Search Browse Media On This Day Map Quotations Timeline Research Free Datasets Remembered About Contact
☶ Go up a page

Parliament: Committee of the Whole House - Homosexual Law Reform Bill (5 March 1986)

This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It is not a transcript, it has not been checked by humans and will contain many errors. However it is useful for searching on keywords and themes by using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.

[00:00:00] This audio comes from the collections of the lesbian and gay archives of New Zealand. For more information, visit It will stop [00:00:09] it. It's done in effect by leave. And it seems to me that it's a very important issue upon which, if necessary, you should take the advice of Mr. Speaker, it is quite an important point if the Committee of the Whole purports to take powers to itself, which under the presidents of this house, it is not entitled to take. [00:00:36] Taking to the point where Dr. Cullen [00:00:39] is now following is the procedure which was followed in consideration of the goods and services text bill last year. That is I permitted motion was moved by in in the [00:00:50] house. [00:00:52] That motion enabled the committee to consider the question of whether or not the bill should be taken part by [00:01:00] did not mean that the committee had to take the bill [00:01:03] part by part. So [00:01:04] I refer you to McGee, page 251. And I feel my god, you cannot [00:01:12] refer to McGee, page 251 where it's not an instruction so Committee of the Whole House is an abstract motion. And it goes on to say the committee is not therefore forced by an instruction to make an amendment or to divide up a bill into separate bills, or indeed, of course, by implication to take a bill part by part. It really has power conferred upon it to do those things, if it sees fit. Now, the question of whether or not the committee sees fit is obviously one to be solved by resolution of the committee. And therefore I motion to be debated within the committee. There is no suggestion within that statement, that it is one to be resolved by leave, when matters to be resolved by lead that is specifically stated because of the very particular form of seizure within this house, because it empowers a single member of the House, if he or she so wishes to thwart the will of the overwhelming majority suggest to you, sir, having had the president of the goods and services tax, which indeed I think was the first time that the motion was put on debated in the committee as a whole for a very long time. Having had that precedent, we are now following that precedent through on a private member's bill and it doesn't matter if we circle party by annoyed by resolution and division within the committee. [00:02:37] Speak to the forums [00:02:38] to Norman Jain Well, Mr. Speaker, we've heard it all now we are [00:02:41] now [00:02:42] going to do the same with this build as we did with the goods and services [00:02:48] have one ever has in the so ridiculous. We are talking about the greatest moral issue that's turned this whole country upside down. And the 11 years I've been in family before it Got back to see me for something. [00:03:03] Oh, I'm sorry, I thought was inviting. [00:03:05] No, I thought I thought the memo thought to me was adding [00:03:09] a rule on the subject and I think members for their comments. I think that the point is pretty adequately, Kevin, it's in general Tim's in the quote given from McGee. But to come back to the particular question raised by the member for [00:03:28] was the automatic [00:03:30] and followed, followed up by the men for Tamariki. [00:03:34] It's [00:03:35] pretty clear that what has happened in the past where there [00:03:38] has been an instruction from the house that the committee may consider a dual path my path. What has been a practice in the past is that there has been considered an instruction which not [00:03:52] just empowers [00:03:55] the committee [00:03:56] but obliges us now Before I met about a spot right that in the past where a voice has been raised, [00:04:07] that is then a question for the committee to decide. [00:04:14] A voice was raised in this instance, when the motion that the committee may consider the bill part by part was put to the committee. And they haven't been dissent, a voice of dissent. It was inappropriate [00:04:31] for for the member for when considered a leader she has done [00:04:36] so that the committee's got the power [00:04:39] if it wishes to take it [00:04:42] and it's it's in the process of deciding now with sense of head with it. This is it has the power, it wishes to exercise. [00:04:52] This is well. [00:04:54] We've had that point of order list of me there's no way you would give me a Wellington [00:05:01] Mr. Chairman, I've listened carefully to what you have said in the speeches leading up [00:05:08] to your last comments ahead. So you would be good enough to explain to the committee the first [00:05:16] paragraph in the [00:05:19] three sided seats that have come around under your name sgml committees. I found these on my mailbox, I think about three quarters an hour ago, I think the wordings important [00:05:35] states. The following [00:05:36] proposal is put forward in the light of the complexity and potential conflicts arising from si p proposed to build [00:05:45] comma to facilitate [00:05:46] consideration for balance various amendments. Can I ask [00:05:52] who were parties to putting forward that proposal [00:06:00] I would like your clarification of bed when the party to the proposal myth. [00:06:08] Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, why? [00:06:12] Why should the committee of Parliament make it easier to resolve complexities and potential conflicts for this is what we are here to do with deliberation proper thought I should be great from this gym. If you could elaborate quickly on the first thing, certainly, I think is probably better for us to actually consider how we're going to deal with the bill if it is to be dealt with it. [00:06:40] After we dealt with the question for me now, I haven't folded committee which is whether or [00:06:43] not it should be dealt. But I [00:06:45] take the point that the member has raised, which is that the committee should not [00:06:54] have any, any form or procedure imposed upon it. [00:07:00] Certainly the document would show the member has referred to which has been circulated [00:07:04] either My name is not an attempt to in any way, give any guidance. Beyond that which might be helpful at the stage where asked the question that has now before the committee has been decided we can do a question of how in in the past five packets iterations there has to be such a package right how we deal with it. But I take the members point, it's entirely [00:07:25] in the hands of the committee how that should be done, and certainly [00:07:28] not certainly not in, [00:07:30] in my hands to tell the committee [00:07:32] ship the point. [00:07:35] The clarification, the fact remains the committee of Parliament has three pieces of paper unsign that I accept you I accept that they've come from your officers gmF committee members, but I design side. Might I repeat my question to the parties to the proposal When does it make say that you were in a position, you may not have wished to be in a position to put forward [00:08:07] such a proposal? I would I would be happy for them in order [00:08:13] for the member to raise those questions at the appropriate point of the committee were asked the question that we are now dealing with has been dealt with. We come then. If the committee decides we should we come in to how the bill should be dealt with path by path. I'm rolling in other words that the member is right to raise those questions but not now. He may [00:08:33] lose a lot of [00:08:35] luster to them. [00:08:40] They almost went out into the gym. You guys made a call before you called [00:08:49] me on the point of owner. [00:08:52] They were a number of members taking the call right [00:09:00] You speaking to the point [00:09:03] is that you ruled on the second [00:09:05] point, which the member capacity [00:09:07] for a raise, but you did not [00:09:09] respond to the first point. And I wondered if I might speak to that first point namely the [00:09:17] the question of the sequence now, [00:09:21] my understanding is that whether the subject is divided part by part or clause BY clause would affect the speaking time. [00:09:30] But the sequence in which the amendment should be taken, [00:09:34] whether