Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3649
questioning—and Mr Hughes is no better—of the integrity of the person sitting in the
Chair is completely unacceptable to this Committee. It is also very disorderly.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): Mr Chairperson, I want to
take issue with what the Leader of the House has just said, and assure you that your
integrity has not been questioned, at all. But, obviously, as the Committee has
undertaken its proceedings, there are differences between the Government and the
Opposition about the way things should be handled, and the only recourse we have is to
you, as the Chairperson, and the other chairpersons as well, to protect the minority. The
notion of disorderly conduct, I think, is a red herring, coming as it does from a man who
once put down a motion of no confidence in a Speaker. That was the kind of disorderly
conduct that member believed in when he was in Opposition. So I think any lectures
should not be going that way, at all, and to try to put words into Opposition members’
mouths, because we are taking the opportunity to raise points of order about things we
are concerned about, I think is ridiculous.
The Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban had concluded her call. Members on this side
were calling. Colin King was calling from National. Mr Mallard’s point was that you, as
the Chairperson, did not look at the Government side at all. That is the point that Mr
Mallard was raising. That is the end of the matter and you have already ruled on it, so
for Mr Brownlee to go back and dredge up those incidents and say that somehow our
raising points of order is disorderly conduct is actually a challenge to your authority.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for those comments. I
act in the interests of the whole of the Committee. We have had a fair run on this bill.
There have been more speakers on this part than there were on the first one. We have
had a fair range of calls and I have given opportunities to members who have not
spoken previously. I quote from Speaker’s ruling 17/7 where it states: “(1) It is out of
order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government”. I take
strong exception to that criticism. I think it is very inappropriate. We will leave it at that
and move on, but I just make that point.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr
Chairperson. This a separate point of order that I deliberately did not raise at the time,
because I realised that it was a matter of your discretion. I want to ask you whether it is
a new practice, because it is unprecedented in the time that I have been in the House,
that when more than one Government member is seeking the call, as was the case when
you took the call from Mr Tremain for the closure—another Government member was
seeking the call—you accept the closure. I have never seen that in my 25 years in
Parliament.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): A quick perusal of the
Hansard of the Employment Relations Bill debate much earlier this decade will show a
similar practice.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We do not need to go into that. It is entirely
at the discretion of the Chair as to who speaks and when to accept closure motions. It is
entirely the prerogative of the Chair at the time, and I exercised that prerogative. I will
now put the amendment.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney
Hide to new Part 10 be agreed to:
to omit clause 104.