Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Perhaps I should make a few preliminary comments before Mr Chauvel makes a contribution. The main changes in Part 1 deal with the creation of the position of deputy commissioner. This person, as with the commissioner, will be appointed on the nomination of the House. The Attorney-General is required to consult the Chief Justice about the proposed appointment, and the deputy commissioner will act when the commissioner has a conflict of interest or is otherwise unavailable to examine complaints.

The provisions as reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee are unchanged from the bill as introduced. There are, however, a couple of changes, which are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108. They relate to disposal of complaints, and they are designed to give the commissioner a greater ability or a greater discretion to deal with complaints in a particular way. There are minor amendments to section 15 and consequential amendments to sections 16 and 17.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I would like the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General, to amplify the comments he has just made about the Judicial Matters Bill. One of the issues that Labour has with regard to this legislation is that although Labour is supportive of the substantive provisions—as we originally advised during the first reading, and as was our position at the Justice and Electoral Committee—it is of concern that the changes proposed on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Chris Finlayson are significant. Perhaps that is not so much the case in respect of the amendments to clauses10(1), 11, 12, and 12A. I can see that the Minister would want to characterise those amendments as being machinery changes. I imagine that he will tell the Committee that those amendments are improvements that have been made on reflection and on the advice of officials following the select committee process. But I think it would be helpful if we were to have a little more explanation of why these changes are being introduced by means of a Supplementary Order Paper rather than through the normal process, even if they are relatively minor. Indeed, the changes may well be improvements. If they are, and if the Attorney-General can enlighten us as to why that is, it may well be that we will support those parts of them.

I do, though, foreshadow a concern about the other matters that are proposed to be dealt with on that Supplementary Order Paper. They are more substantive matters, but they do not relate to this part, so I will not speak to them substantively. I do foreshadow to the Attorney-General that we have a concern about bringing them in, in particular at this late stage, without the scrutiny of a select committee or debate. That is a matter to which I will return.

The other thing that would, I think, be useful to the Committee, while members have the benefit of the presence of the Attorney-General as the Minister in the chair, would be for the Attorney-General go back over the general philosophy of his party relating to the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It is the case that, as he acknowledged in his first reading speech, initially the National Party opposed this office. I think in Chris Finlayson’s second reading speech on this bill we heard from him that that position had changed, but we did not really hear why it had changed. Given the vehemence of the comments that came from him and his colleagues when the original measure came to the House, it would be helpful if we were to get that sort of explanation. I remind the Attorney-General that at the time of the original proposal for the creation of the office he said: “This bill will not be supported by the National Party. The material dealing with the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner is as misconceived as the contents of the substantive legislation.” Not only the amendment but also the whole notion of this process—this backstop measure; this measure of confidence—was something that National stood against.

I think it would be helpful for the Committee to be given an explanation of National’s change of position, given the relatively scant recantation that, shall we say, occurred at the second reading debate, and given the substantive policy reversal that we now see. We are pleased about that. We do support the primary legislation, as I have said. We think this is a useful measure to encourage confidence in the judiciary, and we are delighted that the National Party has changed its mind and the Minister is now progressing with this legislation, which began its life as a Labour measure. But given the vehemence with which National originally opposed the legislation, given that we have not had a real explanation for its change of heart, and also given that we have not really had the new provisions proposed in this part explained to us in any way, or described in terms of how they are a correct and proper improvement, it would be good to hear substantively from the Minister on those points.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : The member Charles Chauvel raises a couple of substantive points that are worthy of reply. The first relates to the alleged call on the road-to-Damascus change of view. There was a real concern on the part of my party about interference with the conduct of the judiciary. Having spoken, however, to the Chief Justice and other members of the judiciary, we found they were of the opinion that after a couple of years their initial concerns had evaporated and they felt that the post was relieving the heads of benches of numerous complaints that tended to be made and that there was a filtering system that was put in place. On that basis we were prepared to change our minds. Changing one’s mind is not necessarily a sign of weakness; it can often be a sign of strength, I say to Mr Chauvel. What we are now seeking to do is to ensure that the commissioner is not placed under a huge burden with the number of complaints that are being lodged these days. Sometimes, inevitably, as the member will know, in a relatively small jurisdiction there will be conflicts of interest or other reasons why the commission is unable to deal with the matter. That is why it is proposed that there be a deputy judicial complaints officer.