the house decides to handle it path by path walk was by Claude should still follow the procedure set out in the piece of paper so, that the house can in orderly fashion address a descending order of age, [00:09:49] how the committee may or may not decide to adopt this procedure. They may or may not, but it is not a question for the committee to address now. It will be premature to address that question at this time. I'm there are there were several people on the face inviting members to to take the call. [00:10:18] The Honorable venya. [00:10:21] Chairman, [00:10:23] I normally would have some difficulty with a resolution such as this on a private member's bill that is a conscience [00:10:31] issue. [00:10:32] After all, what is being sought? Is the restriction of members speaking right on this very controversial piece of legislation. But [00:10:44] that's for two things. [00:10:47] One is [00:10:49] that this parliament [00:10:50] has already been [00:10:52] an exhaustive amount of time, with individual members [00:10:57] of parliament stating very clearly [00:11:00] What their opinions are on the major. [00:11:04] And also, Mr. Speaker, [00:11:07] the fact that there are many important issues [00:11:10] for this chamber to deal with as my colleagues [00:11:13] for longer I pointed out, [00:11:16] Mr. Speaker, it is upon our shoulders, I believe, [00:11:21] having the bite of this [00:11:23] bill [00:11:23] as fully as could possibly have been the case [00:11:27] during the introduction during the second rating [00:11:32] during the short title of the legislation. [00:11:34] We've heard the opinion of every member of this house, except I think the Prime Minister, and now in the country around [00:11:43] the set, [00:11:44] there are issues of tremendous importance. [00:11:48] We all know how we kind of vote on this bill. Each one of [00:11:52] us in this chamber has [00:11:54] made up his mind and [00:11:56] almost everyone has told their car Exactly how that guy device. [00:12:02] Mr. Chairman, [00:12:03] I want to get on to the economic [00:12:05] issues that are driving this country and pop that [00:12:11] order out of order. He might not say what we should [00:12:13] be debating. [00:12:15] What we are debating, and that's always entitled to debate is the question before the committee quite a narrow one, that the homosexual law reform will be considered passed by [00:12:23] the member to keep so that [00:12:27] by taking the bill top bypass, [00:12:31] it will give the members of this [00:12:33] chamber the opportunity [00:12:34] on private members [00:12:37] die [00:12:38] to move with greatest paid to a number of bills [00:12:42] of which they have already has noted. [00:12:45] It is the intention of the opposition to introduce legislation to return [00:12:52] to the local government sector, [00:12:54] the right for individual [00:12:57] constituent of life [00:13:01] Now, Mr. Chairman, we want to get all the event below we want to define it as it is a matter of right important. And I say to my colleagues, [00:13:09] because I do know and [00:13:11] we have all made up our mind. [00:13:14] Let's get on with the business. This is register out right, and determine [00:13:19] whether or if it does in what form this piece of legislation proceed. Mr. MC [00:13:32] take. [00:13:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, as the newest member of this house, and as this being the first substantial conscience issue that I have been involved in, I am opposed to seeing the procedure recommended being adopted. And I am opposed because I don't give credence to the fact that it will take us 31 hours to hard to get through it and debate I put more credibility. I put more credibility on the on the members of this house than that But I am opposed to a situation where I will be required to vote on clauses within this particular part of the bill, which will very substantially alter the social structure of our society will have an impact on the 3 million people that live in New Zealand. And yet the arguments yet the arguments to which I will be required to pay attention and finally make my decision on my be well, the Boston time from the time at which that decision is made. As we go through the amendments to this particular section. Indeed, where there are seven amendments, the concept of what we have debated to date, Mr. Speaker, is substantially changed as those amendments come to bear. And I think that we have a right to be able to consider the implications of that and the arguments that can be made in that changing situation, as I have enjoyed and my career decisions in that perspective. And consequently, I am totally opposed to the course of action based proposed [00:15:03] to the honorable I [00:15:08] like to move under standing order to eight nine a report progress to take your speaker's ruling. And so whether this is a debatable motion [00:15:32] question is that the motion be agreed to say on the contrary now [00:15:40] the [00:15:42] nose haven't [00:15:47] moved. The chairman has no other right it's not a matter of the house now deciding it's a matter of training the speaker back for [00:15:56] a live [00:16:00] Appreciate the name [00:16:02] with the members, particularly in this part of the house, stop trying to tell me my job [00:16:12] and the member for one array will stand them with doing apologize. [00:16:22] The winner for one array is given one more opportunity to stand and withdraw and apologize. I said we've seen some shocking Chairman chairman. Tonight withdraw from the chain. We've seen some shopping from the chamber, otherwise the member will be named. We've seen some shocking team and ship from you tonight. I namely member you are in for a ride of the bill. I nightly member Ryan is the leader of the house to move the appropriate motion. [00:17:09] Is that [00:17:11] healthy [00:17:14] 193 [00:17:29] I will [00:17:32] remember having been named I will report progress for the speakers will. [00:17:41] It is it is quite clear that at this point in proceedings, the chairman of committee should report progress. [00:17:55] The house is reserved speaker Today's [00:18:01] speaker, I have moved to report progress so that I can advise you that under standard 193, I have been obliged to name a member, namely the member for phone array for a sequence of events, during which he repeatedly challenged the authority of the chair. [00:18:23] And there [00:18:25] was no alternative. But [00:18:27] to move on to speakers role [00:18:29] in my mind. [00:18:35] I, if I require any assistance on this Metro call board. [00:18:46] Members, no doubt have taken the opportunities to familiarize themselves with the contents of standing order 193 and I'll draw it to their attention in for ticular the last three lines and the speaker shell on motion being made there upon put the same question without amendment or debate as this defense had committed in the house itself. Now, there is no previous members standing order for the chairman, for the speaker, to do any other single thing if we're members are needed after that, that they should reread that standing order. So in accordance with the requirement of that standing order 193 I will call on the point of order the honorable venya. Mr. Speaker, I will [00:19:56] point out that the house in committee as a whole [00:20:01] has been debating a very difficult proposal [00:20:05] put to the community. Let me finish mr. speaker or I would just before the members speak, because we have a very serious matter. I would remember remind that member that when he raises some point of order, but in the ultimate is asking for some action or some relief be given by the chair. Now, I would run who left to raise a spurious point of order is highly disorder, that is a point guard, which cannot or has not the purpose for which I've stated in mind. Don't house as attention to the limitations of the speaker's ability in this matter, requirements of standing orders absolute and admit departure from the procedure laid down. So, as long as the member is fully aware of that, and that he is not involved in a serious point of water, and that he will end up his point border with and is assaulted this will speak up I request this remedy which will make the point of order totally ignored. Then I would ask him to continue to speak [00:21:28] the point [00:21:30] I wish to make mr. speaker in reference to [00:21:34] standing order 193 is in the hitting of the spanning order and that is the member may be suspended [00:21:43] after being named that it does not say Mr. Speaker, that the