Source: New Zealand Parliament
POINTS OF ORDER
Recall of the Speaker—Closure Motions and Party Votes
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. I apologise to the Minister; however, this is the first opportunity we’ve had to raise this point of order, given that we’ve just come out of committee. We would have had the opportunity to raise this if our motion to recall the Speaker was approved by the committee. It was not, which is regrettable. Nevertheless, this is the appropriate opportunity to do so.
There are two matters that I wish to raise. One is regarding closure motions and the other is regarding calling for party votes. Specifically, I’m referring to Standing Order 137(1). Now, in that Standing Order, it specifically prescribes what is required when a question is being put around—or should be considered around—the closure motion. And in Standing Orders, it quotes what is required.
Now, last evening, the presiding officer at the time indicated that it doesn’t need to be exactly accurate as outlined in Standing Orders, but it just needs to be there or thereabouts in so far as the presiding officer understands the intent of the motion and therefore can proceed. Now, that is a significant departure from what is outlined in Standing Orders. Now, sir, I’m not asking for you to rule on that now, but what I am asking for is a commitment to report back to the House to provide absolute clarity. In the absence of that, it is possible that a new Speaker’s ruling would be created that is counter to Standing Orders, which I don’t think is in the interest of anyone in this House.
The second point is in regard to calling for party votes when there is a motion to recall the Speaker. It’s not my intention to dispute the decision that was made around the Speaker. I think there’s a fair bit of reflection being made around the House at the moment. There was one instance in the previous Parliament where that was voted against; that was wrong, it should not have happened. There was one in the previous Parliament, there’s now been one in this Parliament, I’m hoping that the House can decide that, “OK, we’ll call it even. We’ll go back to the convention in regard to motions to recall the Speaker.”
However, what is of concern is the decision that was made in committee that a party vote would not be put. So the motion was made to recall the Speaker, the Government members voted No, a party vote was called, and the presiding officer did not allow that to happen. Now, that is actually also counter to Standing Orders. The process for dealing with a motion to recall the Speaker—Standing Order 179 doesn’t indicate that there isn’t to be a party vote. So in the absence of any specified information about that, the only option that we’ve got is to go back to Standing Orders 142(1), which quite clearly outlines the process for a party vote to be considered when it is called for. And so there is nothing else in Standing Orders around that—that is the only thing that we can go for. So all I’m asking for is a commitment for both of those points to be reflected on by the Speaker’s office alongside the Clerk’s Office, and a report back so that the House is very clear around the process on both those things.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. All of the points that were just made are actually irrelevant because the Clerk—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll decide if they’re relevant.
JOSEPH MOONEY: Certainly. Well, I just sort of wanted to make the point—I accept absolutely it’s your decision, Mr Speaker, but the point of order was raised by the Opposition after the Chair had decided to commence voting. Voting had commenced and the Opposition disrupted that not once but twice. They disrupted it first when they were of the view that the question hadn’t been completely put. It had been mostly put, but not completely. There were two words, from recollection, that were missing. The Chair then put the vote again, accepted a full closure motion with full wording, and then the Opposition disrupted that again with a point of order. So they disrupted the vote twice. So everything that followed I would suggest is irrelevant.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): —of events. I’ve got three points here and the rest of the points we can go back and reflect on. So just to the points from the Hon Kieran McAnulty: he is correct, but in the heat of the moment the exact words might not have been gotten right. But nothing has changed: the exact words of Standing Order 137 should be used. And just to acknowledge that there is a longstanding custom of the committee agreeing to recall the Speaker— Speaker’s ruling 81/2; it is not an absolute right, but it would be unfortunate if it was opposed and would likely slow down committee stages. So just to note that as well.
There should also be no need for a party vote because the recall should be agreed to. Where it’s not, a party vote is the way to decide it. And, also, to note that the presiding officer who was here in the Chair is at the moment having discussions with parties as well. So in terms of the points that I have talked about just before, that has taken care of some of the issues. If there are other prevailing issues outside of that, we will get back to you. I now call the Hon Louise Upston.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify one particular point that the previous person, Joseph Mooney, has mentioned in terms of the voting process. I wanted to get clarification from you, Mr Speaker, that in the context of that, when a vote is called but prior to the vote being called a point of order was raised but then because the mic wasn’t on and the presiding officer couldn’t hear it, in those circumstances would a point of order that was raised be considered before or after a vote has been triggered? Because I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that—if we go back and look at the video from last night, when that was done we deliberately and explicitly mentioned to the presiding officer at the time that the point of order was raised prior to the vote being called. But the presiding officer couldn’t hear properly because there was a lot of other noise around the presiding officer at the time. So I just want to get clarification from you, Mr Speaker, in that particular context, when the point of order is raised, would that be considered prior to a vote or do we assume it’s after a vote has commenced?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll just take some advice on that.
Joseph Mooney: Speaking to the point of order.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Sit down. Look, just to note for the House that these issues are done. I have made a ruling. There are extra things that may be addressed, but that can happen outside of this Chamber. If you do have extra points that need to be revisited, we can do that, but it’s not enough to actually hold up the business of the House.