This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content. You can search the text using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.
Will stop it. It's done in effect by leave, and it seems to me that it's a very important issue upon which, if necessary, you should take the advice of Mr Speaker. It is quite an important point if the committee of the whole purports to take powers to itself, which under the precedence of this house, it is not entitled to take speaking to the doctor Cullen. The procedure which the House [00:00:30] is now following is the procedure which was followed in consideration of the goods and services tax bill. Uh, last year that is a permissive motion was moved by in in the house. That motion enabled the committee to consider the question of whether or not the bill should be taken part by part, but did not mean that the committee had to take the bill part by part. And I refer you to McGee Page 251. And [00:01:00] I feel I may. Oh, good, you've got another copy. Refer to McGee. Page 251, where it's not an instruction to a committee of the whole house is an abstract motion, and it goes on to say the committee is not therefore forced by an instruction to make an amendment or to divide up a bill into separate bills. Or indeed, of course, by implication to take a bill part by part, it really has power conferred upon it to do those things if it sees fit. Now, the question of whether [00:01:30] or not the committee sees fit is obviously one to be solved by resolution of the committee and is therefore a motion to be debated within the committee. There is no suggestion within that statement that it is one to be resolved by leave where matters to be resolved by leave. That is specifically stated because it is a very particular form of procedure within this House because it empowers a single member of the House if he or she so wishes to thwart the will of the overwhelming majority. [00:02:00] And I suggest to you, sir, that having had the precedent of the goods and services tax which indeed I think was the first time that the motion was put and debated in the committee as a whole for a very long time, having had that precedent, we are now following that precedent through on a private member's bill and it is a matter to be settled by debate and no doubt by resolution and division within the committee. Uh, speaking to the point of order, Mr Norvin. Well, [00:02:30] Mr Speaker, we've heard it all. Now, we are now going to do the same with this bill as we did with the goods and services tax. Have one ever heard anything so ridiculous? We are talking about the greatest moral issue that's turned this whole country upside down. In the 11 years I've been in Parliament before I go back to 74 to the point of order. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I thought the thought the member was adding to the point. [00:03:00] I'm ready to rule on the subject, and I thank members for their comments. I think that the point is, um, pretty adequately covered in its, uh, in general terms, um, in the quote given from McGee. But to come back to the particular question raised by the member for, um was, um, and followed, followed up by the member for Tamaki. Um, it's pretty clear that what has happened in the past, where there has been an instruction [00:03:30] from the house that the committee may consider a bill part by part. What has been the practise in the past is that that has been considered an instruction which not just, uh, empowers the committee. Uh, but obliges it now, Um, the member for Madaba is quite right, that, um, in the past, where a voice has been raised, Um, that is then, uh, a question, [00:04:00] uh, for the committee to decide. Uh, a voice was raised in this instance when the motion that the committee may consider the bill part by part was put to the committee and there having been dissent, a voice of dissent. Uh, it was then appropriate, uh, for for the member for, uh, Wellington Central to move as she has done so that the committee has got the power if [00:04:30] it wishes to take it. Um and it's It's in the process of deciding now, since it has since it has the power, it wishes to exercise it. Um, this is Well, uh, well, we've had that point of order. At least the has another one you would give me. Uh, thank you to Wellington, Mr Mr Mr. Chairman, I I've listened carefully to what you have said and the speeches leading up uh, to your last [00:05:00] comment. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain to the committee. Um, the first paragraph in the three sided sheets that have come around under your name as chairman of committees. I. I found these on my, um, bill box. I think about three quarters of an hour ago. I think the wording is important at State, sir. The following proposal is put forward [00:05:30] in the light of the complexity and potential conflicts arising from SOPS proposed to the bill comma to facilitate consideration of the bill and its various amendments. Can I ask who were parties to putting forward that proposal? I would like your clarification of that when the parties to the proposal met. Thirdly, Mr [00:06:00] Chairman, Why? Why should the Committee of Parliament make it easier to resolve complexities and potential conflicts? This for this is what we are here to do with deliberation. Proper thought. Now, I should be grateful, Mr. Chairman, if you could elaborate, particularly on the first two, certainly. Um I think it is probably better for us to actually consider how we're going to deal with the bill if [00:06:30] it is to be dealt with in part after we dealt with the question that we now have before the committee, which is whether or not it should be dealt with in part. But I take the point that the member has raised, which is that the committee, um should not have any any form or or procedure imposed upon it. And certainly the document which the member has referred to and which has been circulated, uh, over my name is not an attempt to in any way give any, [00:07:00] uh, guidance beyond that which might be helpful at this stage. We're asked the question that is now, before the committee has been decided. We come to a question of how in in the part, by part, consideration if there is to be such a part by part, consideration how we deal with it. But I take the member's point. It's entirely in the hands of the committee how that should be done. And certainly not certainly not in, uh, in my hands to tell the committee set the point a little further. Clarification. The fact remains, the committee [00:07:30] of Parliament has three pieces of paper unsigned, But I accept you. I No, I accept absolutely that they've come from your office As chairman of committees. I accept that despite the fact the third page is unsigned, might I repeat my question? Who are the parties to the proposal? And when did they meet so that you were in a position you may not have wished to be In a provision to put forward such a proposal, [00:08:00] I, I would I would be happy for the order happy for the member to to raise those questions at the appropriate point of the committee. We asked. The question that we are now dealing with has been dealt with. We come then, If the committee decides we should we come then to how the bill should be dealt with part by part. I'm ruling, in other words, that the member is right to raise those questions. But not now. He may do so later. Um, Mr [00:08:30] the Honour was young, and I point out to you with the you gave me the call. Uh, before you called my colleague, I think the member for on a point of order there were there were a number of members seeking the call. A point of order. II, I must call on the point of order that's been raised. Are you speaking to the point of view is that you ruled on the second point which the member for Papakura raised. But you did not [00:09:00] respond to the first point, and I wondered if I might speak to that first point, namely, uh, the the the question of the sequence. Now, my understanding is that whether the subject is debated part by part or clause by clause would affect the speaking time. But the sequence in which the amendment should be taken whether the House decides to handle it part by part or clause by [00:09:30] clause should still follow the procedure set out in the piece of paper so that the house can, in orderly fashion, address a sending order of age. The how the committee may or may not to decide to adopt this procedure. They may or may not. But it is not a question for the committee to address now. It would be premature to address that