular bill. The Robert McDougall Art Gallery, the Canterbury Museum, the boulevard, and indeed, the whole arts precinct, are things that most of us from Christchurch are very, very proud of. To be restricted to simply three speeches of 10 minutes does limit the opportunity that local members have to comment about something that is important in their local area. I do not think it is unreasonable, given that the House is going to save a considerable amount of members’ day time by not having the Committee stage—it is a four-part bill; it could have gone on for some 4 hours, perhaps—that we simply ask for some indication that if we want to put up six speakers, the Government will not oppose that idea. Government members themselves, of course, can take as much or as little of the time allocated to them as they wish.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am unable to assist either side or any parties on this matter. The leave is sought simply to have a second reading, full stop. Members are all aware of that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point that my colleague Mr Brownlee has just made is that our Christchurch members are actually in the House, and they all want to speak on this bill. It is significant for that region. Also, if we were to have the normal procedure for debates, and the normal schedule for the calling of the parties, National would be entitled to only three speeches of 10 minutes. Because we are, in one debate, covering the Committee stage and the third reading, I am seeking that our members from Christchurch be given that opportunity to take the allotted times of those parties whose members do not speak. We would still get through the bill within 2 hours, which is actually what is on the Order Paper—twelve 10-minute speeches, which is 2 hours. It is our view that we would be well within that time. What I am seeking is that our Christchurch speakers be allowed to have a 10-minute speech each. I seek leave on that matter.

I point out to the member again that there is a process called the Business Committee. It has to work. People have to act in good faith in that process. There are mechanisms that have been used many times. We would have no objection if members on that side of the House wanted to split their speaking slots, for instance, by arrangement with the Chair. We would have no objection to that. The member says his party has three 10-minute speeches; splitting them would allow six 5-minute slots, and we would have no objection to that, at all. But we had a clear set of discussions yesterday. It is important that we actually do stick to what we arrange. Mr Brownlee has as good as acknowledged that.

Gerry Brownlee: I have not acknowledged that.

Hon MARK BURTON: Well, I would have hoped the member would. I think, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you should put the leave, that we should get on with the debate, and that you should give the call—which is your responsibility—as you will.

Business Committee decisions are upheld only if leave is not opposed when the decisions are put in the House. I want to make clear again that the minutes of the meeting will show that no clear position was reached on this. We are saying, quite simply, that if we can get six 10-minute speeches, which is not unreasonable, the House will save itself a 4-hour Committee stage. If we do not get that, then, clearly, we will have perhaps an hour and a half or so for the second reading today, we will have the Committee stage next Wednesday, and maybe by Christmas this bill will get past its third reading. We would like to facilitate it being passed through all stages today. Given that we are giving up a considerable amount of time by not having the Committee stage, and are disclaiming our third reading time, that is not unreasonable. For the House to make progress on this, it would not be unreasonable for other parties to agree to what we want.

I am sure everyone is aware of what is at stake here. There is only one decision the Speaker can make, and that is to deal with the leave that has been sought. I am sure both sides know what will happen if it goes one way or the other. Leave has been sought by Tim Barnett.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. National is happy to facilitate our getting the bill through within 2 hours, but before Mr Tim Barnett’s leave is put to the House—and both Gerry Brownlee and I have made this point—I ask whether there will be an opportunity for the National members from Christchurch, who are here in the House, to speak. If we were to have only one debate, the second reading, we would be entitled to only three speeches. What we ask is that we have six speeches within the time frame. That is what we are asking for—it is very simple, very clear—and we are happy to facilitate getting this bill through within 2 hours. I seek leave—

The Chair will be in charge of taking the calls and I am sure the Chair will take all views into account. Leave has been sought by Tim Barnett. Is there any objection to that course being followed?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think members want to be clear about what is being sought. Could Mr Tim Barnett make it clear; we have been debating it for so long that we are unsure now.

I seek leave for the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill to proceed directly to its third reading following it being read a second time, and for there to be no debate on the third reading.

Leave has been sought. If there is no objection, there will be a second reading only, of up to 2 hours, with the various procedural motions. [Interruption] There is no third reading. [Interruption] Well, there is a third reading but there is no debate on it. The only speaking opportunities will be during the, possibly, 2-hour second reading.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to be very clear that, because there will be only one debate, according to the schedule of speakers National will be entitled to only three speakers. We are sacrificing speeches on the Committee stage—we are taking that out of the equation—and we are sacrificing speeches on the third reading, where, in normal circumstances, we would be entitled to another three speakers. I am asking that, if we have just one debate, the National members from Christchurch who are here in the House—and there are more than three—each be entitled to speak. If that were the case, and we work within the 2-hour period, then we would be happy to reconsider, but at the moment we will have to vote against the leave.

I will have one more go. What has been put on the Table is consistent with all the discussion we had yesterday.

Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s not. That’s a misrepresentation. Let’s put the minutes on the Table.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member should not speak unless he has the call.

Hon MARK BURTON: It is consistent with the discussions we had yesterday, which resolved that in the end, unless United Future came back, there would be a motion that delivered up a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. Whether it was a second or third reading—

Gerry Brownlee: 2 hours.

Hon MARK BURTON: It was twelve 10-minute speeches. Come on, Mr Brownlee! What I am saying to members is that was what we discussed, and that is what is being put. If members want to discuss some other things after the leave has been put, they may do so, but that agreement was reached because the members who care about the bill wanted to facilitate it. If those members no longer want to do that, they will probably not allow Mr Tim Barnett’s request to proceed. It is not of any consequence one way or the other to the Government, per se—it is not a Government bill. It was simply an arrangement that the House Business Committee tried to facilitate, to assist members who wanted to progress the bill. That is what Mr Tim Barnett is trying to do. I suggest that we now simply allow members to decide whether the debate takes place now or over 2 or 3 weeks.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I shall attempt to be of some assistance. It seems to me that we are negotiating, through points of order, the terms of what was or was not agreed, and thereby are consuming valuable time on members’ day. It would be my hope that the Government could progress to the next item of business on the Order Paper, whilst the whips retired to a convenient place to discuss what they might or might not wish to do. They would then come back to seek leave of the House. I will be guided by the Chair, but if it were helpful, I would be prepared to move that the Government proceed to the next item on the agenda while the whips retire to discuss this issue. At the end of the day, a member’s bill in the name of Steve Chadwick is still waiting to be debated, and we get these opportunities only every second week, as we know.

We are on a matter of leave, Mr Ron Mark, and, in any case, you are free to seek leave for any proposition you might have. We have had a seeking of leave. Everyone is clear on what will happen. I think it is a matter of goodwill. There is no reason, for instance, that one side cannot have 12 speeches in a row—none at all. It is a matter of goodwill—though it may not happen. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is.

There is a desire to see this bill passed through all stages today. The bill is holding up a certain amount of development of facilities and one or two other things associated with it. I am aware that people in Christchurch want the bill passed fairly quickly. Accordingly, I seek leave for the debate on this matter to be a single debate, with the third reading being at the end of it—with no debate and going straight to a vote—and with the debate ending either after 2 hours or after the National Party has had six speaking opportunities of 10 minutes each. It is not unreasonable.

I think what is being asked for is fairly clear. Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.

Second Reading