Simich Clem: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17988] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: In any case I would have accepted that correction because it was a simple mistake. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Unless I am mistaken—and I stand to be corrected—the Minister had resumed his seat at the point that the chief Government whip arrived at his desk to advise him that a second mistake in a row had been made in respect of referral dates. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that at that point—the point that the Minister resumed his seat—his speech had terminated. The fact that the Minister had resumed his seat and his speech had terminated meant that the date he mentioned in his opening remarks on the first reading stood. Now by leave he can seek to amend that but the Minister had resumed his seat and his speech had terminated. I seek your ruling on that point. 
Rodney Hide 
: The point is that it was a simple mistake and I am sure everyone would appreciate that. The date could not possibly be 2004. But there is a bigger issue and it is this. Once a Minister on his feet mentions a date and sits down his speech is over. In fact Tony Ryall had been called. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No he had not been called. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well Mr Assistant Speaker had begun to put the question. At what point is it allowable for a Minister to come back later and say: “Point of order I got the date wrong.”? You could imagine Mr Assistant Speaker that we could have had half a debate—in fact we could have had an entire debate. The idea that a Minister can mention a date in his speech then correct it some time after his speech seems to me to be getting into very treacherous waters. I would like you to consider just where the cut-off point is for correcting a mistake like that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. I do not have any difficulty with it. I heard the Minister say “2004” in the early part of his speech. I took it as a mistake. The intention was clear and in any case his speech was not finished. He still had time to go—albeit he had sat down. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: But you had started to put the question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes I had. But I accept the correction. If it is not accepted now it would be accepted as a matter of course when the Minister next speaks after the debate has finished. It would be accepted as a matter of course. The intention is clear. We are not playing games here. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not test your ruling as that would be very unwise but could I just ask you to rule on this matter. If a member resumes his seat regardless of whether time is left to run has that speech terminated or has it not? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am told that is a hypothetical situation. I think we have taken it as far as we can. It is a hypothetical situation and— 
Simon Power 
: Can we get a ruling? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I rule on actual cases only. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I said I accept your ruling in respect of the circumstances surrounding Mr Goff’s error and the House is in your hands to allow that correction. But actually we are not dealing with a hypothetical situation. We are dealing with a very real situation where the Minister resumed his seat after his speech—and again I am not contesting the date issue; you have ruled on that. This is not a hypothetical situation. When the Hon Phil Goff resumed his seat was his speech terminated or was it not? That is the ruling I am asking for. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will need to come back to the House on that point. I am quite prepared to do that because there is a grey area there. But at that moment Mr Goff still had the floor. That is my view at the moment because no other member had been called. But we will clear that up in due course.