Pugh Maureen; Williams Arena; Utikere Tangi; van de Molen TimPart 2 Consequential amendments CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 9 to 14 Consequential amendments" and Schedules 2 and 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chair. Thank you Madam Chair. I raise a point of order in relation to Speakers' ruling 132/1 and Standing Order 315(4). I seek your guidance on your rulings in the previous debate about those amendments that members on this side were raising questions about which you said had been rejected by the Minister. This draws on logic in Speakers' ruling 132/1 that "A Chairperson has to consider the admissibility of amendments that are substantially the same as an amendment that has already been [not agreed to]". That logic was brought in after members of the Labour Party introduced a huge number of amendments about date changes and then it allowed those date changes to be treated as essentially one thing to be voted on so as not to waste the House's time. The problem with applying that sort of logic to your points in that debate is that we do not want the committee to get into a situation where a Minister might reject all of the amendments that have been put by Opposition members and then the Chairperson to apply that logic in Speakers' ruling 132 in order to essentially stifle debate about a number of amendments. The problem here is that the amendments that were presented by Labour members were all different. Some applied to projects which would continue; some applied to projects which would not continue; some applied to projects which would be continued by the Auckland Council but not by the Government. So those are amendments which had a substantially different effect and they should not be treated as if they were simply changes to dates. I guess Madam Speaker I'm asking you to reflect on whether going forward in these committee stages Opposition members can expect to put a number of amendments which are consequentially different but amend the same sections because if the Minister is able to rule out any support for amendments to the same section that have different results then that will significantly stifle the Opposition's ability to question the Minister on the changes that he proposes.I'll also draw your attention Madam Speaker to Standing Order 315(4) which is about "amendments are proposed that in the opinion of the chairperson are the same in substance". That Standing Order should be applied at the time of voting on those amendments. But there is no indication there that there was ever an intention for that Standing Order to be applied to the debate and to the contributions. So to apply that logic in order to move on to a closure motion and to tell Opposition members not once but three times is the issue here.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can the member please point out what the question is.ARENA WILLIAMS: Yes. The question for you Madam Chair is: did you rely on Speakers' ruling 132/1 or Standing Order 315(4) to essentially give direction to Labour members twice that their contributions should not mention their amendments which were in your view substantially the same? You are well within your right to rule that those amendments were substantially the same but did you use those Speakers' rulings and that Standing Order to do that?CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I take note of the member's contribution and as you will be aware it's the Chair's discretion about the length of the debate to take the closure motion and the content of the debate.ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Speaking to the point of order Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a different point of order?ARENA WILLIAMS: My question is: is that a ruling Madam Chair that Labour members should take into account for further committee stages?CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The discretion of the Chair is definitely something that you should keep in mind.TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Madam Chair there was a question that I think I submit to you is reasonable in trying to get some clarity in terms of the ruling that you've made. It's still not quite clear to members on this side of the House my colleague Ms Williams identified—were you relying on Speakers' ruling 132/1 or were you relying on Standing Order 315(4)? I don't think it's unreasonable for any member of this House to seek clarity as to which of those you relied on. I take the point that you've made that it is up to the Chair; however effectively giving an instruction to any member of this House that they are not to raise any issues that because the Minister had already indicated that they were—CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK. I understand the point of order. I understand the various procedures that you're outlining. But at the end of the day I was attempting to give the Speaker's guidance about the debate. We were getting very repetitive. The person in the Chair prior to me coming in had already tried to give that guidance; I did it twice as you've pointed out. That was the purpose of making those recommendations to the members: the debate had become repetitive. Every one of those amendments was tabled and debated and it was the repetition that we were very aware of that was happening.TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a different point of order?TANGI UTIKERE: This is a different point of order. Madam Chair you've just indicated that every single item that was an Amendment Paper was tabled was debated. That I submit to you is incorrect. There was an Amendment Paper in my name that I sought a call for on many occasions you chose not to give it to me and it was not mentioned. It related to the ferry network and charging infrastructure.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK. I apologise if I missed that in the debate but every one of the amendments was tabled and voted on.TANGI UTIKERE: I understand that but the issue here is that you effectively are giving an instruction to members opposite as to what they can and what they can't do and—CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yeah you did take four calls Mr Utikere in this debate. So you've had ample—ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No I'm not taking any more. We are moving on to Part 2.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can I speak to that point of order Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you seeking a call?Hon Julie Anne Genter: No I was going to speak to the previous point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No I just said that that debate is over.ARENA WILLIAMS: Point of order Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you calling a new point of order?ARENA WILLIAMS: Yes. Madam Chair is your guidance for the Labour members that it is repetitive to seek a call on a new Amendment Paper under Speakers' ruling 132/1?TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. We're getting to the point now where we are getting a number of what appear to be relatively frivolous points of orders being raised and the Speaker alluded to this earlier on in question time.Ricardo Menéndez March: Tell that to Winston in question time.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Points of order are still actually heard in silence and so I think it's reasonable to have the opportunity to talk to this because what we've seen in the past couple of Parliaments has been a clear focus from the Speaker that clarification actually is something that should be taken offline outside the debating chamber. If members are unsure on how the process in the House works they can seek a time with the Speaker to clarify that. But the aspect that the members are concerned about obviously is that there are a number of amendments there is a clear Speakers' ruling that make it obvious that it's not—just because there's a tabled amendment doesn't mean there should always be an opportunity to speak to every amendment and indeed the repetition is a key part of that.Tangi Utikere: If you get the call.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: So again I'd appreciate some courtesy here Mr Utikere as we're going through a point of order.The issue is of course that it is the Chair's call to make and the continuing questioning of that is not helpful to the order of the committee.Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No this debate about all of that is over. I've said we are moving on now to Part 2."