question at this time. Now, uh, I [00:10:00] there are There were several people on their feet. I'm inviting members to, uh, to take the call. Um, the Honourable uh, Mr Chairman, I normally would have some difficulty with a resolution such as this, uh, on a private member's bill, that is a conscience issue. Uh, after all, what is being sought is a restriction of members speaking rights, uh, on [00:10:30] this very controversial piece of legislation. But, sir, but for two things one is that this Parliament has already spent an exhaustive amount of time with individual members of Parliament stating very clearly what their opinions are on the measure. And also, Mr Speaker, uh, the fact that there are many [00:11:00] important issues for this chamber to deal with as my colleague, uh, for, uh, pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it is upon our shoulders. I believe, having debated this bill as fully as could possibly have been the case during the introduction. Uh, during the second reading during the short title of the legislation, we've heard the opinion of every member of this house, except, [00:11:30] I think the Prime Minister and now they're out in the country around us. Uh, there are issues of tremendous importance. We all know how we're going to vote on this bill. Each one of us in this chamber has made up his or her mind and almost Everyone has told their colleagues exactly how they're going to vote. Mr. Chairman, I want to get on to the economic issues that are driving this country apart. [00:12:00] That's what we ought to out of order. The member is out of order. He may not say what we should be debating what we are debating and that's all he's entitled to debate is the question before the committee, quite a narrow one that the homosexual law reform bill be considered part by part. I ask the member to keep to that question, Mr Speaker. Uh, by taking the bill part by part, it will give the members of this chamber the opportunity on private Members Day to move [00:12:30] with greater speed to a number of bills, of which the House already has noticed. It is the intention of the opposition to introduce legislation to re to return to the local government sector, the right for individual constituent of local authorities to have a say. Now, Mr Chairman, we want to get hold of that bill and we want to debate it here. It is a matter of great importance, and I say to my colleagues [00:13:00] because they do know in their heart of hearts that we have all made up our mind. Let us get on with the business. Let us register our votes and determine whether or if it does, in what form this piece of legislation proceeds. Um, Mr McTigue, Thank you, Mr Chairman, as the newest member of this house and as this being [00:13:30] the first substantial conscience issue that I have been involved in. I am opposed to seeing the procedure recommended being adopted. And I am opposed because I don't give credence to the fact that it will take us 31 hours per part to get through it and debate, I put more credibility. I put more credibility on the on the members of this house than that. But I am opposed to a situation where I will be required to vote on clauses within this particular part of the bill which will very substantially [00:14:00] alter the social structure of our society, will have an impact on the 3 million people that live in New Zealand. And yet the arguments. Yet the arguments to which I will be required to pay attention and finally make my decision on may be well divorced in time from the time at which that decision is made as we go through the amendments to this particular section. Indeed, where there are seven amendments, the concept of what we have done debated [00:14:30] to date Mr Speaker, as substantially changed as those amendments come to bear. And I think that we have a right to be able to consider the implications of that and the arguments that can be made in that changing situation as they eventuate and make our decisions in that perspective. And consequently, I am totally opposed to the course of action being proposed. The honourable Mr Point of Order. Point of order. Mr. Luxton, I like to [00:15:00] move under standing order 289 that we report progress to take the speaker's ruling as to whether this is a debatable motion. OK, I think that well, the question is that the, uh, motion be agreed to in favour. Say I to the contrary. No, [00:15:30] the, um no haven't moved. The chairman has no other right. It's not a matter of the the House now deciding it's a matter of bringing the speaker back for a rule. I I, uh I appreciate the me order would would the would the members, uh, particularly in this part of the house. Um, stop trying to tell me my job. [00:16:00] And, uh, the member for Wanga Ray will stand and withdraw and apologise. You what? I apologise. The member for Ware is given one more opportunity to stand and withdraw and apologise. I said we've seen some shocking chairmanship from you tonight. Withdraw from the chamber. We've seen some shocking chairman from the chamber. Otherwise the member will be named. [00:16:30] What? We've seen some shocking chairmanship from you tonight. I name the member you are in for of the bill I name the member for And ask the leader of the house to move the appropriate motion. He was That's great. [00:17:00] The motion is that that the house 193 progress? Um uh I will, uh, order. Order The member having been named, I will report progress, uh, for the speaker's role. [00:17:30] It is, um it is quite clear that at this point in proceedings, the Chairman of Committee should report progress. The house is Mr Speaker, the chairman of committees. Mr. Speaker, um, I have, um, moved to report progress so that I can advise you uh, that under [00:18:00] standing order 193. I have been obliged, uh, to name a member, uh, namely the member for, uh, for a sequence of events, uh, during which he repeatedly challenged the authority of the chair, uh, and left me with no alternative but to move under speaker's rule in 193193. I if I require any assistance on this matter, I will call for [00:18:30] it. No members no doubt have taken the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the contents of standing order 193. And I would draw to their attention, in particular at the last three lines. And the speaker shall on motion being made there upon put the same question without [00:19:00] amendment or debate, as if the defence had been committed in the house itself. Now, there is no provision under standing order for the chairman, uh, for the speaker to do any other single thing. If members are in any doubt about that, they should read that standing order. [00:19:30] So, in accordance with the requirement of that standing order 193, I will call on the, uh, point of order, the honourable Vin Young. Mr Speaker I would point out that the the House in committee as a whole has been debating a very difficult proposal put to the committee. Let me finish, Mr Speaker. [00:20:00] I would just before the member speak because we deal with a very serious matter. I would remember remind the member that when he raises a point of order that in the ultimate it is asking for some action or some relief to be given by the chair now, I would remind him to raise a spurious point of order is highly disorder that is a point of order [00:20:30] which cannot or has not. The purpose for which I've stated in mind now have drawn the House's attention to the limitations of the speaker's ability in this matter that the requirements of standing orders are absolute and admit no departure from the procedure laid down. So as long as the member is fully aware of that and that he is not involved [00:21:00] in a spurious point of order and that he will end up his point of order with ending as a result of this Mr Speaker, I request this remedy which will make the point of order totally in order then I would, uh I'll ask him to continue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I wish to make Mr Speaker in reference to standing order 193 is in the heading of the standing [00:21:30] order, and that is the member may be suspended after being named. It does not say, Mr Speaker, that the member shall be suspended after being named. Now, Mr Speaker, I believe that that being the case, you have an element of discretion in your hand that can take account of the situation from which the naming arose. [00:22:00] And consider that before you suspend, move to, uh, to suspend my colleague the member for yes, I. I will hit Mr Buxton to draw your attention to the incidents that ran into this and I moved. I moved under 289 standing order 289 and I'd refer [00:22:30] the speaker to that ruling. Order! Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable gentleman, but I must warn him that for there is no provision at all for the speaker to review the decisions that have been made by the chairman and committee so that that if there are matters in which there may be dispute as to whether the correct procedural matter is concerned, then it is in the authority of the [00:23:00] chair to review the procedure of the committee, of which the chairman happens to be part in light of the greater responsibility of the House. But in the actual conduct of the Proceedings of the committee, the chairman is in exactly the same position and has the same authority as the speaker in the House. And there is no way and is specifically disallowed under our standing orders and speaker's rulings for the speaker [00:23:30] to review in any way. I decision that has been taken by the chairman in matters of this account. Now, having stated that and explain the position, I will allow the member to raise his point of order. But he should bear that in mind. And from the statement that I have said that a spurious point of order is a bit self disorderly. Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of any spurious [00:24:00] point of order. I would like to draw your attention to the standing orders 289 and I moved that we report, uh, the reporter programme to take a speaker's ruling. The speaker had the chairman had no alternative but to then call the speaker if you read it carefully. 289 and I'll read it for the speaker to for his to revive his [00:24:30] memory. A motion may be made during the proceedings of a committee of the whole house that the chairman report progress in order to obtain. The speaker's ruling on some question raised there in such a motion shall be put forth with without amendment or debate now, having moved it and that was the start of the sequence, the chairman proceeded as if the committee was still in place. I would argue that [00:25:00] this house and the the moment that was moved the chairman had no further business in the chair but to call the speaker for the ruling on an absolutely different matter which I wanted to be resolved. And I have a perfect right for my point of order to be dealt with first. Yes, uh, I do take cognizance of the matter that the member has raised that there was a motion before the house [00:25:30] that the er chairman report progress in order to obtain a speaker's ruling. And of that I have no knowledge. It has not been reported to me. But if that were so, and I'm quite prepared to accept that it was so that matter has still to be resolved by the committee. And of that, I have yet no knowledge. But if a disorder arose because the committee is still master of its own [00:26:00] destiny until that motion has been put and passed by the house, the mere putting of the motion does not involve the recall of the speaker. It is a motion and big emotion. It must be moved by the house and passed by the house. Like any other motion, there is nothing in standing orders. To say that that is not is any different from any other motion [00:26:30] now. That being so, then a question of disorder apparently arose from the committee's chairman's report. Before that motion should had been put, therefore, the committee was still in control of its own affairs and a matter of disorder takes precedence over all other [00:27:00] matters, and that at the moment, is the matter which the chairman has reported to me a matter of disorder. And if the committee decides and it is free to decide or not to decide that after returning to the committee that the House should in from committee, seek the ruling of the chair on another matter. Then that is the committee later to decide. Yes, [00:27:30] Mr Previ. Mr. Speaker, I move that John Banks, the member for Ware. A point of order. I'm sorry. I thought the member was raising a point of order. I beg pardon, but a point of order and a point of order must take precedence. Two points that I would like to pick up. One already raised by the member for ma matter, Mr Speaker. And And And it is an I raise it in the form [00:28:00] of a question to you, sir. What if the first part of a two part sequence of events leads, which the first of which is unresolved leads to the suspension or the naming of a member? I don't see how we can separate them out. But, Mr Speaker, my question is, can we might I now refer to the the standing order 193 which you are directly second part [00:28:30] required to administer, So that is subtitled Member may be suspended after being named. Now that leaves a question to be answered May, Whereas they're in the text of the standing order, it says the commit. I'm sorry, the chairman shall forthwith the speaker shall and so on. I believe so. The standing order, in fact, is deficient. If the subtitle [00:29:00] to it has, as the operative verb may, when in the text of it says shall now the question before the house is not shall he be named, But maybe. And in arriving at an answer to that, should we not take into account what preceded his being named? Particularly if, in the opinion of the committee, the matter, for whatever reason, might not have been [00:29:30] handled judiciously. Uh, there's no difficulty about this at all. Uh, first of all, it's not a question a member may be named. It the member may be suspended. The process of suspending the process of naming is one of the steps to be taken in suspending a member. Now, the doubt that may exist is not anything to do with the text of Standing Order 193. [00:30:00] The doubt that exists is whether the house will sustain that motion because it is not a decision of the chair. It is not a decision of the chairman of committees. It's not a decision of the speaker as it is on other occasions of suspending. But on this occasion it's a decision of the house. And no 1 may prejudge what the decision of the house will be [00:30:30] and therefore, quite properly, that of a member having been named the ER. Standing Order says that he may be suspended and that is where the element of doubt sets in. That yes, the honourable Mr Pre Mr. Speaker, I move that John Banks and the member for Wanga be suspended from the service of the house. The question is that the motion be agreed. Those [00:31:00] who are of that opinion will say those who are of country opinion will say no. The eyes have it. Yes, Division called for. The eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left. The tellers for the eyes are, uh miss dot Cullen and Fran Wilde and the tellers for the nose are Mr McKinnon and Mr McClay seats. [00:31:30] The question is that the motion be agreed to. The eyes are 44. The nos are 31. Mr. Banks will be suspended from the service of the house for the next 24 hours. I order. Order, Order the member. [00:32:00] Minute the Speaker. Order! Order! What do you think of that farm water. I declare the house in committee on the homosexual law Reform. [00:32:30] The point of order. The part of the House committee. Yes, Mr Freelander. Mr. Speaker, you may recall, when the chairman of committees was, in fact reporting back the last matter which we the house has now dealt with and is now dismissed with, uh that the matter which led to that being that event arising was the fact that the member, for, uh, matter matter informed or have a matter reported [00:33:00] back or ask you to rule or order for you to be called back? No, I have no knowledge of that matter. Except what has been reported to me by the member for Mama, that if it is the the committee's intention to pursue that matter, I have no doubt that I will hear about it by the appropriate means laid down by the orders of this house. I declare the House in Committee on the homosexual law reform [00:33:30] Be up and down. Uh, order. Order the House committee on the Homosexual Law Reform bill. A point of order, Mr LAX. [00:34:00] I ask under standing order 289 that we report a progress to take a speaker's ruling. Uh, the question is that we do report that I do report progress in order to seek the speaker's ruling. Um, order question is the motion be agreed to in favour? Say I to the contrary. Know the eyes have it. I will report progress to seek the speaker's ruling. [00:34:30] The house is resin. Uh, Mr Speaker I. I have been asked to report progress and to seek your ruling on a matter that has arisen in the committee consideration of the instruction which was left with the committee by the