Dunne Peter: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8800] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order. While that point of order was in progress I had a look at  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and I found two that are highly relevant to the circumstances we now find ourselves in. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 113/5 made in 1998 by Mr Deputy Speaker Revell—a member who will be well known in this House for the acuity of his rulings from the Chair. Mr Deputy Speaker Revell ruled in 1998: “In seeking leave to table a document members should not only succinctly describe what is in the document but also sufficiently describe the nature of the document to inform members.” My submission to you is that by suggesting to the House that the document that was being tabled was the minutes of the Business Committee—something we now know it was not because the minutes have not been approved—the Minister did not succinctly describe what was in the document because the document was not what he said it was and he did not sufficiently describe the nature of the document as being a draft document to inform members. Therefore he was at fault on that score. 
The situation gets more serious. If one looks at Speaker’s ruling 114/4 made by Mr Speaker Kidd in 1999 one can see that a totally different complexion can be placed on the turn of events. I think it is worth quoting that Speaker’s ruling to the House: “If a member is given leave to table a document and deliberately misleads the House by delivering to the Clerk a totally different document from that for which leave was granted a contempt would be committed.” The member purported to table the document that was the minutes of the Business Committee. He made no suggestion at the time that he was in error or that he was vague about what he was doing. He said subsequently—and I am inclined to accept his word—that he might have been in error in doing so but that might be because as a very astute observer of the Standing Orders he was well aware of the provisions of Speaker’s ruling 114/4 and knew that he had placed himself in a situation of potential contempt. 
You have ruled that the materiality of this is not relevant given that it is essentially the same document and all we are arguing about is whether the word “draft” appears on the top. But I would submit that your very esteemed predecessor Mr Kidd when he made that ruling in 1999 was well aware of these types of situations and ruled in quite a severe way that members who act in this way place themselves at risk of being accused of contempt of the House. So I would ask you to reflect on your earlier ruling in the light of that situation. I would come back to the point that was raised in an earlier point of order that the best way through the divide that the House now finds itself in would be for the Minister simply to withdraw his original request and to resubmit a fresh one. I say to the Minister—who previously indicated he was not prepared to do that—that unless he does reconsider in that light the House is starting to find itself in a very difficult position and it may well require Mr Speaker to be recalled to rule on it ultimately.