Chadwick Steve: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3839] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour please say “Aye”— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member cannot raise a point of order on the closure motion. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Who said Madam Chair? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The closure is my call. Would the member please be seated. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You don’t know what the point of order will be about yet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I say to Mr Prebble that points of order will be heard in silence. I will not warn again. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Madam Chair I accept absolutely your right to accept a closure motion. What I do want to raise with you is that I gave the last contribution to this debate and in that contribution I pointed out the fact that this title is probably as broad a title as can be conceived for an amendment bill. I have not seen a more broad title. Therefore to accept a closure motion on a very broad title after a very limited number of speeches is provocative. I accept totally your right to accept that closure but it is provocative and as Chair you invite difficulty when you do that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I have on a number of occasions before raised in this Chamber this approach of bullying the Chair by implying as that last sentence did that if you Madam Chair continue to do what you have decided to do some kind of retribution is going to follow from members opposite. That is the only understanding that can be applied to a term like being “provocative”. We have had this ruled on many times by Mr Speaker; the Chair is the final judge and the decision cannot be questioned. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It better not be on this; I am going to rule on this point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: Who’s threatening whom? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please be seated. It is very clear. Standing Order 139 requires that the question on the closure motion be put forthwith without amendment or debate once accepted by the chairperson. The chairperson is the sole judge. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Dr Lockwood Smith that I did warn that there would be silence while we were dealing with points of order. Would the member please now leave the Chamber. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The chairperson is the sole judge of whether the closure motion should be put and accepted. That has been ruled on by the Speaker several times and it cannot be debated. The question is that the question be now put. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the point of order on what I have ruled on? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: All right; a new point of order not on the closure. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No not on the closure. It is completely out of order for a member of Parliament to suggest that the Chair is being bullied and that the Chair is being intimidated. You have had a point of order raised by Dr Cullen where he has suggested that. He has put across the impression to the public of New Zealand that you are in some way being intimidated and I say to you that you should now rule on that question. If you do feel that you were intimidated by Mr Lockwood Smith then I think you had better have him back and ask him to withdraw and apologise. But if you do not then you should ask Dr Cullen to withdraw that very outrageous suggestion that you are being intimidated by the Opposition. 
I put it to you that that cannot be so because I have not seen a chairperson decide to close down a debate faster than you have. You clearly have no regard for the Opposition and you cannot possibly be being intimidated by us because if you were you would have allowed us to have a reasonable debate. You did not; you closed it all down. The Government must be very happy with you. In fact you must be the model chairperson from a Government’s point of view. So at that point I think you should ask Dr Cullen to withdraw the suggestion that anybody on this side of the Chamber has any influence on you at all—because clearly we do not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member continued then to speak to the closure motion. 
Dail Jones 
: The point that the Hon Richard Prebble has raised does have some validity in the sense that the Hon Dr Cullen gave the impression that members opposite were bullying the Chair. Any member opposite may have given that impression but not members opposite and I ask that Dr Cullen be asked to withdraw and apologise in so far as an implication was given that any members opposite—other than the member who raised the point of order—may have been bullying you. That is absolutely incorrect and it reflects on other members of the Committee. That is the point that the Hon Richard Prebble was making. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I was sitting just one row back and in the direct line of sight of Dr Cullen who is sitting on your right. As soon as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith raised a point of order—when you indicated that you had accepted the closure motion after I think three speeches—Dr Cullen started waving his hands around towards Dr Smith sort of insisting that he sit down. Dr Cullen also started interjecting—and I am sure that that would have come over your microphone because you did not have your finger on the microphone at the time—that the Opposition should not be bullying the Chair. At that point Dr Lockwood Smith had only raised a point of order; you had yet even to call him. I do not think that you are being bullied at all. I think that the reverse is actually happening in the Chamber. I agree with the Hon Richard Prebble. What is happening though—and we saw it happen during the sitting before Christmas—is that any time someone takes a point of order against you when you are in the Chair it is deemed by the Government that you are being bullied or targeted or picked on. That is not the case at all. I think that your role as an officer of Parliament in the Chair is undermined if the Government is going to adopt this attitude every time you face a point of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That would be a perfectly fair point if it were under a general point of order. But a point of order that is questioning a closure motion is itself out of order right from the beginning and is an attempt to persuade you to change your mind. To say that your ruling was provocative is in my view clearly to suggest that some consequences may flow from your exercising your discretion as Chair. I cannot think of any other term except “bullying” to apply. But I accept Mr Jones’ point; I was merely making that reference to Dr Smith not to any other member of the Committee. 