House. That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that the homosexual law reform bill may be considered part by part now, sir, in [00:35:00] the course of the, uh, of the discussion on the instruction that was received by the committee, the point was raised that in the past, the matter that is before us has been dealt with by leave, whereas, uh on a motion from the member in charge of the bill, the committee proceeded to a debate on the motion that the bill should be debated part by part. Several members have raised objection to that [00:35:30] procedure on the basis that it does not conform with precedent. Uh, other members have pointed out that as recently as with the GST legislation, that that is the form in which the bill in which a bill that can be divided into parts may be dealt with by the committee. Uh, so, sir, it was thought to be advisable that you be recalled, uh, so that the matter could be determined both in terms of, uh, recent precedent and the past practise [00:36:00] of the House. And we're seeking your ruling, sir, as to whether or not the procedure that we have adopted in the debate, which is to take the instruction and considered by way of a motion moved in the committee, um, to proceed in that way to determine whether or not the bill shall be considered part by part. Yes, well, it's not difficult, I think, to arrive at what is the tradition of the house. [00:36:30] And as I call the speaker, then surely I should be able to give a little background on it. Certainly if the member wishes which is the speaker. I was unaware of it on his speak. Well, the position, Mr Speaker, it is a point of order. Uh, Mr Laxton, the instruction. The committee [00:37:00] has a very narrow brief. It deals with the short title. It deals clause by clause. It deals with amendments. It can take an instruction from the house. It was an instruction from the house moved in. Hansard number 64 page 8254 that it'd be an instruction to the committee of the whole house on the home sexual law reform bill that it may consider the bill part by part. [00:37:30] It was not a specific motion that it will deal with the bill part by part. It may now the When that was raised, the Chairman of committee said yes. Uh, it is a decision now of the this committee of the whole as to whether it would deal with it part by part and the promoter of the bill Then moved a motion that it be dealt part by part. It is my contention [00:38:00] that in the committee stage. It is not a debatable issue. It is not one that is divides the committee of the whole. It is rather one that is, by leave of the committee that that proceeding take place. And if leave is given, then, uh, it needs the full support of every member of the house. The whole idea of having an instruction for the committee by the House is that it [00:38:30] can be done on the majority vote of the House. But when it comes for a decision at the committee stage, it must be taken by leave and have the concurrence of every member of this house that is part of this democratic process and because I believe that this will start a series of motions that are taken that are not within the bounds of the committee as a whole. I believed it was of such importance that I should call the speaker back to have a ruling so that we know in future whether [00:39:00] such motions can be moved at any time during any debate in the committee stages. Speaking to the order speaker, if I could refer you to McGee pages 251 252 which I think deals with this matter adequately. It's noted in this. An instruction to a committee of the whole house is an abstract motion and goes on to sow a few lines. Further down. An instruction to the committee of the whole house must be permissive. Only [00:39:30] it gives the committee power to do something. It does not direct it to act in a certain way and goes on to explain why that explain why that is so and further over on page 252 refers specifically on the debate on an instruction is restricted to the subject matter of the motion and must not extend to the general principles or objects of the bill. In other words, sir, one has a motion in the house, which is a permissive motion. That motion [00:40:00] is then moved at the appropriate time in this case to deal with the bill part by part and therefore move after the consideration of the short title, and that motion is itself debatable. Now, of course, the leave of the committee could be taken at the time that one has finished the short title, and leave could be refused But that does not preempt the possibility then of the motion being moved and the motion being debated and the motion being voted on by the committee of the whole [00:40:30] because the crucial point made in page 251 of the key is the committee of the whole House consists of all the members of the House. And it will be absurd for the members in the House to bind themselves irrevocably to something in committee. In contrast, the controlling select committees of which all members of the House are not members. Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful because I was present in the house when this particular proceeding commenced. If I outlined to you the [00:41:00] sequence of events that actually arose Well, now, with due respect, I would draw your attention to the fact that the authority of the speaker to which is sought in this motion to give a ruling, is solely on the question of the interpretation of standing orders, which is on the statement in front of me is appears to be, uh, uninfluenced by the events which occurred in the committee. [00:41:30] The principles that are involved in which the speaker so the speaker may not give a ruling at all. He may not give a ruling on the particular event that occurred in the committee. They are solely within the control of the chairman I. I realise that entirely. Mr Speaker and I certainly seek no ruling on the events themselves. They are passed. They were not challenged at the time. And indeed, they are not relevant to the discussion other than the fact that they put the discussion on the interpretation of standing orders into context so that you're not being asked to rule [00:42:00] in some vacuum, Mr Speaker, What in fact happened in this particular case was that as we moved past the Clause One short title, which the committee had voted on and agreed to, we then proceeded Mr Speaker, to consider whether or not the committee would in fact deal with the bill part by part in accordance with the permissive but certainly not mandatory instruction from the house. And M, Mr Chairman first sought leave, which was [00:42:30] obviously denied as the events suggest. Now, Mr Speaker, at that stage it is my It would have been my submission, perhaps that that was where the matter ended. But My suggestion to you, Mr Speaker, is that it is only a matter for leave and not one for vote, which may in fact be passed only by a majority with a minority, in fact, dissenting. Now, Mr Speaker, it's my suggestion that the proper course of action would be for the speaker [00:43:00] for the chairman simply to seek leave if it is objected to, then at that stage, there is no alternative for the committee other than to proceed to deal with the bill in the manner prescribed for by president Book Speaker's rulings on Page 34 6. An instruction to the committee is an abstract motion, not an amendment to the motion to go into committee on the bill. It is not mandatory. [00:43:30] It merely gives the committee power if it thinks it consider and bring it into the bill, the matters referred to in the instruction. Now that appears to be the situation that the committee is empowered to deal with it, part by part of it so wishes by the instruction from the house. Now there are way two ways in which the [00:44:00] wishes of the committee may be sought. One is the easy simple way by taking lead and where everyone is unanimous. The wishes of the committee are without dispute in that way, and it proceeds. But that is not the only way in which the wishes of the committee may be sought. The wishes of the committee may be sought by means of a motion so that the committee on its decides by its numbers [00:44:30] what the intentions of the committee is. And after all, there's nothing novel in that, because that is what the committee does. Er, when it passes any clause or any part of the bill, uh, which subs becomes part of its report back to the house. That's a normal procedure for the committee to determine what the committee's wish is and where, in this case, it was decided that the committee should [00:45:00] seek