Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3754 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009 foreshorten the time for the bill to be at the select committee, but that is something that will have to be done at the next sitting. The member very, very clearly moved something. It is something that the House should address. No other Minister gets a second chance to get a motion right, and there should not be an exception for this one. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I do apologise to the Hon Trevor Mallard. I did make a mistake, Mr Assistant Speaker. But I point out that the actual motion had not been put. You quite rightly corrected me, I moved the motion again, and that motion is now on the floor. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): The point is, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you called the Minister, he moved the motion, he sat down, and his call was finished, just as Mr Mallard pointed out. Further, in support of what Mr Mallard has put to you, I say that there is a direct precedent for this. It happened in the last term of <strong>Parliament</strong> with a justice bill, when the Minister failed to move the correct referral motion at the end. On that occasion it was not pointed out by the Clerk. The Minister realised the motion was not correct moments after the question had been put and before the vote had been taken. The Hon Dr Nick Smith raised a point of order on it. That will be clear in the <strong>Hansard</strong> record. The Government paid the price for it, and had to come back subsequently with a procedural motion to clean matters up. There is nothing we can do about this. The motion was moved by the Minister, and he resumed his seat—it is over. You are now bound, Mr Assistant Speaker, to put that motion to the House to be voted on. Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): The point that needs to be made is that there is a significant difference in this particular case. Although it was true that the Minister of Local Government had resumed his seat, nevertheless, you asked—and you are in sole charge of this House—the Minister to complete the motion, which he continued to do. Nothing intervened after the time that he made the comments, and, as a consequence, the House certainly can consider the motion as a whole. At the end of the day, you are the final judge, but given that you invited the Minister to continue the motion—which he did—and complete it, the House can consider it. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think it is a fairly simple point. Mr Assistant Speaker, you were acting on advice, and I accept that, but in this particular case I think you were not correctly advised. It is not often that I disagree with someone who sits in the Clerk’s chair, but when a member has completed his speech and resumed his seat it is all over, Rover. That is the case that occurred. It is not something that is irredeemable. The Government essentially has a choice: it can adjourn now and move the referral motion again as a Government order of business on the next sitting day, or it can put the original motion, and then, sometime over the next few months, pass a motion that returns the situation back to what the Government wants. Clearly, we will vote against it, but it is not something that we will obstruct, as long as it is done properly, within the procedures of the House. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I think the situation is relatively straightforward. There is no doubt that the motion put initially by the Hon Rodney Hide was different from the motion that he had signalled to the House in his first reading speech. The first thing is that he had signalled clearly to the House that there would be a referral motion and that there would be a report-back date. He is therefore obligated, when he comes to move the motion, to move the same motion. I would draw a parallel with the situation when members put down questions for oral answer; members are required to ask the exact question that is on the Order Paper. The second point I would make in this regard is that the motion had not been carried by the House. Before I put the question, I invited the Minister—on the advice of the
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3755 Clerk—to correct the motion. The Clerk had identified that Mr Hide had made a mistake. The Minister then corrected it. The next point is for me to put the resolution. If the motion had been moved and carried, it would have been, as Mr Mallard said, all over, Rover. It would then have been the decision of the House. At this stage, it is not the decision of the House. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two points. The first relates to an indication at the beginning of a speech that there will be a motion to refer the bill to a select committee. You are absolutely correct in saying that members cannot move such a motion without their having signalled it at the beginning of the debate. Among the requirements is to signal which select committee the bill will go to, and any other restrictions. My submission to you is that those are the outside boundaries, and if a member later chooses to move something that is within those boundaries but does not take full advantage of them, then that is the right of the member. The other point I would like to refer you to is Speaker’s ruling 24/7—it goes back to 1891, to Mr Speaker Steward—which indicates “A motion of which notice has been given cannot, when before the House, be altered by the mover without the unanimous consent of the House.” It is my submission to you that at the point that the Minister resumed his seat, that motion was before the House, and it cannot at that point be changed. I think it is pretty straightforward. The ruling is of very, very longstanding. A motion was moved that was within the boundaries of the notice that had been given, and the Minister then resumed his seat. At that point, the motion was before the House, and, notwithstanding your helpful advice—on the advice of the Clerk—to the Minister, it is my submission that at that point it was too late and you were obligated to put the motion in those terms. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I have two points. The first is that it was not a motion on notice. The second point is to note the number of times throughout the day when members have given votes, then sought to correct them. That practice has been accepted by the House. That is exactly what happened here, Mr Assistant Speaker. I admitted my mistake, and I thank you for pointing it out. The motion had not been put. It can now be put. Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I want to add to the comments made by both the previous speakers, with regard to Speaker’s ruling 24/7. Mr Assistant Speaker, I am sure you have noticed that the ruling refers to a motion of which notice has been given: “A motion of which notice has been given cannot, when before the House, be altered by the mover without the unanimous consent of the House.” However, in this case the motion was not a motion with notice; it was a verbal motion. So that Speaker’s ruling does not apply in this particular case. We all know that notices of motion are on the Order Paper. In this particular case, the motion was not on the Order Paper. Indeed, if we think about it, Mr Assistant Speaker—and I believe that you are absolutely right and I support your view—we will recall that the Minister had indicated that he would be moving a motion in the way that he finally did. There is a requirement to give such notice in the first reading speech, and for the previous member to suggest that the Minister could do something within the bounds of that notice is actually not true. The Minister is duty-bound, then, to put to the House the motion that he verbally gave notice he would put, and we need to now follow that. Mr Assistant Speaker, your ruling and indication to the House are, in my view, absolutely correct. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I shall pick up on the point made by the Mr John Carter. Speaker’s ruling 24/7 refers to notice. In a sense, the Minister foreshadowed in his first reading speech that he would be moving a motion.
Page 1:
First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 137: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 143 and 144: Index to 13 May 2009 (continued on
Page 145 and 146: HIPKINS, CHRIS— Bills— Local Go
show all

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?