As the member would know, because he was in partnership with the commissioner Sir David Gascoigne, for example, a number of the member’s and Sir David’s former partners have been appointed to the bench, and it would be rather difficult for the commissioner to have to deal with any complaints against those judges. That is why, having listened to the judiciary and having listened to submissions on the part of the Law Society, the Government, or the National Party, was prepared to change its mind.

I come to the other point the member raised. If the member looks at section 15 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004, one sees that the commission is required to conduct a preliminary examination of a complaint and then the commissioner—if one looks at subsection (4)—may make inquiries into the complaint that he thinks is appropriate, obtain documents, and consult the head of bench. Then in subsection (5), having completed the preliminary examination, the commissioner may take certain steps. The commissioner can dismiss the complaint, refer it to the head of bench, or recommend the appointment of a judicial conduct panel.

Commissioners have found that for some complaints a complainant can be satisfied following an explanation or an apology by the judge. What normally happens, as I understand it, is the commissioner will write to the judge who is the subject of complaint and ask for at least a preliminary response. Then on the basis of that there may, for example, be an apology, and that could be considered to be the end of the matter. The new section enables the commissioner not to take further action in respect of a complaint if the commission is satisfied that further consideration of the complaint would in all the circumstances be unjustified. It is really just giving the commissioner additional powers in order to deal with the matter.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I want to speak on this part of the Judicial Matters Bill, not to make an enormous substantive contribution, but to ask the Attorney-General whether he thinks this is the sort of legislation that should be passed under urgency or whether this is the sort of legislation that should be carefully considered. There is a degree of agreement, certainly around this part of it, and one that has developed over a period of time; we think that is good.

The question I have is whether the Minister, as Attorney-General, thinks it is good lawmaking practice to ram this sort of legislation through the House under urgency. The House is sitting under urgency, and there is chaos. There was a point of order yesterday that took about one and a half question times—just for one point of order. The House has not been well organised. The Attorney-General, as the chief legal officer of Parliament, has responsibility, along with the Leader of the House, for process. The process under which this legislation is being addressed is shambolic, and I want to know what responsibility he is taking for that.

I want to know whether the Attorney-General has advised the Leader of the House that in taking this approach to this bill, which it is fair to say is constitutional in its approach, it is one that should properly be dealt with under urgency or, using the words of Steven Joyce at the Cabinet table, “whether the optics are good about this or not.” “Are the optics of this good?”, I ask the Attorney-General, or is the bill something that could probably have easily been dealt with in a much shorter period? We would not therefore be having speeches like this or, I am sure, like some that will follow, other than under urgency.

As I have indicated, as far as this part of the bill is concerned Labour will be supporting it. Whether we will be supporting it to the closure is a discussion that we are currently having. It is good that we have a careful look at it. But is it necessary to waste Parliament’s time by taking a bill of this type? I do not want to say that it is not important, and that there will not be some things later where there will be some more—

Charles Chauvel: It’s important.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, the bill is very important, but it is not urgent. It is also a bill that could have been dealt with on its merits, rather than by having a big debate about the process—if the process had been organised properly.

The essence of the point that I want to make to the Attorney-General is that he needs to take some responsibility. He was the one who was parading around town saying he wanted to be a QC, or thinking he would be a QC, before he became a member of Parliament. He was someone who was so upset, on procedural matters, that he might be turned down by a previous Attorney-General, for that sort of thing; “prissy” I think was the word that was used around the place, as to his approach. So I ask what has happened to those principles. What has happened to the Christopher Finlayson who wanted to be a QC, and to the proper approach to lawmaking that he used to promote? He might have changed his mind on the substance of this bill, and I congratulate him on catching up with people who were well-briefed back in those times. I think it is good that he admits now that he was wrong then. But does he think that this is the sort of process that should happen? Is he associating himself with Gerry Brownlee’s chaotic handling of this House over the last week? It has been absolutely chaotic; an opportunity was turned down to have things done in an organised and proper manner. He will get much, much less through Parliament than he would have, had he accepted that opportunity. Longer time was spent on one point of order than on an entire question time, and now we have the chief legal officer of Parliament ramming constitutional legislation through this House, under urgency, in a manner that is just inappropriate.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : I have already expressed, in the second reading of the Judicial Matters Bill, the Green Party’s support for this important but not urgent bill, especially in regard to Part 1. But in this intervention I will address just one matter. In a sense it is a procedural matter not unlike that which has just been articulated. It has to do with Supplementary Order Paper 108, submitted by the Attorney-General. That Supplementary Order Paper would, among other things, insert a new section 16A, as I understand it, in the Judicial Matters Bill, which in turn would amend section 9 of the District Courts Act 1947. That amendment would specify that higher duties allowances—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is actually speaking on new Part 1A. We are on Part 1, so I ask the member to concentrate on Part 1.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Thank you. I will wait until the next part comes up.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I will follow on from the comments that my colleague Trevor Mallard made, because we should not be debating this bill under urgency. I know that Hansard will record that this contribution was made on 23 February, but I think that in fact—I do not have my diary with me—we are up to 25 February. That means that—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not in here, we’re not.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, for Parliament, time stands still. Most people do not know about the effect of the urgency motion: the day stops on the day that the urgency motion is adopted by the House, and then we are essentially extending the sitting hours of the House so that even though we get to go home to bed at midnight and come back at 9 o’clock in the morning, in actual fact Parliament shows itself as sitting on the same day—in this case, 23 February.