a resolution of what its opinion was by means of a motion then that is entirely in accordance with the customary procedures of this house. Uh, it's a motion like any other motion before the committee. Further point of order, Mr McClean, Mr. Speaker arising from your ruling and accepting it entirely, uh, to assist the committee when it, uh, considers the bill uh, either clause by clause or part by part, as the as [00:45:30] the case may be, uh, is it a fact that, having agreed initially to considering the bill part by part, the committee could subsequently, on a motion moved by any member agree to consider, say, a particular and complex part clause by clause? In other words, does that one motion preclude a subsequent motion that might involve a clause by clause, consideration either of the remainder of the bill or a particular part [00:46:00] that McGee becomes an authority again? The this raises this raises the question of what is the wish of the committee. If the committee in its wisdom, has decided that the whole of its proceedings [00:46:30] shall be part by part, then that the committee is bound by that decision now, if it chooses to. If someone chooses to test that on a substance occasion, it could only be done by Le. But if the committee, again in its wisdom, wants to avoid prejudging a situation which has not yet had time to consider and does [00:47:00] not want to put itself into a position where it's judging the whole part of it part by part, the committee is quite entitled to say that in this instance, the first part will be considered as one unit as a part, and that subsequently the second part may be dealt with on the same way or may be done clause by clause that the instruction from the House leaves this matter entirely [00:47:30] in the hands of the committee. And the way in which the committee exercises its wisdom on this matter is entirely in its hands on part one. It does not bind it, provided the motion is worded such way that every person who votes on it is knows exactly what he is voting on. But if the motion is that part one, be now considered, I think would be an appropriate way of putting it that part one be now considered [00:48:00] by the committee, then that only deals with the problem of part one that only deals with the problem of part one that has not dealt with the problem of Part two, and that can be dealt with by subsequent motions or decisions of the committee to draw the matter up. But we are breaking new ground, Mr Speaker, with what is, I think, a very important issue, particularly on this bill, which is, of course, a conscience vote issue and therefore not of the nature of legislation that we normally deal with part by part. [00:48:30] Can I take it from what you have said, sir, that if, as is the case in this particular instance, a general motion that the bill be considered by part by part is passed by the committee that subsequently it is still open for a particular part. First of all, for leave to be sought. And if that is denied, then a motion to be moved to deal with a say part three or four on a clause [00:49:00] by clause basis? No, no, I'm sorry if a general motion, uh, to consider the whole bill part by part is taken, then the house at the committee is bound by that. But if the committee does not wish to be bound by that, it may do it in a manner that I previously suggested, and so that that deals solely with the matter in front of it. Then when it comes to [00:49:30] whatever other parts there is, the committee has not bound itself as to how that will be dealt with and the matter can be subsequently resolved concerning that part. But, uh And if, uh, this motion is like any other motion, if in actual fact, the motion before the house is that the whole bill will be, uh, considered by part part by part, then it's competent on any member to amend it. [00:50:00] And he may amend it by saying that only clause, uh, only part one be so considered. And that part to be left for further consideration by the committee. Uh, it's the committee is entirely in its own hands to to do that, I declare the House in Committee on the Homosexual Law reform bill. [00:50:30] Now, where were we? And the House Committee on the Homosexual Law Reform bill considers the question that in accordance with the power conferred on this committee by way of instruction, the homosexual law reform bill be considered part by part. Um, Mr [00:51:00] Concern about the principle that's being suggested to the committee on what is essentially a conscience issue. What has been moved by the member in the chair, the junior government whip is that a conscience belt here of nine clauses nine relatively [00:51:30] short, but very, very important causes be dealt with part by part. Now, Mr Chairman, I know of no precedent, no pre, where a conscience issue has been put to this parliament to be dealt with in this way. Indeed, I think it's becoming very, very clear that what is supposed to be a move to compress the debate [00:52:00] on this bill is in fact being aborted because members won't wear it. Members will not wear it. It would have been better. It would have been better to have allowed the committee to address each of the nine principles and the clauses adequately, as members had wished, rather than to try and impose on the committee the weight of what essentially, is the government to compress [00:52:30] the debate into a shorter period of time. Mr. Chairman, whether or not the bill is amended and I think the speaker has given a pretty clear indication of something which the committee will consider and that is that the proposal before the committee be amended will amendment be put to it that at least part [00:53:00] one be dealt with separately because that where that is where the greater debate will be and then if the government's going to impose its weight of numbers on the committee that maybe part two would be dealt with, uh, as a part I. I wouldn't have any great objection to that because, in fact, Part two only comprises two clauses, two clauses. So if the government wants to deal with Part two as [00:53:30] a single path and compress the two clauses into a single debate, then let us use its muscle in that way. But for goodness sake, let Part one be dealt with as parliament expect where the principles are debated one by one and members are given an adequate opportunity to express deeply held convictions on what is one of the most significant moral issues [00:54:00] that this government has put before Parliament in its short period of office. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion that this conscience issue be dealt with in this way because I believe it offends the principles that Parliament expects to be upheld in dealing with important and significant issues of a conscience nature [00:54:30] by the member for Wellington Central that the discussion on the bill be taken in parts. We have wasted an enormous amount of time tonight discussing this motion, and I suggest, sir, that the time has been wasted because the member for Hauraki has gone back on the agreement, which he came to with the member for Wellington Central on the 20th of November last year, in which he agreed that the [00:55:00] bill would be taken in. Sir. And I believe we are entitled to an explanation from the member for Hauraki, and I invite him to rise next. As to why he has changed his mind, sir, because on the 20th of November he moved the motion in this house that the bill be taken in part, and he spoke further to that motion and told the house that he was attempting to facilitate the chair so that the matters could be taken together. And he ended [00:55:30] his speech by saying that he believed the best result would be achieved in the house if the debate was taken in parts as he himself moved. Now, sir, how in three months do you go from actually proposing something like that to then standing up in this house tonight and saying that a motion almost identical to the one that he moved is now a denial of democracy and railroading through the bill and I want to know what curious things have gone on in his mind, [00:56:00] sir. Which have led him to this conclusion Exactly the opposite of what he thought 3.5 months ago. Why has he changed his mind, sir? Sir, I believe there are members of the opposition, two of whom at least have spoken, who are very embarrassed by the filibustering which is going on on this matter tonight. Because Sir of opposition members are doing their job. They would want to be putting up private members bills of their own on issues of [00:56:30] concern