Rodney Hide 
: I certainly accept Dr Cullen’s apology to the rest of us but I do think that we have a problem and it is this: Dr Cullen used the device of a point of order to accuse Dr Lockwood Smith—he has identified him specifically—of bullying or attempting to bully and intimidate the Chair. That is a breach of privilege. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is; I can read it if members would like. Standing Order 397(i) states that it is a clear breach of privilege to assault threaten or intimidate a member or an officer of the House acting in the discharge of the member’s or the officer’s duty. What we had then was Dr Michael Cullen in the Minister’s chair sitting beside the chairperson standing up and using the device of a point of order to accuse Dr Lockwood Smith of breaching privilege. That cannot be allowed. Every time I have been in this House when anyone has done that by a point of order or by a speech the Speaker quite rightly has sat them down and said that there is a proper procedure for that. Dr Michael Cullen can take a breach of privilege to the Speaker but he certainly cannot raise one as a point of order. I suggest Madam Chair that you should have Dr Lockwood Smith back now—he has been out for 10 minutes although you did not specify a time—but more particularly you should ask Dr Cullen to withdraw and apologise for his accusation which is clearly false by the way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank members for their comments. I certainly am confident in my decision on the closure. It was properly put. It was properly dealt with. The points of order were properly dealt with and now I will put the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You have not ruled. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please be seated. I have ruled that Dr Cullen raised his point of order correctly. I have ruled on that. 
Rodney Hide 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am warning the member; I am on my feet. I have ruled correctly on that matter and we will now proceed. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Is the point of order continuing this argument? If it is it is out of order because I have ruled. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would like you to rule on whether it is acceptable under a point of order to accuse another member of Parliament of intimidating the Chair. Yes or no. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: A matter of privilege is not raised on the floor of the House. The member knows that. As far as I saw it in the Chair Dr Cullen properly pointed out that the closure motion had been taken. There was not any debate on the closure motion—that was the point—and there should not be any debate and members have brought up that debate. I have ruled on that and we will continue. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: It is following on from that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have given my ruling on this point of order and we will now continue. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it the same point of order? 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: It is following on from your ruling 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Once I have ruled on a point of order the member knows that it cannot be disputed. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: That is right. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It has to be a new point of order. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: The point of order that Dr Cullen took was in two parts. The first part was seeking to state to the Committee that your decision to take the closure could not be challenged. You have ruled on that; I accept that. The second part you have not ruled on. The second part of Dr Cullen’s point of order which was the part he spent the most time on was where he accused Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in using the word “provocative” of bullying the Chair. If one stands in the Chamber and accuses someone of bullying the Chair that by its very nature under the Standing Orders is accusing someone of a breach of privilege. Dr Cullen went to some lengths and showed a degree of anger in that part of the point of order. What I am seeking and what the Committee is seeking from you is whether you are going to accept members making accusations about other people having an influence over the Chair. Is that acceptable or not? That is the ruling we are seeking. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I think the Committee is going to get into a lot of difficulty when a senior member of the Opposition is thrown out by the Chair which the Chair of course can do for a matter that Chairs do rule on but is relatively minor—having spoken during a point of order—and then we discover that in relation to a member who made statements during a point of order that were very serious alleging a matter that by itself if correct would be a breach of privilege because intimidating the Chair is a breach of privilege and the whole Committee heard him make the accusation that there had been an attempt at intimidating you you are not going to rule on it because you were not worried. No doubt you were not intimidated but that is not the point. The point is it is a reflection on the whole of the Committee when a Minister in the chair can suggest that a senior Opposition member is in effect committing a breach of privilege. It is not for you to pass it over; it is for you to be consistent. Indeed I believe that you have not treated fairly Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith who of course—not of his choice—is no longer in the Chamber. I believe that he ought to be apologised to by Dr Cullen and frankly I also think—but it is completely within your discretion—that he should be allowed to return to the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: On the matter of Dr Lockwood Smith I made that judgment and I made that call and it was properly given. Dr Cullen made certain comments. They are not for me to judge but I certainly did not judge that they were offensive. As far as I was concerned the call was properly given. Dr Smith made his comments. It is not acceptable to reflect on the Chair and I did not consider them to be such and I do not consider that this matter needs to be pursued any further. If there is a matter of privilege there is a proper way to deal with it. The closure motion— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Are you going to still discuss this point of order that I have ruled on? I will rule it out of order if you are. 
Rodney Hide 
: Might I suggest Madam Chair that you hear it. I took a point of order where I asked for a ruling. Dr Cullen in the Chamber—and no one has contested this—accused Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith under a point of order of intimidating you. My question to you is simple. I put it to you before. You keep telling me that you have ruled. What I want is clarification on that ruling. Is it acceptable to stand up in this Chamber under a point of order and accuse a member of Parliament of intimidating the Chair? Yes or no. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As I clearly said before Dr Lockwood Smith made certain comments. There was a point of order raised by Dr Cullen. I have made my ruling and I do not consider that there is any further matter to pursue. We will now have the— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I warn the member that I have ruled on this matter. I am warning him now that I will not take his point of order on the same matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I ask you Madam Chair to rule. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I have ruled on the matter. That is the end of the matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The ruling is very clear as I said. Dr Cullen made his point of order in response to some comments relating to the closure that had been made by Dr Lockwood Smith. I certainly ruled that I did not need those comments. I made my ruling very clear and I stand by that ruling which is the original ruling on the closure. I said I did not need the comments made by either Dr Cullen or Dr Lockwood Smith. The closure was given correctly. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order.