member [00:21:51] shall be suspended after being named. Now, Mr. Speaker, [00:21:55] I believe that that being the case, you haven't element of discretion in your head [00:22:04] that can take account of the situation [00:22:07] from which the maiming array and consider that before you [00:22:13] suspend, move to, to suspend my colleague, the member of [00:22:22] I will hit the select button [00:22:26] to draw your attention to the incidents that ran into this. And I moved, I moved under to eight, nine, standing order to icon and I refer the speaker to that ruling [00:22:41] order order. I'm sorry to interrupt the honorable gentleman, but I must warn him for there is no provision at all for the speaker to review the decisions that have been made by the Chairman and committee. So that But if there are methods in which they may be disputed, with a correct procedural methods concern the amateurs and the authorities the chair, to review the procedure of the committee, of which the chairman happens to be part in light of the greater responsibility of the house, but in the actual conduct of the proceedings of the committee, the chairman is in exactly the same position and as the same authority as the speaker in the house. And there is no way and specifically disallowed under standing order some speakers rulings for the speaker to review in any way I decision that has been taken by the chairman in matters of lists account. Now having stated that and explain the position. I will allow a member to raise his point of order but he should bear that in mind and From the statements that have said that a spurious point of order is of itself disorderly, Mr. Speaker, [00:24:06] I have no intention, a very serious point where [00:24:11] I want to draw your attention to the standing orders to identify. And I moved, that we were afforded the private to take a speaker's ruling. The speaker head, the chairman, had no alternative, but to then call the speaker. [00:24:33] If you read it carefully to Dinah, read it for the speaker for his survivors memory. I mentioned maybe made during the proceedings of a Committee of the Whole Health that the chairman report progress in order to change the speaker's ruling on some question right there in such a motion, shabby put forth well, [00:24:54] without amendment or by [00:24:57] now having moved and that was the started as the chairman proceeded, [00:25:05] as if the committee was still in place, I would argue that this house, and I'm the moment that was moved, the chairman had no further business in the chair. But Nicola speaker for the ruling on an absolutely different matter, which I wanted to be resolved. And I have a perfect right, for my point of order to be dealt with first. Yes, [00:25:30] I do take cognizance of the matter the lambda has right. [00:25:36] There was a motion before the house that the chairman report progress in order to have speaker trauma. I know that I have no knowledge it has not been reported to me. But if that were so and I'm quite prepared to accept that the worst that it matter has still to be resolved by the committee and as I have yet no knowledge But if I just order arose, because the committee is still master of its own destiny, until when motion has been put and passed by the House. May of putting emotion does not involve the recall of the speaker. There's a motion and vague emotion, it must be moved by and passed by the House like any other motion, there is nothing in standing orders to say that that is not is any different from any other motion. [00:26:40] Now, [00:26:43] that being said, then, a question of disorder apparently arose from the committee's chairman's report before that motion should had been foot therefore the committee was still in control of it. nausea. And I matter of this order takes precedence over all other [00:27:09] methods. [00:27:11] And last moment is the matter which the chairman has reported to me a matter of disorder. And if the committee decides, and this is free to decide or not decide that after returning to the committee that the house should in from committee seek the ruling of the chair on another matter, they unless the committee later to the side. [00:27:38] Yes, [00:27:39] Mr. Prebble. This is bigger. I move that john banks the member for warmer rate. [00:27:48] I'm sorry, I thought the number was rising football. I think that that's a point of Odyssey and a point for the mass type person to [00:28:00] That I'd like to pick [00:28:01] up one already [00:28:02] raised by the member for metal metal Mr. Speaker. And and the reason I write the form of a question to use [00:28:11] what is the first part of a three part sequence of events leads, which the first of which is unresolved leads to the suspension or the naming of a member identity how we can separate them out that Mr. Speaker, my question is, can we night I now refer to the Standing Order 193 which you are directly second part required to minister so that is subtitled member may be suspended after being named. Now that leaves a question to be answered my whereas there in the text of the standing order. [00:28:56] It says the committee I'm sorry, the chairman shell for With the speaker shell and so on a glacier, the standing order, in fact is deficient. If the subtitle to it has as the operative verb may win in the text of it, they shall have a question before the house is not [00:29:20] shall he be 990 and then arriving and an answer to that, should we not take into account? What preceded his being nine, particularly, in the opinion of the committee, the matter for whatever reason, might not have been handled judiciously? No. There's no differently about the tool. First of all, it's not a question the member may be named some member may be suspended. The process of suspending process of naming is one of the steps to be taken into Spending a member now, but that may exist is not anything to do with the text of standing order 193. But that that exists is whether of a house will sustain that motion. Because it is not a decision of the chair. It is not a vision of a chairman of committees. It's not a decision of the speaker, as it is on other occasions and suspending the occasion it's a decision of the house. And no one may prejudge what the decision of the house will be. And therefore quite properly, there have a member having being named the Standing Order says that he may be suspended. And that is where the element of doubt fits in. Yes, let's speak up on those that don't Banks remember for longer right be suspended from the service of the house. The question is that the motion be agreed. [00:31:09] That opinion will say [00:31:11] I [00:31:14] will say in [00:31:17] the eyes [00:31:18] Yes, the vision for [00:31:21] the eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left [00:31:25] the tellers for the eyes. [00:31:29] Miss Carla and Fred Wild and metallus knows Mr. McKinnon and Mr. McClay Wait, Christian is that the motion be agreed. They [00:31:45] eyes 44 [00:31:47] when I was 31. [00:31:54] The bank [00:31:54] will be suspended from the service of the house for the next 24 hours. [00:32:07] Order. Remember the order? [00:32:26] Order [00:32:30] the play of the house in committee on the homosexual Lord. [00:32:40] First of all, the [00:32:45] housekeeping committee is Yes, Mr. Freelander. Mr. Speaker, you may recall when the chairman of committees was in fact reporting back to the last matter which we The house has now dealt with and is now the space with That the method which led to that being that event arising was the fact that the member for Mathematica in for that [00:33:08] matter reported back or as a rule [00:33:11] order you to be called back order. I have no knowledge of that matter except what has been reported today by the main madness. But it is but the committee's intention to pursue that method. I have no doubt that I will hear about it by the appropriate names laid down by the owners of this house. [00:33:36] On the house [00:33:37] in committee on the hammer, fix your local [00:33:50] up and down [00:34:00] house and committee on the homosexual law reform bill. [00:34:06] A lot of order Mr. [00:34:09] Laxton, I [00:34:10] asked kind of standing order to a nine that were reported progress to take [00:34:14] a speaker's ruling. [00:34:18] The question is that we do report that I do report progress in order to seek the speaker's ruling. Order. [00:34:26] The motion be agreed to in [00:34:27] favor say [00:34:28] on the contrary now, the eyes have it I will report progress to seek the speaker's ruling. [00:34:42] The house