to their constituency of a wide ranging kind. And I believe, sir, that common sense among most members of the opposition will tell them that they are wasting their time and time, which should be spent on their constituents' concerns and having some of their colleagues carrying on in this way. And they are doing a disservice to to the people who elected them if they allow this bill to dominate private members business for the best [00:57:00] part of the rest of the session of this Parliament. Sir, When the member for North Shore quite rightly pointed out that up to 47 Wednesdays. Sitting time could be spent debating the bill if it was taken clause by clause, as some members opposite are now suggesting the member for Rey, uh, kept calling, Why not? Well, sir, when the debate gets to such an illogical, irrational, emotional level as that, it is almost impossible [00:57:30] to deal with that kind of member. I agree, sir, with the member for wait to who pointed out that we have already spent an exhaustive amount of time on this bill. Every argument which could have been advanced has been Is, is it proper for a member to refer to another in the context of events which have already been dealt with, sir, by Mr [00:58:00] Speaker, I would assume I'm not saying I know or am right. I would assume that that is not valid material in a procedure, particularly in a procedural matter of the type we are discussing. Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I would assume that even though the member for is no longer with us, that I am entitled to rebut points that he made when he was speaking in the house only a short time ago. [00:58:30] Order Order, Order The honour. Any member of the House. Order, Order, Order and nothing to do with the IT. At the present time, any member in the House is entitled to rebut any argument that has been used as part of the debate on the motion before the House. However it is not. Of course, uh, no member has any right, of course, [00:59:00] to refer to a ruling that has been already given whether by Mr Speaker or by, uh, the chairman of the, uh, the chairman of the committee. But I think the, uh, I as I have picked it up so far, I, uh I might mention the member for, uh, I my mind didn't, uh, probably click onto the quickly onto the matter that he may have raised, but I'd ask that now that, uh, Helen Clark might continue. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I was referring to the non [00:59:30] arguments advanced by the member for ponga who seem to take a great deal of pleasure in suggesting that 47 Wednesdays would be properly spent in debating this bill caused by clause. And I find no substance in that view that he advanced, sir. Again, I repeat, the member for Wait Tora put up a very convincing argument for saying that the House had spent an exhaustive amount of time and was, in fact exhausted with debating this measure. We have heard every argument which could be advanced on every [01:00:00] aspect of the bill, and I believe that a from the death watch of the members for whatever, uh, Papa, uh, and a few others in the car and, sir, that most members opposite have the common sense to know that we should move on and have private members days on Wednesdays used for more constructive purposes than filibustering on a bill like this for 47 Wednesdays, The honourable Mr Wellington. [01:00:30] Um, the fallacy and the argument put forward by the member from Mount Albert is, of course, this bill has nothing to do with the National Party. It was a bill brought into the house by a Labour member, I believe. Well, I believe the the Labour member for Wellington Central and vehement, vehemently supported by Labour members in the main area now. So it is not our argument it it is not an argument of the National Party's choice, [01:01:00] but it having been started There are some of us who will finish it. They say No, no, no, no, no. You listen. You listen, we will finish it. Because that it is for those sorts of reasons that we have been sent here Now. Sir, at the time that the committee was suspended earlier, I had asked the chairman if he would be good enough and he undertook to say do to explain the first paragraph of an unsigned [01:01:30] three pages and I shall read them the following proposals put forward in the light of the complexity and potential conflicts arising from SAPS proposed to the bill to facilitate consideration of the bill and its various amendments. Mr. Chairman, what I think the committee needs to know is who put who were parties to the proposal. I mean, it obviously wasn't the chairman alone. When did they meet? [01:02:00] When did they meet? And why should a meat two and I quote facilitate consideration of complexities and potential conflicts? We do that in here, and we should do it in slow time. The member from Mount Albert said, Well, our constituents are concerned about other things. [01:02:30] Mr. Chairman, 800,000. The member for Hamilton west would understand this. 800,000 people, And that is a figure I accept. 800,000 people said we do not really wish this measure to proceed, let alone have it ran through the house. Now we're going back in time a bit. But, Mr Chairman, I do seek answers to those questions [01:03:00] that the honourable Mr Bass question me. Now we are We are what we're discussing here a, uh, a procedural matter. And we have been on it since just after 25 to 9. [01:03:30] Order Come. You should. I do not want to have to take the opportunity of putting anybody else out of the chamber, but I find that that remark made just now about another any other member of the house for whoever is directed very offensive. I'm look overlooking at the present time, and I'll remind the house that when I've been called to go make a judgement or make a decision in the house, every member will sit silently unless [01:04:00] I call on them. Now, we've been debating this matter now for nearly two hours. I think that we've, uh, pretty well covered the, uh uh all the, uh what? That we've covered the pretty well the arguments that are involved in this matter. Um, I do think that the member for Papakura did give us some fresh matters and asked some questions just now, [01:04:30] I am prepared to allow the debate to continue. Uh, just, uh, we'll see just what transpires from now, but we don't want any repetition. I think that the house, the committee, is, uh, uh, eager to resolve this one way or the other. But, uh, at this point, I will, uh, I, I will not take the closure. Yes, Mr Kidd. Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've listened carefully to a number of the contributions in this debate, and I think it's worth the House reflecting [01:05:00] that when it comes to conscience matters, today's majority can easily find itself to tomorrow's minority. And I think, sir, that members in conscience issues before this house should stay their hand at taking procedures, which will tend to irritate the minority on any particular cause or to give the appearance [01:05:30] of a weight of numbers. Uh, bringing a matter to a conclusion to suit the, uh, the point of view of the weight of numbers. Uh, so perhaps It's a case of people may find over time in this chamber that they will be done as they did. And so whilst the government, on issues of its policy, can use its weight of numbers, uh, and carry through from its sheer power the, uh, [01:06:00] the legislative programme it brings before the house, I would earnestly commend to the house that that is not appropriate in conscience. Matters particularly, sir, uh, in matters which go as they do in this bill without canvassing the merits, I think I could be permitted to say go to the basic fundamentals indeed, to the very fabric of our society. Say no more on the issues than that. [01:06:30] What? But what that leads me to say, sir, that there are perhaps conscience matters and conscience matters. Uh, and I don't think there would be much quarrel across the dividing lines on this issue, that it is indeed one of those most fundamental matters going to the fabric of society. And so, sir, I would stress again and urge upon members of the house that maybe by staying their hand, they will not necessarily prolong [01:07:00] the debate. I am not persuaded, sir, by the clever, uh, arithmeticians here that it might be 47 Wednesdays or another assertion that somewhere between 1987 and 1991 we'll get out of it. I believe the common sense of this house is substantially greater than that. Uh and I know, sir, from considerable experience in chairing select committees on highly contentious