Normally at this time I would be chairing the Commerce Committee—a very, very good committee. I think that other members of the House would agree—

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Good chair.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Good deputy chair over there, as well. We are very effective. And Charles Chauvel would be chairing the Regulations Review Committee. He is a very good chair of that committee; it is a very good committee.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no. It sat this morning. We dealt with the business.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Oh! Well, the point I am making is that other business of the House would be being conducted in other forums if this bill were not going through under urgency.

I think Mr Mallard missed one essential point about the nature of this legislation. Even though we agree with Part 1—we were the Government that introduced Part 1—we will have a further debate about moving amendments, under urgency, to what is a constitutional bill. That is the point Mr Mallard did not pick up on—this is a constitutional bill. Judicial matters bills always are constitutional bills; that is why the Attorney-General is the Minister in the chair.

This bill is not a matter for the Minister of Justice; it is a matter for the Attorney-General. I am very pleased we are debating Part 1. I also congratulate the Attorney-General on having the integrity—

Charles Chauvel: The grace.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: —the grace, to say that after reflection on practice, the situation is different from how he expected it to be.

But there is a little bit that kind of sticks in my throat—just a little—and I thought I would cover some of the things the Attorney-General said when he was of a different mindset. First of all, he talked about the ridiculous nature of the regime. He said that in 2004 National had opposed the substantive legislation. He said: “We said that it was an unwarranted attack on judicial independence and that it would encourage ineffective and stupid complaints—in fact, that it would encourage a culture of complaints.” Later on in that same commentary, he said: “Of course, judges can be rude, grumpy, or discourteous. In many cases one can hardly blame them, given the quality of submissions they have to hear from lawyers. But are we such a weak-kneed, sissy society that if a judge barks at us we have to run off to some judicial complaints body?”

I think that that was spoken by a true list MP. If that member had ever had a constituent in his office talking about how he or she felt about judges—not just the decisions but the way in which the constituent was treated and spoken to by the judge; sarcasm, no eye contact—the member would know that those are all things that lead to a grievous sense of grievance. It is much worse, often, than it is at the beginning of court proceedings.

I had such a constituent in my office last week, and I can understand how he felt. I also understand the message the judge was trying to give, but there was a total disconnect. Therefore, there was a complaint. I see this judicial complaints process as a steam valve on what would otherwise be a pressure cooker environment. It is not for lawyers that the complaints provisions exist; it is for the ordinary people who live along the street, who end up in a court environment, and who find themselves on the receiving end of something more than rudeness, grumpiness, discourtesy, or a lack of grace; it is a complete lack of a meeting of the minds.

People often think they can effect change by court proceedings. I think that the Attorney-General and I would probably agree that that is not possible. So neighbourhood disputes end up in our courts when they should never end up there. People want to prove they are right, so others have to be proved wrong, but the court is not the place to prove those sorts of things. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner has really helped in that process.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I rise to support the Judicial Matters Bill, and also to record my support for the submissions that have been made by earlier speakers as to process. I think it would have been desirable if this bill had not been considered under urgency, and I think it would have been desirable that the changes proposed by a Supplementary Order Paper were made in some other way. The points have been well made by earlier speakers, and I will not add to them. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : I rise to take a short call on the Judicial Matters Bill. I record Labour’s support for the bill, and its opposition to the Supplementary Order Papers. As the previous two speakers have noted, this bill affects matters of a constitutional nature. It is largely above politics and is about the conduct of judicial behaviour. The important place of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in our system is recorded, as is the need for judicial conduct panels.