is for [00:34:46] Mr. Speaker hi I have been asked to report progress and to seek your ruling on a matter that as it has arisen in the money consideration of the instruction which was made with the committee by the house [00:34:59] that is We're instruction to the Committee [00:35:01] of the Whole, that the homosexual Law Reform Bill may be considered by [00:35:08] now, so, in the course of the of the [00:35:12] discussion on the instruction that was received by the committee, the point was raised [00:35:17] that in the past the metal that [00:35:20] is before us has been dealt with by lead. [00:35:23] Whereas, [00:35:25] automation from the member in charge of the bill, the committee proceeded to a debate on the motion [00:35:31] that the bill should be debated path by path. [00:35:36] Several members have raised objection to that [00:35:39] procedure on the basis that it does not conform with precedent. Other members have pointed out that as recently as with the GST legislation, that there is the form in which the bill way in which a bill that can be divided in the past may be dealt with by the committee. As I said it was thought to be advised Above up record said that the manager could be the chairman, both in terms of recent precedent and the past practice of the house and we're seeking your ruling soon as to whether or not the procedure that we have adopted in the debate, which is to [00:36:17] take the instruction and consider by way of a motion move in the committed [00:36:25] to proceed in that way to determine whether or not the bill shall be considered. Yes. [00:36:32] Well, it's not difficult, I think to array that what is the traditional perhaps, [00:36:42] as I call the speaker, then surely I should be given able to give a little background on it. [00:36:49] Certainly remember, which is which is the speak I was unaware, honestly. [00:36:55] Well, the position [00:37:02] A point of order [00:37:04] Mr. Laxman. [00:37:06] They instruction that committee has a very narrow brief it deals with the short title is Dale's clause BY clause it deals with the men, it can take an instruction [00:37:19] from a house, [00:37:21] it was an instruction from the house [00:37:24] moved in hence at number 64 is 254. That would be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House on the homosexual law reform bill, that it may consider the bill passed by path. It was not a specific motion that it will there was a bill passed by Pat it may. [00:37:47] Now they when that was rise, the chairman of committee said yes. It is a decision now the this Committee of the Whole as to whether it would deal with it. path by path and the promoter of the bill then moved emotion that is be dealt path by path. It is my contention that in the Committee stage, it is not a debatable issue. It is not one that is divides the committee of the house, it is rather one that is by leave of the committee that that proceedings take place, and it's leave is given, then it needs full support of every member of the House. The whole idea of having an instruction for the committee of white house is that it can be done on the majority side of the house. But when it comes for a decision, if a committee stage, it must be taken by leave and have the concurrence of every member of this house, that is part of this democratic process. And because I believe that this will start a series of motions that are taken that are not within the bounds of the Committee of the Whole, I believed it was of such importance that I should call a speaker back to have a ruling said that we know in future, whether such motions can remove [00:39:12] at any time during any debate in the committee stages. [00:39:18] Speaking to order, [00:39:20] speak, if I could refer you to him again, pages 251252 I think deals with this meta adequately. It's noted in there certain instructions for Committee of the Whole House is an abstract motion, and goes on to say a few lines further down and instructions for the Committee of the Whole House must be permissive only. It gives the committee power to do something, it does not direct it to act in a certain way, and goes on to explain well that explain why that is so. And further over on page two five to refer specifically on the bite on an instruction is restricted to the subject matter of the motion and Masonic Stand for the general principles or objects of the bill. In other words, one has emotion in the house, which is a permissive motion, that motion is their mood at the appropriate time, in this case to deal with the bill part by part and therefore move after the consideration of the short title. And that motion is itself debatable. Of course, the leave of the committee could be taken at the time that was finished the shortfall and leave for be refused. But that does not preempt the possibility then, of the motion being moved. And the motion being debated and the motion being voted on by the Committee of the Whole because the crucial point made in page 251 of the key is the Committee of the Whole House consists of all the members of the House, and it will be absurd for the members in the house to bind themselves irrevocably for something in committee, in contrast to controlling select committees, of which all members of the House are not members McClay as the speaker it might be helpful because I was present in the house when this particular proceeding commenced. If I outline to you the sequence of events that actually arose, will know it was curious, because I would draw your attention to the fact that it's the authority of the speaker to which is sort in this motion to the ruling is solely on the question of the interpretation of standing orders, which is, on the statements fantasy is, appears to be and influenced by the events which heard in the committee, it's the principles that are involved, in which the speakers lead the sort the speaker may not have a result rolling at all, he may not get on a particular thing, because the committee there solely within the control of the gym. I realized that entirely Mr. Speaker and I certainly seek no ruling on the events themselves. They are past they were not challenged at the time. Indeed, they are not relevant to the discussion, other than the fact that they put the discussion on the interpretation of standing orders into context so that you're not being asked to rule in some vacuum. Mr. Speaker. What in fact happened in this particular case was that as we moved past the clause one short title, which the committee had voted on, and agreed to, we then proceeded mr. speaker to consider whether or not the committee would in fact deal with the bill part bypass in accordance with the permissive, but certainly not mandatory instruction from the house. [00:42:34] And [00:42:34] Mr. Chairman, first sought leave which was obviously denied as the events suggest. Now, Mr. Speaker at that stage, it is my would have been my submission, perhaps that that was where the matter ended. But my suggestion to you Mr. Speaker is that it is only a matter for leave and not one for both which may in fact, be Passed only by a majority with a minority, in fact, the same thing. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's my suggestion that the proper course of action would be for the speak for the chairman simply to seek leave. If it is objected to, then at that stage, there is no alternative for the committee other than to proceed to deal with the bill in the manner prescribed [00:43:21] for by [00:43:24] book, speakers rulings on page 34. Six, an instruction to the committee [00:43:33] is an abstract motion, not amendments for motion to go into committee on the bill. That is not mandatory, it merely gives the committee power. If it thinks it's considered bring it into the bill of methods referred to in the instruction. Now, that appears to be the situation method the committee is empowered to deal with it. Bye bye who wishes by the instruction from the house. Now, there are Why two ways in which the wishes of the committee may be sought. One is the easy simple way by taking lead. And wherever you as unanimous the wishes of the committee, I without dispute in that way and proceed, but that is not the only way in which the wishes of the committee may be sought. Permission to the committee may be sought by means of emotion. So, the committee decides by numbers, what the intentions are committee is, and after all, there's nothing novel in that because that is what the committee does. when it passes any clause or any part of the bill, which subsequently becomes part of its report back to the