McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6791] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise a point of order at the outset in relation to your decision on the matter of closure—not the closure you have just taken but the closure on the part that is now before the Committee. I do so because I want to avoid an untimely mess of the sort that will I assure you ensue if we have the exercise of the Chair’s judgment in the same way as was the case in relation to the part that has just been the subject of a vote. I am fully aware of the provisions of Standing Order 138 to which you referred the Committee in a brief way. I refer to Standing Order 138(3) in particular which states: “The Speaker may accept a closure motion if in the Speaker’s opinion it is reasonable to do so.” I will not dispute the fact that the judgment is one for discretion on your part but I think it is open to members to seek to persuade you as to a course that is reasonable in the circumstances. I raise that at the outset in relation to Part 2. 
Both Part 1 and Part 2 are important provisions in this legislation. In addition to the fact that this is a bill that deals with applications that have been made in good faith some of which are being rendered null and void as a consequence of this amending legislation and in addition to the fact that this matter is being dealt with under urgency there is also the consideration that the bill has the effect of overriding a High Court decision that is currently the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. In addition— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I will get the Speaker back if you want me to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just referring the member to the fact that a point of order is to be terse and to the point. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Yes I am making detailed submissions to you because I do not want to see you make the same mistake you did in the first part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am listening to the member and I am mindful of what he is saying but I would like him to come to the point. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I would like you to turn your mind to this. In relation to a bill that is going through the House under urgency which changes a High Court decision that is currently the subject of an appeal and which will wipe out the applications of over 10000 applicants to use the Minister’s own figures I suggest to you that it is very far from reasonable for the presiding officer to decide that one speech each from New Zealand First and ACT—particularly as Mr Jones has said New Zealand First has a special interest in this matter—and three speeches from the National Party is adequate. That is very far from reasonable. Unless we can get some indication from you that Part 2 will be dealt with in a way that the Committee can be persuaded meets the reasonableness test of Standing Order 138(3) we will have to go to a higher authority to get some direction on this matter.