Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4269] 
Points of Order 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a serious question on which I would like a considered ruling in respect of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which is to be dealt with as the first matter of business following question time. Your key function in Parliament is the protection of the rights of members and of the Opposition. 
My concern is that we have a bill that by its terms is “virtually identical to the Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (313-2)”. The same explanatory note states: “This new Bill is required to make sure the passage of the amendments through the House is as efficient as possible.”—that is the Government does not wish to have the original bill with 18 parts which has been before the House for over 3 years but prefers a new bill that has about 18 subparts. That seems to me just a technique for the Government to avoid proper scrutiny of a bill. It seems to me that a long-established principle of Parliament is that we cannot have two identical motions. If a member moves one motion another member cannot move an identical motion. What we effectively have on the Order Paper now is two items on the agenda of the House that are identical. By the Government’s own words they are identical. If we are to allow the parliamentary process to be subverted in this way we might as well have Saddam Hussein as our President. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last comment I think is offensive and should be withdrawn. I want the last comment withdrawn. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I intend to rule on the matter now because I do not think the member will in any way be disadvantaged by what I say. I can rule on the point regarding Standing Order 100 at once because this was briefly discussed at the Business Committee on Tuesday. The No. 2 bill is not the same in substance as the No. 1 bill when that bill received its first and second readings. The bill has been considerably changed since it went through those stages. However the member has raised a very serious point. He has asked me to give a considered ruling and I will give that consideration and will rule in the House in due course. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am pleased to hear that you are doing that but I think you should also when you are doing it realise what the opinions of other members of the House are. I just say that you have an obligation as Speaker to protect the rights of the minority. That is your oath. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member please be seated for a moment. I advise members that I will give this 2 or 3 days before I rule. Any member can come and see me and give me his or her opinion about this matter. I do not think it needs to take up the time of the House though because members can write to me about it and they will have every opportunity when I present my ruling. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well you have allowed me to complete my point Mr Speaker but I am afraid that waiting 3 days will not do. My understanding is that this matter is down on the Order Paper for today. It is the first item up. It is a direct challenge to the way in which business in this House is done. We are all aware of what has happened. The Government got a bill then looked at it and realised that it had 18 parts. It decided to put the same bill forward going through a travesty of pretending that it was a different bill sending it to a select committee to come back within a week. It is now saying that it wants to debate that bill this afternoon. That bill has only two parts. In other words it is not a halving of the discussion; it is bringing it down to about one-eighth of the discussion that we would otherwise have had. No doubt Mr Cullen was very angry when he realised that Parliament would have this opportunity to discuss it but I think it would be appropriate for you Mr Speaker to suggest to the Government that it might like to put off the new Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) until you have had the 3 days that you need to decide that it is a travesty of this House for the Government to do such a thing. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The actual issue that you are being asked to rule on Mr Speaker is more specific—that is the question of Standing Order 100. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes that was the issue raised by Dr Smith. The primary issue was the question of whether the same motion was being moved. I suggest that he looks at his  
Hansard 
 and see what he talked about for most of his point of order. That is the actual issue that involves the Standing Orders. The issue of the drafting of a bill the way it is drafted is not a matter for the Standing Orders; the matter of the motion is an issue for the Standing Orders. That Standing Order refers to a matter being proposed in the same calendar year—that is in relation to a bill a bill that received or was defeated on a first second or third reading. The bill that is on the Order Paper at present that is being superseded has not had a motion moved in relation to it this calendar year. It received its first reading—which is the motion being moved this afternoon in relation to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)—some considerable time ago. It was not even last year or the year before; I think it was in 1999. Therefore Standing Order 100 does not apply. The motion being moved this afternoon is in relation to the first reading of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). No such motion has been moved this calendar year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are two issues here. In answer to the Hon Richard Prebble I want to say that the Standing Orders do have some drafting requirements and I will examine the bill to see whether they have been complied with and I think the member wants me to do that. As far as the other issue is concerned we are concerned with the first reading of a bill. We have not got anywhere near the Committee stage yet—that is somewhat further down the line—so I do not have to give an immediate ruling on this. I want to give it a bit of thought. The No. 2 bill may be similar now to the No. 1 bill but the latter bill has been considerably changed since it was read a first time. Therefore there is no prohibition on the No. 2 bill proceeding through its first reading. But members have raised those points about the drafting; I will have a look at them and come back to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want this to continue because I have ruled on the matter and I will be coming back to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: But the fact remains Mr Speaker that the first item of business following question time is the first reading— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I wonder whether the member listened to what I said. The first item of business is the first reading. It does not in any way connect itself with the Committee stage which is somewhat considerably down the track. As far as the first reading is concerned there is no Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling that prevents that from proceeding as the Government has set it down. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer to both the comments made by Dr Cullen and those made by yourself in your ruling. My point is that I do not believe it is proper for Parliament to debate this but I just want to make clear that the bill did receive its second reading according to the  