house. That's the normal procedure of the committee to determine The committee's which is, and where in this case it was decided that the committee should seek a resolution of what is the opinion was by means of emotion then matters entirely in accordance with the customary procedures of this house. [00:45:20] It's the motion like any other motion before the committee. [00:45:26] The point of autumns reply is to speak arising from your ruling and accepting it entirely. To assist the committee when a considers the bill, either clause BY clause or part by part as the as the case may be, is it affect that having agreed initially to considering the bill path by path, the committee could subsequently on a motion move by any member agree to consider say a particular and complex path clause BY clause? In other words, does that one month preclude a subsequent motion that might involve a clause BY clause consideration. Either of the remainder of the bill or a particular Pat [00:46:14] McGee becomes an authority again. This [00:46:26] phrase, this raises the question is what is the wishes of the committee is the committee in its wisdom, has decided that the whole of its proceedings shall be part by part, then that the committee is bound by that decision. Now, it chooses to, if someone chooses to test that on a substantive occasion, it could only be done by late but if the committee again In its wisdom, wants to avoid prejudging a situation which has not yet had time to consider and does not want to put itself into position without judging the whole part of it like that. The committee is quite entitled to say, let in this instance, the first part will be considered as one unit has a path. And that Subsequently, the second path may be dealt with on the same way or maybe the done clause BY clause that the instruction from the house leaves us master entirely in the hands of the committee. And the way in which the committee exercises its wisdom on this method is entirely in its fancy. It does not bind it provided emotionals words that's why is that a free person who votes on his knows exactly what he is voting on? But if promotion is that part one be now consider that I think would be an appropriate word putting that one v now considered by the committee, then that only deals with the problems that one that only deals with a problem that one has not dealt with problem with that too. And that can be dealt with by subsequent motions or decision to the committee to draw the matter out, but we are breaking new ground, Mr. Speaker with what is I think a very important issue, particularly on this bill, which is of course a conscience vote issue and therefore, not of the nature of legislation that we normally deal with path by path, can I take it from what you have said that if as is the case, in this particular instance, a general motion, that the bill be considered by path by path is passed by the committee, that subsequently it is still open for a particular path. First of all believed to be sought and a bed is denied, then a motion to be moved to deal with a psychopath three or four on a close by course basis? No, no, I'm sorry, if again all motion to consider the whole bill by Pat is taken, then house is a committee is bound by that. But, if the committee does not wish to be bound by [00:49:27] that, [00:49:28] it may do it in the manner that I previously suggested. And so, that that deal solely was method in front of it, then when it comes to whatever other types the committee has not bound itself is to hell that will be dealt with and the matter can be resolved continuing that path. But, [00:49:53] and, if [00:49:56] this motion is like any other motion, if an actual fact demotion before the house is that the whole bill the considered the endless competent on any member to amended. And he may amended by saying that only for any part one befo considered and part to be late for further consideration by the committee that is speaking, but it's entirely and to do that [00:50:28] I declare the house in committee on the homosexual law reform. [00:50:44] Now, we really [00:50:50] am the house and to be on the homosexual Law Reform Bill considers the question that in accordance with the pack and fit on this committee by wyverns struction the homosexual law reform bill be considered Pat bipap. [00:51:08] Mr. Fitch the [00:51:14] principle that being [00:51:17] to the committee, [00:51:20] what is essentially a conscience issue? [00:51:24] What has been moved by the member in the chair the junior government? [00:51:30] Is that a conscience built of 949 relatively short that very, very important proposal. The Joplin part by now, Mr. Chairman, I know of no pressure, no big where I conscience issue has been put to this panel to be dealt with in this one Indeed, I think it's becoming very, very clear that what is supposed to be a move to compress the device on this bill is, in fact, being aborted because members won't wear [00:52:16] members will not wear, [00:52:18] it would have been better. It would have been better to have allowed the committee to address each of the nine principles and that was adequately as members had wished, rather than to try and impose on the committee. The weight of what essentially is the government to compress the debate into a shorter period of time. [00:52:46] Whether or not the bill is Amanda, and I think the speaker has given a pretty clear indication of [00:52:55] something which the committee will consider and that is that They proposal before the committee be amended, when a member be put to us that at least part one be dealt with separately, because that way that is where the price of the bike will be. And then if the government's going to impose this white of numbers on the committee, that put it got to be dealt with [00:53:25] as I pass, I wouldn't have any objection to that, because, in fact, it comprises to closer to closer if the government wants to deal with part two as a single part and to face the two claws into a single debate, they let us use it muscle in that way. [00:53:46] But for goodness sake, [00:53:48] they had one they dealt with and Parliament expect where the principles [00:53:55] are debated, [00:53:56] one by one, and members are given an adequate opportunity to express deeply held convictions on what is one of the most significant moral issues that this government has put before parliament in a short period of office. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion that this conscience issue be dealt with in this way, because I believe it offends the principles that Parliament expects to be upheld in dealing with important and significant issues of a conscience nature. [00:54:39] Black only. [00:54:43] Remember, the Wellington central [00:54:44] that the [00:54:46] discussion on the bill be taken in part, we have wasted an enormous amount of time tonight discussing this motion. And I suggest, sir, that the time has been wasted because the member for hierarchy has gone back on The agreement, which he came to with the member for Wellington central on the 20th of November last year, in which he agreed that the bill would be taken in part, sir. And I believe we are entitled to an explanation from the member for hell, Ricky, and I invite him to rise next as to why he has changed his mind, sir, because on the 20th of November, he moved the motion in this house that the bill be taken in path. And he spoke Further to that motion and told the house that he was attempting to facilitate the chair so that the metals could be taken together. And he ended his speech by saying that he believed the best result would be achieved in the house if the device was taken in parts as he himself move. Now, sir, health in three months do you go from actually proposing something like that? So then standing up in this house tonight, and saying that emotion almost identical To the one that he moved is now a denial of democracy and railroading through the bill. And I want to know what curious things have gone on in his mind, sir, which have led him to this conclusion exactly the opposite of what he thought three and a half months ago. Why has he changed his mind? Sir? Sir, I believe there are members of the opposition at two of whom at least have spoken who are very embarrassed by the filibustering, which is going on on this method tonight, because of opposition members are doing the job. They would want to be putting up private member's builds on their own on issues of concern to their constituency of a wide ranging kind. And I believe, sir, that common sense among most members of the