bills that if you only let those who feel strongly [01:07:30] have a go, uh, it soon reaches a point where the matters resolve themselves quite quickly. And some who served with me on controversial bills that were fiercely opposed uh, will know how tidily things can be brought together. But the mere exertion of pressure inappropriately tends to prolong the matter in the end. Because, sir, if the matter is to be taken in parts And of course, we're only in effect talking about [01:08:00] part one because there's only one operative clause in part two. Then, sir, I would suggest that it was virtuous without prejudging the matter. If it comes to question, it's virtually inconceivable that the speaker could take a closure on part one until the debate was exhausted. Just as in earlier stages, sir, this showed quite wisely in a number of indications to the House, and I felt it was a special lesson to be taken from those indications to the House that [01:08:30] it was not appropriate to bring down the the hammer on this type of thing. Now, if we take the House were to be advised by the indications that Mr Speaker has given us and by that essential fact that today's majority might find themselves tomorrow's minority in conscience matter, I think they would be well advised. Mr Chairman, I think that it's important to reply to some of the implications made by the member for Marlborough. [01:09:00] My understanding of what he said just now was that the government was intending to use weight of numbers to move this. I want to assure the House and the country that the government is not voting as a government on this issue. In fact, it is a conscience bill, and so is this particular proposal. And in fact, uh, the house knows that I can recall at least two members of the opposition so far this evening who have voted, who have rather spoken for [01:09:30] the proposition that I have put before the House. But the other thing I think is important that members recall that this is not simply, um, a proposal to save time of the house. Although I believe that the 31 hours which it would give for part one is adequate, and I think it would save some time. It would give us 31 hours of debate. It is also an attempt to try to have some coherent and intelligent debate on the subject, which I do not believe we would get [01:10:00] if we took it in the narrow within the narrow range permitted by each of the amendments and each of the clauses because they are interrelated. And I would repeat again the arguments that we before the committee went before the House went into the committee stage. Uh, the same arguments apply. Now it's the same motion, [01:10:30] uh, and the member for at that stage accepted them that for the sake of having a decent debate, it is actually better to take the part as a whole than clause by clause, Mr Jones. Call it the I. I take objection. The member from Cal has spoken, and I also understand sue that you're required to call members who have not yet spoken. [01:11:00] I understand that my colleague from Southern Maori has not yet spoken to this clause and therefore asked that you call her. That's not the point. I got the call, I. I only heard the call of the member for I. I usually move from, uh, from position to position. I think the member for Southern Maori is quite, uh I give way to the honourable lady. Pleased to do so. No, no, I call on Mr Jones. I heard I. I only heard Mr Jones the only the only one that, uh, the [01:11:30] only voice that I heard and I called on. I knew in your call to speak. Mr Chairman, it's quite obvious to me that this is a ploy to hurry this bill through. And I take root of objection to the Minister of Health, the member for to come in here who hasn't shown too much disposition to do too much about the AIDS question in this country. Not too much to come in here and move a closure just because it suits him not to have some embarrassing questions. When he's spending 7.6 million as the as the New South [01:12:00] Wales parliament is doing on AIDS, and they need to have some concern about it because they've got 69 cases there and 42 deaths. Point of order that I'm just using a debating point of rebuttal, Mr Chairman. Point of order, Mr Chairman I, I would ask you to call the member back to the debate in question, which is whether or not the the bill should be taken. In part, I don't believe the material as well introduced. Is it all relevant? Well, I think the member has just begun to [01:12:30] open up. And if he's not, please, Water, water. That's enough of that, uh, noise. I think he was just developing his argument that, uh I think the point was made by the member for Wellington Central was it sounds, uh, reasonable. I would ask the member for Invercargill to concentrate on the issue before us as to indeed whether, uh, we should take this path by pack. I was thinking [01:13:00] of going to argue, and I shall telegraph my intention that some native call which I'm entitled to two more, uh, to to move an amendment later on that that part one be taken clause by clause and that part two be taken part as a part. As far as I'm concerned, I came here to talk to seven clauses seven clauses in part one, all of which are very relevant to this bill. And I'm getting a little bit concerned that the way things are going at the number of members, we're getting suspended and kicked out of this house [01:13:30] and we've already got. We've already got three of our members overseas at the moment, won't be due back for three weeks, and I'm sure the member and I'm sure the member for Wellington Central is well aware, is well aware that the four members overseas, three of them are violently opposed to this bill and only one for it. And she can count the same in ours. And now, now that's one of That's one of the reasons that she's keen to get it through in the next three weeks, and that reason is Mr Chairman. Another reason is that she's been given the lobbying list. [01:14:00] She has the lobbying list of the state of the poll given by the homosexual law people as of January this year, and I've got it here in front of me. Yes, you've got it. I'm quite sure you've got it. And it. And I can tell you now that the voting is that they've got about 23 hard core members who will vote for everything in this bill. Irrespective, I just find the material now being used in this part of the debate. Uh, not not relevant to the issue, Mr Chairman. I believe it's very relevant. It's [01:14:30] triggering off the reasons why the member for Wellington Central is anxious to get this bill through part by part in which I'm only allowed to debate the one part, including seven causes four times, whereas in fact I want to speak to those seven clauses at least one seat. So even if I only speak to each clause once which it was only my intention to do, I'm being deprived of three calls on relevant causes, which particularly what the minister of health ought to be concerned about with changing sodomy under the act to anal intercourse. [01:15:00] And if he's minister of Health and can tell me what's the difference between sodomy and Aal Inter Claus? I'd like to know when he's talking about 16 year olds being allowed to legally sodomise each other and 12 year olds in these our most relevant things and to come into this house and talk about presidents with the goods and services tax caused by Clause dozens and dozens of clauses which this house would agree to. So we had a debate on this in 74. It's now 86. Surely [01:15:30] it's not too much to allow that this house when we're in the committee stages. It's not the fault of this house that this bill took so long to get to this stage. But all I can say is that the public of New Zealand will not stand by idly and see it pushed through when they know quite well that at the moment, if this bill is pushed through in the next couple of weeks that there's at least four or five members who would be voting against the bill that aren't here, and she's not going to tell me that she doesn't know that and as far as [01:16:00] I'm concerned, I intend to move at a future date telegraph That will take part one clause by clause and part two, which, quite frankly, isn't going to get through, which has got two parts in it. But there are seven causes in this bill and every single one of them. I don't believe I go along with the member for Marlborough that the only the people that have got something relevant to them would get up and debate each clause. I've got no intention of bating the seven clauses, but I'm sticking for my right to do so. And I'm [01:16:30] not