Parliamentary Bulletin 
. According to that official document of Parliament the bill has had its second reading. The bill that is currently before Parliament is described as 313-2 and has been deemed by the Government’s own admission to be “virtually identical” to the other bill. So my question to you again is how this Parliament can debate a second bill that by the Government’s own admission is virtually identical to an item that is already on the Order Paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second reading debate was 4 years ago and the bill was amended thereafter. The bill was introduced under the old Standing Orders before the new Standing Orders came in. It is a different bill now. I have no difficulty at all with the first part of the ruling and that is that the first reading can proceed and will. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this about the same matter? 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is but a different issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is a senior whip. I will let him have his point of order. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I just wonder. You tell us that you are looking to rule on it in 3 or 4 days and we thank you very much for that. It raises this issue: if your ruling is that what is happening is actually out of order then the bill will not proceed and the question that comes to my mind is why we would allow the bill to proceed now if in due course you may say that the Government’s action is inappropriate and the bill should not proceed. For that reason I would suggest to you again that it might be appropriate for us to defer even the first reading until we find out what decision you take about it because otherwise we will have gone halfway down and wasted the House’s time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that that is perfectly correct but that is the Government’s decision. It takes the decision as to whether it proceeds. It is entitled to proceed. 
Questions for Written Answer 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I rise to raise a serious issue that is continuing to get worse in this Parliament in my view. It is the nature of answers to questions. I would like to take the time of the House to raise this with you because it is illustrative of a terrible trend. I refer to my question for written answer No. 1663 to the Attorney-General and it asks this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am perfectly happy for the member to come and see me about the matter and then I can have a look at it. But this is Parliament’s time and that is a written question. If the member has not had the answer on time it is perfectly proper to raise that and I will make sure it is on time. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a point of order of this House. It is a written question but it is a parliamentary written question and there is only one place that one can raise— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Carry on then. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The question asks: “ … what court room experience did Judges Glazebrook Keith Blanchard and Hammond have before their appointment and what were the dates of their appointments?”. That is a very straightforward question for the Attorney-General to answer. But the answer that came back through Parliament is this: “The information requested in this question is part of the public record.” That is it. The Attorney-General does not even advise what the public record is that tells people a judge’s courtroom experience. I would have thought that that was a totally inadequate answer. Maybe the Attorney-General does not know that there is no public record of judges’ courtroom experience. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had his moment. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 130/4 which is going right back to Speaker Harrison in 1983: “A written answer is primarily a matter between the Minister and the member.” If the member has consulted the Minister OK then he can certainly consult me and I will do my very best to make sure that he has a proper and accurate answer given. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very important matter. We will be moving to a new type of judiciary where the Government wants to appoint the whole of our new Court of Appeal. It is a matter of great interest to members of Parliament. So we have a perfectly respectable question put down to the Minister asking what is a court record. There is no public record of attendance by lawyers. Maybe the Attorney-General because she herself does not have much court experience does not know that. But where else can we raise it but here? The only power that MPs really have is the ability to question the executive but if the executive gives answers that are nonsense what is the point of our having written questions at all? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are two points. Firstly we do have a weekly general debate where members can debate replies. That was how that debate originally came about. Secondly I shall look at the point the member has raised and I will come back to the House. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said that I would look at the question. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes but I raised this difficulty you have assisted me many many times before with written questions you have always assisted me in a positive and helpful way and I appreciate that but it takes time. The reason Ministers dodge questions is to avoid time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No now the member is going too wide. I will give him every assistance. I always do.