opposition will tell them that via wasting their time and time which should be spent on their constituents concerns and having some of their colleagues carrying on in this way and they are doing As a service to, to the people who elected them, as I allow this bill to dominate private members business for the best part of the rest of the session of this parliament. So, when the member of the North Shore quite rightly pointed out that up to 47 women's days sitting time could be spent debating the bill if it was taken clause BY clause as some members opposite and now suggesting the member for longer I kept calling. Why not? Will sir when the debate gets to such an illogical, irrational emotional level is that it is almost impossible to deal with that kind of member. I agree. So with the member for y totora, who pointed out that we have already spent an exhaustive amount of time on this bill, every argument which could have been advanced has been [00:57:54] thought about it. What [00:57:58] is it proper Remember to refer to another in the context of events which have already been dealt with by Mr. Speaker, I would assume I'm not saying I know or M right I would assume that is not valid material in the procedure, particularly in a procedural matter of the type we are discussing. [00:58:24] Speaking to the point of automatic. [00:58:27] Chairman, I would assume that even though the member of the founder is no longer with us that I am entitled to rebut points that he made when he was speaking in the house only a short time ago. Anyway, Laura, Laura, [00:58:46] the owner of the house, or [00:58:53] nothing to do with the idea since the prison time any member in the house is entitled to rebut any argument that has been used as part of the bite on the motion before the House. However, it is not, of course, that member has any right, of course, to refer to a ruling that has been already given whether by Mr. Speaker, or by the chairman of the chairman of the committee, but I think the as I have picked it up so far, I might make the move pepakura. I my mind and probably click onto the quickly onto the manner that he might have raised but I'd ask that now that Helen clap might continue. [00:59:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to the non arguments advanced by the member for Congress, who seemed to take a great deal of pleasure in suggesting that 47 women's days would be properly spent in debating this bill clause BY clause and I find no substance in that view that he advancer. Again, I repeat the member for why totora put up a very convincing argument the saying that the house had spent any exhaustive amount of time and was in fact, exhausted. With the biting this measure. We have heard every argument which could be advanced on every aspect of the bill. And I believe that apart from the Death Watch of the members for why cope, why whatever [01:00:18] pepakura [01:00:19] and a few others in the kaggle Thunder Ryan, how rikey, sir, that most members opposite have the common sense to know that we should move on and have private members days on witness days used for more constructive purposes than filibustering on a bill like this for 47 weapons though? [01:00:41] The fallacy and the argument put forward by the member of Mandela is of course, this bill has nothing to do with the National Party. It was a bill goes into the house by a lie that may not believe [01:00:54] the life of him before Wellington Central and vehement vehemently supported by labour members. Tonight [01:01:01] is not arrogant. It [01:01:03] is not an argument of the national party's choice. But it's having been started. There are some of us we will finish it [01:01:14] now said no, no, you listen. [01:01:18] We will finish it because that it is for those sorts of reasons [01:01:21] that we have been sent here now say at the time that the committee was suspended earlier, I had asked the chairman, if he would be good enough, and he undertook to say due to explain the first paragraph of an unsigned three [01:01:39] pages, [01:01:42] and I should all read them. The following proposed was put forward in the light of the conflicts with the end potential conflicts arising from SAP is proposed to the bill to facilitate consideration of the bill in its various amendments. Mr. Chairman, what I think the committee needs to know is [01:01:59] his But [01:02:00] he were passing through the proposal. I mean obviously wasn't the chairman alone [01:02:07] when the diabete [01:02:09] Queen, the diamonds and why should acaba me, [01:02:18] too and I quote [01:02:22] facilitate consideration of complexities and potential conflicts we do that and here [01:02:28] and we should do it inside time. The main of man Albert said Well, our constituents [01:02:36] are concerned about other things, Mr. Chairman, I hundred thousand the name of the Hamilton which would understand this, I hundred thousand people. And that is I figure if [01:02:51] I hundred thousand people [01:02:54] said we do not really wish this major to proceed, let alone Have it ran through the house. now? We're going back in time a bit. Mr. Chairman, I do seek answers to those questions [01:03:10] that the honorable was the best. [01:03:27] We're what [01:03:29] we're discussing here a procedural matter. And we have been on it since [01:03:36] just up to 20 bucks and I [01:03:44] did not want to have the type the opportunity to putting anybody else out of the chamber. But I find that that remark May, just now about another any other member of the House, or whoever's directed, very offensive, [01:03:57] ever looking at the present time, and I'll remind A house that we're not being called to make a judgment or make a decision in the house. Every member will sit solidly unless I call on now we've been debating this metal now for nearly two hours. I think that we've pretty well covered the all the [01:04:21] water that we've covered the pretty well he i said i involved in this meta. [01:04:31] I do think that the member for pepakura did give us some fresh metals and asking questions just now. I'm prepared to allow the debate to continue. Just we'll see just what transpires from now but we don't want any repetition. I think that the house the committee is eager to resolve this one way or the other. But at this point, I will not take the class. Yes, Mr. Kidd spreaker. [01:04:59] Thank Mr. Speaker, [01:05:02] I've listened carefully to number of the contributions in this debate. [01:05:06] And I think it's worth the house reflecting that when it comes to conscience matters, today's majority can easily find itself [01:05:15] to tomorrow's [01:05:16] minority. [01:05:18] And I think, sir, that members [01:05:21] in conscience issues before this half should stay their hand at taIking procedures, which will tend [01:05:33] to irritate the minority [01:05:35] on any particular [01:05:36] cause, or to give the appearance [01:05:40] of a white of numbers, bringing a matter to conclusion [01:05:44] to suit the the point of view of the white of numbers. So, perhaps it's a case of people may find over time in the chamber, that they will be done as I did. And whilst the [01:05:58] government on issues on Its policy [01:06:00] can use its way that numbers and carry through from a sheer power, the the legislative program it brings before the house, I would earnestly come into the house, that that is not appropriate in conscience matters, particularly sir, in matters which guy as I do in this bill without Canvas [01:06:27] in the merits, [01:06:28] I think I could be permitted to say go to the basic fundamentals and the to the very fabric of our society. So I know more on the issues than that. But But what that leads me to say, sir, that there [01:06:41] are perhaps conscience matters and conscience matters. [01:06:44] And I don't think there would be much coral across the dividing lines on this issue, that it is indeed one of those most fundamental matters, going to the fabric of society, and say, sir, [01:06:58] I would stress again Knowledge upon members of the House [01:07:01] that may be by staying their hand I will not necessarily prolong the debate. [01:07:10] I am not persuaded sir [01:07:11] by the clever Eric magicians [01:07:15] here that it might be 47 Wednesdays or another assertion that somewhere between 9097 or 9091 we'll get out of it. I believe the common sense of this house is substantially greater than that. And I know sir from considerable [01:07:31] experience in cheering select committees on [01:07:33] highly contentious bills, [01:07:36] that if you will only let those who feel