Mallard Trevor; Hipkins Chris; Smith NickWEDNESDAY 20 JUNE 2018(continued on Thursday 21 June 2018)LAND TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT (REGIONAL FUEL TAX) AMENDMENT BILLInstruction to CommitteeDebate resumed from 20 June.Mr SPEAKER: Last night when the instruction to the committee was moved the question should have been proposed. So the question now is that the motion be agreed to and the Hon Chris Hipkins' amendment to it be agreed to.When the House was suspended last night we were debating the instruction to the committee of the whole House and the amendment proposed to it. Chris Bishop has the call and has one minute and 51 seconds remaining if he so wishes.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'm sorry to interrupt the member who was speaking. I have reflected very carefully on where the House got to last night and on both of the questions currently before the House and I do not believe it is in the best interests of the House for this to continue. I therefore seek leave to withdraw my amendment to the motion that is currently before the House.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I welcome the move by the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion. The motion that was moved—the amendment last night—was an absolute affront—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No. The member will resume his seat. The member has not referred to a point of order. [Interruption] The member cannot take a point or order while I'm on my feet. Whether or not I agree with him—and I do agree with him—that both these motions are an affront to the House and that motion would certainly not have had my support I do want to make it clear that that motion can now not be debated. The only motion that can be debated currently is the one in the name of Jami-Lee Ross and I will not have points of order which purport to reflect on a motion now no longer before the House. And I want to warn the Hon Dr Nick Smith that the consequences will be serious.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I've been a member of this House for 27 years and I should be able to raise a serious point of order without being—Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. And the member is absolutely right; if the member had raised a serious point of order he would have been heard. He didn't. He abused the process. He referred to a motion no longer before the House and did not have a point of order on that.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I'm going to warn the member now that if he takes a point of order that is not within order then the consequences for his party today will be serious.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That point is completely understood and I do ask you to give me a moment to explain my point or order because it's a serious one and it is one that welcomes the comments that you have made in resuming the Chair in the House this morning. The unfortunate precedent though that has been established is that the motion to give an instruction to the committee was accepted by the Speaker last night. That has created—even though the motion has been withdrawn—an unfortunate precedent. What I am seeking from you Mr Speaker under Standing Order 176 is a ruling that the motion that was moved was not within the Standing Orders and the reason—Mr SPEAKER: Well the member will now resume his seat. The motion was accepted by the Speaker last night. If it had been a matter that had been accepted by the Chair in the Chair then it would be appropriate for me to rule on that. The Speaker in this Chair last night made a decision; that decision is final and is not appealable to me. There might be some cause to reflect on it and it could well be a matter that the Standing Orders Committee either in the short term or the longer term has a look at probably along with the motion that is currently before the House. And I just want to say to Dr Nick Smith that he is sailing very very close to the wind. He is the father of the House. He does know that one cannot appeal the rulings of an acting Speaker to the Speaker.Debate interrupted.