Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3756 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009 Mr Assistant Speaker, you said that the situation was similar to that of questions of the day. The difference is that when the question is read out, that is the question; when the Minister foreshadows that he will be moving a motion at the end of a debate, he is not moving a motion; he is simply signalling to the House that that is his intention. Mr Hide referred to changes to party votes. Our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings specifically make the opportunity available for a party vote to be corrected before the result is announced by the presiding officer. That specific reference is in there. Mr Assistant Speaker, we have referred to the advice you have received. Really, it was not advice; it was a reminder. The Clerk at the Table prompted you about a mistake that the Minister had made. It was not proper advice that you received; it was a helpful reminder. It did not have the effect of making the original mistake by Mr Hide right, in any way, shape, of form. My final submission to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, is that the Minister moved his motion and sat down. That was the motion before us. The two precedents for this are, firstly, the one I have already referred to, where the previous Government faced such a situation. The point was raised by the National Party, and the Government of the day paid a procedural price for it. It had to come back and fix it up later, because the Opposition of the day had insisted that we were wrong—and it was correct—in that the motion had not been moved as had been foreshadowed by the Minister of Justice. An incorrect motion had been moved by the Minister on duty at the end of that debate. I would wrap the whole thing up by referring to the first day that this Parliament met, when the Leader of the House incorrectly moved a motion and sat down. Dr Cullen took a point of order to point out that the motion had not been put correctly, and it was only through the indulgence of the House on the very first day—the cooperation of the House—that that mistake was fixed. Such a level of cooperation, of course, is not present today. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I want to add to my point earlier. I have had a chance now to study the Speaker’s ruling that the Hon Trevor Mallard is referring to—24/7. The ruling comes under the heading “Motions (SOs 93- 100)”. Clearly, the rulings under that heading concern motions that are before the House in writing. That is what Speaker’s ruling 24/7, in particular, refers to, and that is backed up by the reference to Standing Orders 93 to 100. Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): Mr Hughes is incorrect in the way he has put it. He has surmised, under Standing Order 281, that there actually was a question to be put. In fact, there was not a question to be put, in the sense that it was not complete; it required the date to be added—as was indicated by you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It was only when that part was added on that the question itself was complete, and only at that point was there a question that could be decided by the House. There was the initial statement by Mr Hide; with your addition about the date, Mr Assistant Speaker, the question was completed, and it could then be put. So I believe that it is perfectly in order for this House to deal now with the totality of the question—both the referral and the report-back date. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I am working my way back from McGee to the Hansard of 1996. I would like to refer you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to Volume 556, at page 13643, which I think apposite in this particular case. While that page is being found for your reference, I think it also important for you to look at McGee, at the third paragraph on page 175, which clearly states: “Once the member sits down after moving a motion, the member’s right to speak is ended.” That is very clear. I am looking at the third edition, which is the latest one. In 1996 the Speaker was Mr Speaker Tapsell. There were a number of rulings at that time, but he was the Speaker at
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3757 the time referred to in footnote 22 on page 175 of McGee. He was the Speaker responsible. It is very, very clear that once a member sits down after moving a motion, the member’s right to speak has ended. Of course, once a member’s right to speak has ended, his or her right to move anything is forfeit, as well. Other than by way of leave of the House or a motion of the House, the member cannot recover the right to speak. If the member cannot speak, of course, the member cannot move a motion in the House. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard for drawing our attention to what is set out in McGee, but I draw his attention to the fact that if he reads the entire paragraph that he is referring to and the one preceding it, he will see that they are talking about making a speech rather than moving a motion. Trevor Mallard is saying that once a member has sat down after moving a motion, that member does not have a right to give a speech. That is not what we are dealing with here; it is something different. I was not asking to give another speech on the motion; I just wanted the motion to be put properly. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to make the point absolutely clear, Mr Assistant Speaker, just while you are finally looking at the matter. I remind members that it is a longstanding convention in this House that unless one can have the call, unless one has the right to speak, one cannot move a motion. There is no ability to move something in this House—or, in fact, as far as I am concerned, in any Parliament of the Westminster system—unless one has the call to speak. People get the call in different ways in different debates, but it is very, very clear and it is something that I think is quite important; otherwise, democracy could be trampled on relatively easily. If a member cannot be on his or her feet to speak—and the Minister could not be—then that member cannot correctly move a motion of that sort. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I will make a final, quick statement. I clearly had a right to be on my feet, because I had the authority of the Speaker—Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. You specifically asked me and invited me to get to my feet. I actually did have the right to finish the motion, because you, Mr Assistant Speaker, had invited me to do so. The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I have heard a considerable amount of discussion. Firstly, I think the issue about whether the member who was speaking had the right to speak is not particularly material to this point. What I think is material to this point is Standing Order 279, which states: “(1) The member moving the bill’s first reading must indicate in that member’s speech to which select committee it is proposed to refer the bill and whether it is proposed to move for any special powers or give an instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill. (2) Following the member’s speech, written notice of any special powers or instruction to be moved must be delivered to the Clerk at the Table.” This requirement is a protection for the House to ensure that at the time the Minister moves a motion and special directions, the House knows precisely what the Minister intends to do some time later, protecting members from ambush or unnecessary changes. I have in my possession the notice supplied by the Hon Rodney Hide to the Clerk of the House saying: “Consistent with the Standing Orders, I move that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be considered by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee … and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 September 2009.” That is the notice that the Hon Rodney Hide gave to the House. Having made that statement to the House in the first reading, and having given this notice to the Clerk, the member is then obligated to ensure that that is the motion that is read. That is the requirement on the member. The Clerk identified that the member had changed his motion by omitting something, and there is an obligation on
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:
Page 89 and 90: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 139: 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?