strongly held back go [01:07:41] soon reaches a point where the matters resolve themselves quite quickly, and some moves with me on controversial bills that were fiercely opposed, will know how tidally things can be brought together, but the mere exertion of pressure and appropriately to Always to prolong the matter in the end, because if the method is to be taken [01:08:06] in parts, and of course, we're going to talk about part one, because there's only one operative clause in [01:08:11] part two, then Sir, I would suggest that it was Vich. Without prejudging the matter, if it comes to question [01:08:18] is virtually inconceivable that a speaker [01:08:22] could take a closure on part one until the bite was exhausted, just as in earlier stages, the speaker showed quite wisely in a number of indications to the house, and I felt was a special lesson to be taken from those indications to the house, that it was not appropriate to bring down the hammer on this type of thing. Now, if we take the house with to be advised by the indications that Mr. Speakers given us, and by that central fact that today's majority might find themselves tomorrow's minority in conscience matter. I think they would be well advised. [01:09:02] Friend while [01:09:03] Shimon effect but it's important [01:09:04] to reply to some of the implications made by the member [01:09:07] from Barbara. [01:09:09] I, my understanding of what he said just now was that the government [01:09:13] was intending to use weight of numbers to move this. [01:09:20] Okay, well, I want to assure the house in the country that the government is not voting as a government on this issue, in fact that as a conscience bill, and so is this particular proposal. And in fact, the house knows that I can recall at least two members of the opposition so far this evening whom voted to have rather spoken for the proposition that I have put before the house but the other thing I think is important that members recall that this is not simply [01:09:47] a proposal to save [01:09:48] time of the house, although [01:09:50] I believe that the 31 hours which [01:09:53] it would give for the Part one is adequate, and I think it would save some time it would give us 31 hours of debate. [01:09:59] It is also an attempt to try to have some coherent [01:10:05] and intelligent debate on the subject, [01:10:07] which I do not believe we would get [01:10:09] if we took it in the narrow [01:10:13] within the narrow range permitted by each of the amendments and each of the clauses because [01:10:18] they are interrelated. And I would repeat again the arguments that were [01:10:28] environment. [01:10:31] before the committee [01:10:32] went before the house we did to the Committee stage, the same arguments apply. Now it's the same motion and the middle of a hierarchy at that stage accepted that for the sake of having a decent debate, it is actually better to take the part as a whole then clause BY clause. [01:10:54] I I take objection. [01:11:00] The member from the calculus spoken. [01:11:04] Members, I [01:11:05] understand [01:11:06] that you're required to call members have not [01:11:08] yet spoken. I understand that [01:11:10] my colleagues in southern Mary has not yet spoken to this cause and never asked that you call her. That's not the point. I [01:11:15] got the call. [01:11:17] I had only heard the call of the name before I made [01:11:24] the move from from position to position. I think maybe for Southern Mary's quite [01:11:31] the honorable lady, please do so. [01:11:33] I know. I'll call on Mr. Jones. I heard I heard he heard Mr. James dare at one. The only voice that I heard and I caught on on you and your court of speak. [01:11:42] Mr. Chairman, it's quite obvious to me that this is a ploy to hurry this bill through. And I take root of the objection to the ministry of health data to the cabin here. It doesn't sound too much disposition to do too much about the age question this country not too much. Come on here and move a closure, just because it suits him not to have some embarrassing glitches when he's spending 7.6 million as the as the New South Wales parliament is doing on a. And I need to have some concern about it, because they've got 69 cases here and [01:12:17] 42 days or [01:12:19] whatever. It. So just using a debating point rebuttal. [01:12:25] Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to pull him in the back to the debate and question, which is whether or not the course the bill should be taken, and perhaps I don't believe the material. Well, all [01:12:35] right. Education. Is it all relevant? [01:12:36] Right? Well, I think the name is just began to open up and if he's not to replace [01:12:44] nada, nada. That's enough of that noise. [01:12:48] I think he was just developing his argument that I think the point was made by the member for Wellington Central. Was it sound reasonable, I would ask the name before Invercargill to concentrate on the issue before says do, indeed whether we should take this [01:13:07] path by path as I was thinking. [01:13:10] And I shall telegraph my intentions at some later call, which I'm entitled to more to, to move an amendment later on. The third one be taken clause BY clause and the path to be taken path as a path. As far as I'm concerned, I came here to talk to seven clauses, seven clauses and fat one, all of which are very relevant to this bill. And I'm getting a little bit concerned that the way things are going as a number of members were getting suspended and kicked out of this house. And we've already got we've already got three of our members overseas at the moment won't be back for three weeks. And I'm sure the member and I'm sure the member for Wellington central as well aware, as well aware that the four members obviously three of them are violently opposed to this bill and only one for it and she can count the same. And there was another one that's one of the reason Archie's key to get it through, and the next three weeks. Another reason is, Mr. Chairman, another reason is that she's been given the lobbying list. She has the lobbying list of the state of the power given by the homosexual law people as a January this year, and I've got it here in front of me. Yes, you gotta, I gotta and and I can tell you now that the voting is that they've got about 23 had four members go vote for everything in this bill. Irrespective [01:14:30] what I just found the material now being used in this part of the debate. not relevant Nick up, Mr. Chairman, [01:14:36] I believe it's very relevant. It's triggering up the reasons why the member for Wellington central is anxious to get this bill through Pat bypass, in which I'm only allowed to debate the one pass including seven poses four times. Whereas in fact, I want to speak to those because at least one stage so even if I only speak to the each pause, one, which was only my intention to do, I'm going to Project three goals on relevant cause, which, particularly with the Ministry of Health, or the concerned about with changing sodomy, under the actor I know is the cause and the Minister of Health. And come tell me what's the difference between Solomon 800 Plus, I'd like to know, when he's talking about 16 year olds being allowed to legally sodomized each other and 12 years budget, they are most relevant things. And to come into this house and talk about presidents with the goods and services tech close by close dozens and dozens of clothes, which is health. What a great to show we had a device on this in 74. It's now it six surely is not too much to allow that this house when we're in the committee stages, it's not the fault of this house that this bill took so long to get to this stage. But all I can say is that the public museum will not stand bar late MCs push through when I know quite well that is the moment of this village, push to In the next couple of weeks, that this race for board members who would be voting against the bill that aren't here, and she's not going to tell me that she doesn't know that, and as far as I'm concerned, I intend to move at a future date telegraph that will take part one clause BY clause and part two, which quite frankly, isn't going to get through which has got three patents. But there are seven floors in this bill. And every single one of them I don't believe I go along with a member for Barbara that the only the people that have got something relevant to CERN would get up into bite each close. I've got now and taste the fighting the seven causes, but I'm looking for my right to do so. Now not having object object of lobby from the socialist benches, who pastors at their conference. We know that they've got to do it as a matter of policy. We know it's a matter of policy for their family, or irrespective the fact that it's a conscience vote, the approves the constant vote. Why is like why is this Junior whip? Push again. Why is the chairman of the committee sitting there now, Diana left damage in that committee by ignoring by ignoring the signatures of 835,000 users now i can assure him that if this bill is passed, it's still not the end of it that the legislature this house, have a fair go tonight. And next Wednesday night, the following Wednesday, and I think they're gonna push it through. Next Wednesday, they got another thing coming. I've got to kill the grass effects. I want to move them into this particular motion that that one be taken and separate causes and the top to be taken back by Pat. Sullivan, [01:17:43] Chairman. [01:17:46] If it when the previous speaker can move the amendment, I would be pleased to second it because I have no doubt that part one should infect discussed close by close not only because of the vast implications of these clauses individually, but because of the totally significant changes that would be signal to our society if collectively by a path we must discuss these clauses in detail. I want to remind members of the House that 80% of this bill is actually part of part one in the several clauses of their vast implications for our society. For instance, I remind the house that in Clause three is concerned with indecency with boys 11 years and under. Now, that is something of such concern to the vast majority of New Zealanders we members, we the members of this house must discuss that particular subject relating to that age range. Now, there is only one of the seven clauses in part one that is closed three. In fact, it is itself a very major cause with many parts. Part of it relates to indecency with boys 1312 1314 and 15. And when you consider the significance of boys of that age, the time of their development within those years that demands the right to be discussed in detail. In fact, collectively taken Collectively, these first path in its several causes, seeks to decriminalize consensual act in such a manner, that by implication, these various parts of part one, imply that such a quite normal and natural and therefore, socially and morally permissible, Mr. Chairman, that is a major change in the attitude and the fabric and the values and the ethics of the society and deserve The most serious concern members of this house most serious because of the major and dramatic change, for we all know that at the moment, there is in fact no law in New Zealand which makes it a crime to be a homosexual [01:21:26] there is no law [01:21:30] the status of homosexuality is not itself defined as criminal. That is a present position. But the various clauses in part one [01:21:41] change all that [01:21:45] so that it is taken as acceptable [01:21:50] behavior. Now that takes a bath, Lee [01:21:55] that it has been an it has ever been In fact, it will take it further than most countries have, by way of legislation. So, I must demand the right to express my concern, especially representing the people that I do. And when I look at the part which in one because of these first forces in part one where I can see that card, which considers it to be a defense to a charge, under the section relating to indecency with boys between 12 and 16, that it can be proven that the boy calm centered. Now, when it comes to [01:22:48] the people I represent, [01:22:51] I know that can be construed more readily, and it might be by those in that group in any Other ethnic group in this country is as I am concerned, what can be construed and I want to debate. [01:23:09] Richard naughty. [01:23:11] The question be now put [01:23:17] the question has been before the committee previously that is that the question being output. [01:23:24] On that occasion It was a judge that the arguments have been pretty well rehearsed as they were like this pretty narrow consideration. And I would be I would be inclined to accept the emotional I'll hear the the member Elizabeth wants to draw to your attention that [01:23:46] member has foreshadowed menma which has not [01:23:51] yet been title. [01:23:53] And the substance of the amendment really has not been adequately dealt with [01:23:57] by well today. I [01:23:58] just want to dispute the That's your condition. So the secondary consideration in [01:24:04] judging the will of the country should be accepted. [01:24:10] Yes, I don't want to cut off the amendment, which I believe has now been tabled. [01:24:16] In proper form has been made. And second. [01:24:20] I say it's in the process of being table. Well, that being so I think that we should allow that, that amendment to be properly worded and dirty table. [01:24:33] The [01:24:36] question before the House of the Mammon is the homosexual law reform bill be considered bad bypass? [01:24:45] Chairman, [01:24:47] I move an amendment [01:24:48] to the motion before the house, [01:24:51] that the words have bipod be deleted [01:24:53] of the motion. And now read that in accordance the paragraph compete on this committee by way of instruction, the homosexual law reform will be considered pause by calls [01:25:09] and speaking time be strictly in accordance with standing orders. [01:25:17] What the members love me for the neighborhood has moved that [01:25:23] amendment be good enough to repeat it. So that it can be carpeted the table also require the member to table is written amendment. You removed your duty meant to tabled. [01:25:39] So I move [01:25:42] by way of amendment [01:25:47] so I moved by way of amendment to the motion before the house that the words part by part be deleted. [01:25:55] And the motion now read [01:25:58] that accordance with a pelican On this committee by way of instruction, the homosexual law reform bill be considered [01:26:08] clause BY clause. [01:26:12] Part One, [01:26:14] and that [01:26:16] speaking times based strictly in accordance [01:26:20] standing orders, and I have that in writing, I think as well. [01:26:30] I would have to rule that the amendment that has been tabled as a negative of the of the motion that was before the committee and I therefore cannot accept that that amendment [01:26:44] a point of order, [01:26:45] Mr. Norman giant, accept your ruling that I've created the fact that the Original Motion referred to Pat's back to the whole Bill had to be taken fat by fat that included that one end to that my colleagues motion only refers to pattern Therefore, this could have a be a direct negative of the whole motion because he's the feeling that path to be taken as a full patent is only part one be taken because because he did specifically mentioned that one only thing that [01:27:14] he making to the point of order [01:27:16] to store your attention to the fact that part two of the bill will not be affected by the by the the original motion that I have bought in the sense that there is only one [01:27:28] clause that will be debatable anyway. And, and in fact, this is a negation of the original [01:27:34] under those circumstances. [01:27:37] can appreciate the [01:27:40] speaking to the phone, [01:27:42] channel, my Skype back to the [01:27:46] decision by the speaker tonight. [01:27:48] Now, his decision [01:27:50] to bring that into [01:27:51] the device, but he did [01:27:52] suggest that it was competent for the committee [01:27:56] to amend the motion so that only one time Tell [01:28:00] us why [01:28:02] he invited you to the committee to think about that. This is exactly what somebody's done. [01:28:07] Yes, I can. I can concur with the, with the situation which the member Franklin has described, which is that there is an amendment which can be very helpful, but it should be moved. But an amendment in the form that would be appropriate, has not so far been tabled. And so typically, what we have in front of us is a text which is [01:28:29] in its detail. [01:28:33] allegation of the motion now before the house, that's the difficulty that I have. And Miss. The chair can pretty soon receive from from the sponsors of the amendment. [01:28:47] Something which is consistent with the speed with the standing orders on the subject. [01:28:50] Then we will proceed the phone to Genesis Chairman, I

This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It is not a transcript, it has not been checked by humans and will contain many errors. However it is useful for searching on keywords and themes.