Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say “Aye”—Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you please explain to the Committee how it could possibly be in order to accept a closure motion atthis point during the debate on clause 4 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) which is the substantive part of the bill. All of the substance of the bill is contained in clause 4. This bill is being passed under urgency. There has been no select committee consideration. There has been no opportunity for the public to have a say on this piece of legislation. The regulatory impact statement is one of the most redacted impact statements that this House has ever seen which has limited the information that members of Parliament have had available to them. We have the Hon Ruth Dyson with 10 amendments. She has had only one call so far and has had a limited opportunity to speak to those amendments. This bill and this clause of this bill have not in any way had sufficient scrutiny by Parliament. I think it is completely out of order to accept a closure motion at this point.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Committee will decide whether it accepts a closure motion. Just in regard to what the member has mentioned this debate on clause 4 has gone on for an hour and a quarter. There have been 12 Labour calls. There has been one Government call. The Greens—[Interruption] I am on my feet. The Greens have taken two calls. When we started this debate the debate on clause 1 was very wide ranging and many of the points that were made in that debate are now being canvassed in debate on clause 4. On the basis of a debate that took an hour on clause 1—as I said earlier because it was a wide-ranging debate there—many of the points are being canvassed in debate on clause 4 I have decided to accept the closure motion.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept the ruling—well I understand your rationale that you have just outlined to the Committee but I would stress to you the somewhat extraordinary nature of this debate in the sense that it is under urgency it is being pushed through as a Budget measure it is going through all stages and members of the Opposition have had this bill for only a very very short period of time. We were given it literally an hour or two before urgency actually started so people have not had a chance to go through it in detail. The fact is that there are a significant number of amendments and the person who is sponsoring the amendments indicates that the Opposition has to the best of our ability engaged with the detail within the time that we have had. I am aware that there is a New Zealand First member who does want to have a call on them who probably had not anticipated that the debate was going to be drawing to a close quite so quickly. We have no ability to vote down a closure motion as you will be aware. The only protection the Opposition has in these matters is the protection of an impartial and neutral Chairperson. Once this question has been put to the Committee if it is passed by the Committee the rights of the minority will be overridden by a majority vote.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hope the member is not implying that I am not an impartial Chair. That is what the member said and I am sure he did not mean that. When I accepted the closure motion everybody at that stage who had wanted a call had been given a call. All right? And there are members who have been sitting in the Chamber for some time who during the course of the last hour that I have been sitting here have not gone for a call. Those who wanted calls at the time were given calls. Everyone got a call. It was only when I accepted the closure motion at the end that other members got to their feet. On that basis I think it has been a fair debate so I am putting the question.