Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

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.