The main provisions of the bill include establishing the new office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner, appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives, after the House has been advised by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has to consult the Chief Justice on that recommendation. The function of the deputy commissioner is to carry out the duties of the commissioner in relation to complaints during his or her absence from office or incapacity. Of course, on occasion the commissioner can face potential conflicts of interest, and if those arise the deputy commissioner will be able to step in. That is all in the name of ensuring that the conduct review process is quite clearly beyond reproach, as is appropriate, and I am sure that the Attorney-General, who is sitting in the chair, would agree.

The bill gives to the commissioner a power to take no further action in respect of a complaint if he or she is satisfied that further consideration of that complaint would, in all the circumstances, be unjustified. That is a magnificent legal truism; none the less it speaks to a point, which is that there needs to be discretion on the part of the commissioner to decline to deal further with complaints that might be, for example, of a vexatious or frivolous nature, or complaints that in the commissioner’s view are outside the powers or role of the office of the commissioner. That power is in addition to the three current powers to dismiss the complaint if it is vexatious, to pass the complaint on to a judge who is a superior to the one subject to complaint, or to set up a special judicial conduct panel.

I guess it goes to the point that my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel made, which is that we should not ignore the possibility that judges themselves can come under pressure. It is a difficult job. They receive variable submissions, and they have to deal with a large number of clients who find themselves in all sorts of different circumstances. Judges come under some enormous time pressures, and from time to time they can show that pressure. I think it is also important for us to note that judges are human. Judges themselves bring to the courtroom their own perspectives and they reflect their own backgrounds, and from time to time, unusual as it is, those factors may cause a judge to demonstrate behaviours that might not, in other circumstances, be appropriate. It is also fair to say that a large number of our judges are male, a large number of them are relatively senior in years, and most of them are Caucasian. Those factors all bring a certain inherent perspective, and it is important that we have processes that provide assurance to the public that no matter what the background or constitution of the judge, they will be entitled to a fair legal hearing before the courts.

I think members across this Chamber would be of the view that one of the great treasures of living in New Zealand is that we have a legal system that, by and large, functions pretty well and accords to New Zealanders the opportunity to have their business heard, should they need to, in a fair and just manner. That is why, of course, we have things like legal aid. It is important that justice is available for all; that cases are decided primarily on the merit of the case, not on the size of the wallet; and that access to justice reflects the constitutional rights of every citizen. This bill is one small way of enhancing the process of further buttressing the review mechanisms within the process, to ensure that unfortunate biases or errors of behaviour can be dealt with. As such, in general, the Labour Party supports it.

Labour will be voting against Supplementary Order Papers 108 and 109, and I will take just a moment to explain why. According to the explanatory note, Supplementary Order Paper 108 will give the commissioner an added option, after the preliminary examination, to refer the complaint, if substantiated, to the head of bench, under section 17 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. Of course, a number of consequential amendments flow from that amendment. It will increase from 140 to 156 the maximum number of District Court judges. It will authorise the payment of higher duties allowances to High Court judges serving in the Court of Appeal so that they rest on a more secure constitutional foundation—what a lovely turn of phrase.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The substance of the member’s speech is now relating to new Part 1A. We are on Part 1.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for that clarification. I thought it appropriate to mention the overall position that the Labour Party is taking, but I take the guidance of the Chair that it is not appropriate in this part of the debate to go into the detail of those Supplementary Order Papers. I merely record the fact that the Labour Party will be opposing both Supplementary Order Paper 108 and Supplementary Order Paper 109.

In continuing, I note that the current Attorney-General raised a number of objections when in Opposition during the first reading. He said: “That is the National Party approach—do it subtly, but do it effectively.” I think that comment bears remarking upon, perhaps more in its general context. A very active debate is going on in this country about whether the hallmark of the current Government is subtlety or effectiveness, in the words of the Attorney-General. Those of the “subtlety” view, including many in the business community, are of the view that the Government is so subtle that it is almost impossible to discern its direction of travel. That has been one of the main responses of the commentariat to the Prime Minister’s opening speech to the House. Certainly in the economic policy area, which is for a debate different from today’s, there is a great deal of concern in the business community about whether the Government’s intentions are clear enough and whether there is a coherent strategy that would allow the economy to expand and create jobs. Labour members would welcome further elucidation of the Government’s intentions in that sphere, because try as we might, we are not quite sure how the so-called pillars of change add up to a substantial positive impact on the economy. That is the “subtlety” school of thought.