having a jack, a jacked up lobby from the socialist benches who passed this at their conference. We know that they've got to do it as a matter of policy. We know it's a matter of policy for their party or irrespective fact, that it's a conscience vote. Therefore, it's a conscience vote. Why is the why is this junior whip pushing it? Why is the chairman of the committee sitting there now? They did enough damage in that committee by ignoring [01:17:00] by ignoring the signatures of 835,000 New Zealanders, and I can assure him that if this bill is passed, it's still not the end of it. They'd be let let this house have a fair go tonight and next Wednesday night and the following Wednesday. And if they think they're going to push it through next Wednesday, they've got another thing coming. I'm gonna telegraph the fact I want to move an amendment to this particular motion. That part one be taken in separate clauses. And that part two be taken part by part. [01:17:30] Uh, Mrs, uh, honourable Mr Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, if and when the previous speaker moves the amendment, I would be pleased to second it because I have no doubt that part one should in fact, be discussed clause by clause not only because of the vast implications of these [01:18:00] clauses individually but because of the totally significant changes that would be signalled to our society if collectively they are passed, we must discuss these clauses in detail. I want to remind members of the house that 80% of [01:18:30] this bill is actually part of part one. In the several clauses of their vast implications for our society. For instance, I remind the house that in ClA, Clause three is concerned with indecency with boys 11 years and under. Now that is something [01:19:00] of such concern to the vast majority of New Zealanders. We members we, the members of this house must discuss that that particular subject relating to that age range now that is only one of the seven clauses in part one, that is Clause three. In fact, it is itself [01:19:30] a very major clause with many paths. Part of it relates to indecency with boys 13, 12, 13, 14 and 15. And when you consider the significance of boys of that age, the time of their development within those years, that demands the right to be discussed in detail. [01:20:00] In fact, collectively taken collectively, the first part in its several clauses seeks to decriminalise consensual acts in such a manner that, by implication, these various parts of Part one imply that such acts are quite [01:20:30] normal and natural and therefore socially and morally permissible. Mr. Chairman, that is a major change in the attitudes and the fabric and the values and the ethics of the society, and deserves the most serious concern of members of this house. Most serious because of [01:21:00] the major and dramatic change, for we all know that at the moment there is in fact no law in New Zealand, which makes it a crime to be a homosexual there is no law. The status of homosexuality is not itself defined as criminal. That is the present position. But [01:21:30] the various clauses in part one change all that so that it is taken as acceptable behaviour. Now that takes it vastly further than it has been and has ever been. In fact, it will take it further than most countries have by way of legislation. So I must demand the [01:22:00] right to express my concern, especially representing the people that I do. And when I look at the part, which, uh, in one cause of these first clauses in Part one where I can see that part, which considers it to be a defence to a charge under the section relating to indecency with boys between 12 and 16, [01:22:30] that if it can be proven that the boy consented now when it concerns the the people I represent, I know that can be construed more readily than it might be by those in that group in any other ethnic group in this country of ours. I am concerned at what can be construed and I want to debate it. [01:23:00] Richard no, the question be now put. The question has been before the committee previously. That is that the question be now put. Um, on that occasion, it was a judge that the arguments had been pretty well rehearsed. Uh, as they relate to this pretty narrow consideration. And, uh, I would be I would be inclined to accept the the motion. I'll I'll hear [01:23:30] the, uh, the member on a point of order. Mr. Bird, I just want to draw to your attention that the member has foreshadowed the amendment, which, uh, which has been tabled and the substance of the amendment really has not been adequately dealt with by way of debate. I just want you to draw that to your attention so that it is taken into consideration in judging the whether the closure should be accepted. [01:24:00] Yes. I don't want to cut off the amendment, which I believe has now been tabled. Um, is it in proper form? Has it been in second? Oh, I see. It's in the process of being tabled. Well, um, that being so I think that we should allow that a that amendment to be properly, uh, worded and, uh, duly tabled. Um, the, uh the question before the house at the moment is the homosexual law reform [01:24:30] bill be considered part by part, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to the motion before the house that the words part by part be deleted of the motion. And it now read that in accordance with the power power con on this committee, by way of instruction, the homosexual law reform will be considered clause by clause. [01:25:00] And a speaking time would be strictly in accordance with standing orders. The order the member who has moved that uh uh, a amendment be good enough to repeat it so that it can be copied at the table. Uh, I'd also require the member to table his written amendment. Duly moved. Moved. It has been tabled, sir. [01:25:30] So I move by Way of amendment shut up order. So I move by way of amendment to the motion before the house that the words part by part be deleted and that the motion now read that in accordance with the power conferred on this committee, by a way of instruction, the homosexual law reform bill be considered clause by clause [01:26:00] of part one, and that speaking times be strictly in accordance with standing orders. Can I have that in writing? I think as well um, I would have to rule that the amendment that has been tabled is a negative of the of the motion that is before the committee. And I therefore cannot accept [01:26:30] that that amendment a point of order, Mr. Norman Jane, I accept your ruling, but I refer to the fact that the original motion referred to parts both to the whole bill, that to be taken part by part, that included part one and two. That, uh, my colleague's motion only refers to part one. Therefore, it could hardly be a direct negative of the whole motion, because he he's he's inferring that part two be taken as a full part and that only part one be taken, cause by cause [01:27:00] he did specifically mention part one only point of order. Mr. Speaking to the point of order chair, perhaps draw your attention to the fact that part two of the bill will not be affected by the by the, um the motion that I have put in the sense that there is only one clause that will be debatable anyway, and and in fact, this is a negation of the original. Under those circumstances, I can appreciate the, [01:27:30] uh if if you speaking to the honourable chair, my my thoughts go back to the, uh, decision by the speaker tonight and announcing his decision. I don't want to bring that into the debate, but he did suggest that it was competent for the committee to amend the motion so that only one part be dealt with in this way. Uh, and he invited. He invited the committee to think about that. This is exactly what the committee has done. Yes, I can, uh, I can concur [01:28:00] with the, uh, with the situation which, um, the member for Franklin has described, which is that there is an amendment which can be moved and is confident that it should be moved. But an amendment in the form that would be appropriate has not so far been tabled. And that's the difficulty. All that we have in front of us is a text, which is, uh, in its detail, Um, a negation of the motion now before the house. And that's the difficulty that I have. And, uh, unless, [01:28:30] uh, the chair can, uh, pretty soon receive from from the sponsors of the amendment. Um, something which is consistent with the with the standing orders on the subject. Then we will proceed. Mr. Chairman, I referred you to the.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags