Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15442] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Clearly it is in the nicest possible way challenging the ruling you have made. It is my understanding that in these matters the House is the master of its own destiny and that the House can and often does—just about always on the motion of a Minister—make decisions for the Committee to consider a matter that it could not otherwise consider. You have ruled—and I am not saying improperly—that the Chairperson was right when he ruled this out. I just put in brackets that there is a matter of timing that you have not dealt with in your ruling as to whether once a debate has started there can be a retrospective ruling out. I put that to one side. 
The point is that the House has always been the master of its own procedures. Ministers have always had the ability to move that matters that are well outside the purview of a Committee be considered. It happens on regular occasions and I think we will see it happening later in the day from a Minister. The fact that it is not currently within the scope of the bill as a result of reason a rather than reason b is not I think a valid reason for you to rule out a motion. In my opinion it is the role of the House. 
The Leader of the House has brought up the question of a perpetual loop. That cannot be right because once a matter has been dealt with by the House it cannot be dealt with again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have got ourselves into a little difficulty here. The member should recollect that the Speaker was recalled to rule on this matter. My ruling did not relate to scope; it related to the fact that the Committee had dealt with Part 1 and the issues and amendments related to Part 1. The Committee had the power to consider the matter at the appropriate time. The advice I have received is that an instruction must be moved immediately after the order of the day is called. That is not exactly the right time but I do not want to be too pedantic. 
The Committee had already voted on Part 1. The member quite properly raised his concern about the Chairperson ruling his amendments out. The Speaker was recalled and dealt as Speaker not on the issue of scope but on the issue that the Committee had dealt with Part 1. I believe that that has dealt with that matter. 
In respect of the point which the member quite rightly raises that I did not deal with the fact that he had already made a contribution it is my view that the member is not harmed by that because at least the member has on the record the points he wanted to make. Even though as Speaker I supported the Chairperson when he ruled out the member’s amendments the member has not been totally disadvantaged because he managed to get his points across in that he got a speech in before the Chairperson ruled the matter out so I do not see that as being much of a disadvantage. Had the Chairperson ruled it out immediately the member would not have been able to make his points. So I do not see that as disadvantaging the member hugely. It is my view that this motion is not appropriate right now and I cannot accept the motion.