Sowry Roger: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9022] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not think there is much difficulty here at all. The rule is in fact very clear: the Chairperson always puts the Minister’s amendments first as a block— 
Dail Jones 
: Tell that member to sit down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: While a point of order is being taken there is to be silence. That is in Speaker’s ruling 16/6. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Mr Field was standing up which was a bit unhelpful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I did not notice that. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The rule is quite clear. The Chairperson puts the Minister’s amendments as one when that is requested. You asked the Minister whether she wished to have them put as one. She indicated as I saw her do on two occasions that she did. That is fine. But they are to be put before any other amendments are put. In fact that has always been the case. I like many members have had amendments ruled out of order because they have been inconsistent with the Minister’s amendments. That has been a longstanding tradition. The fact that you have taken other amendments before the Minister’s amendments does not mean that the Minister can then decide that she wants hers taken as one. That is what we contend. Mr Worth has asked that rather than waste time—we could waste time for another 20 minutes with points of order if you want— 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Ha! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are to be no interjections during points of order. It is highly disorderly and I refer the member on my right to Standing Order 85/1. That is the member’s first yellow card. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I think that because you have started to put some of the other amendments before the Minister’s amendments you are bound to put her amendments individually. Even though she wants them to be put as one the Standing Order is quite clear. If you are getting advice that that is not right that advice is totally contradictory to Standing Order 301. So rather than have endless points of order all we are saying is that we should have the Speaker back to make a ruling on that because I have not struck the situation before where you take individual members’ amendments at the beginning and then the Minister’s amendments. All of us have put amendments in on bills. You yourself I think as a member of the Opposition would have put amendments in and had them ruled out because they were inconsistent with the Minister’s amendments as taken during the progress of a bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say that if we look at Standing Order 301 we see it is quite clear. It states: “The member in charge of a bill can require that all amendments in that member’s name to a provision be put as one question.” The Minister has decided that that in fact is what she wants to do. In the time that I have been Assistant Speaker I have seen a number of times when the Minister’s amendments have been put at the end. The reason is quite simple: by doing it that way it means that other members have their amendments voted on. Otherwise their amendments could be ruled out of order. There the matter rests and I will now put the question.