The “effectiveness” school of thought, which gives some members of the business community comfort, is that the Government really does have a significant plan for change up its sleeve, but it does not yet wish to tell New Zealanders what it is, because they might not like it. The “effectiveness” school tends to the view that many of these things will be revealed in the Government’s second term, if it is fortunate enough to have one, and that in the second term we might see the Government showing a more—what would be a good, judicial phrase? It could be “a more flagrant”—perhaps not. It could be “a more unmasked determination to deliver to core stakeholders”, as they might put it.

I am admittedly drawing a bit of a tangential bow from the, as always, perspicacious semantic approach of the Attorney-General. He has nailed National’s approach: “do it subtlety, but do it effectively.” In so doing, I think the Committee would congratulate this one office holder on unifying these two strands of thought about the nature of this Government. He has unified them in one sentence, and he has said they are both right.

Charles Chauvel: He’s their philosophical oracle.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As my colleague has pointed out, he is their philosophical icon—was that the word?

Charles Chauvel: Their oracle.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: He is their oracle. He has gone beyond icon to oracle. No doubt we will be addressing him as Sir Christopher Finlayson before long.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: No.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Attorney-General, I am told, is a republican and for that reason would not accept the title of Sir, were it proffered. I see he is not rising to his feet. I wonder whether he wishes to clarify, for the record, whether he is a republican—my understanding is that he is—and whether he would turn down the title of Sir if offered, but presumably not during the first term of office. Automatic knighthoods for all members of Cabinet are one of those second-term things.

We look forward to the day when the true nature of this Government comes to full blossom.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I should clarify just one matter. After having consulted colleagues and having heard the Attorney-General’s explanation of the new changes proposed in Part 1, the Labour Party finds itself in the position of being compelled to vote against Supplementary Order Paper 108 in its entirety. This is a procedural point; it is about the undesirability of bringing this matter before the Committee, both under urgency and by way of Supplementary Order Paper rather than through the select committee process. Obviously Supplementary Order Paper 109, the measure simply to divide the bill, will not be opposed.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 1 be agreed to.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : We now come to what is to be Part 1A. I will go through the motions, notwithstanding the information of Mr Chauvel, and then we will have to take further steps. As required by Standing Order 299, I seek the leave of the Committee to move the amendment to the District Courts Act set out in Supplementary Order Paper 108, which is the new Part 1A amendment to the Judicial Matters Bill. Leave is required because the amendment is a substantive one to an Act not amended by the bill as introduced. All parties represented in the Committee were actually consulted on the amendment, and until this morning my understanding was that all parties had indicated they would support this course of action.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that course of action.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just seek clarification in terms of that consultation, because there may be some misunderstanding here. If we gave an undertaking that we would support that legislation, I would like that to be clarified before we take the vote, if that is possible.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My understanding is that the undertaking was for the support of the consideration—not necessarily for support of the amendment—so that the amendment can come back to be debated now. That is my understanding. Is that acceptable? Do you understand the position?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I think I understand the position. I was confused.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : I move, That the Committee report progress and ask to sit again presently.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue that has arisen is in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper on the Judicial Matters Bill. What was proposed was that leave be sought—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker, he is talking to a bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: You have called a bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): No, I have a point of order—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes, you have called a bill, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Please sit down. The member has raised a point of order. He said it was a point of order, and I am hearing it. I have not yet determined whether it is a point of order, but the member has raised a point of order and I need to hear it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He cannot raise it on a bill that is not before the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will determine that.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am dealing with a procedural matter, if the member would listen carefully. Because leave was denied in relation to part of Supplementary Order Paper 108, the House reported progress. Because of the numbers of people standing, around here, I was not in a position to stand up and move a motion in relation to seeking leave that the Committee deal with that particular part of the Supplementary Order Paper, which is the motion that I was seeking to deal with. But you, Mr Assistant Speaker, then moved on to item No. 5 on the Order Paper.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : The first point I make is that that is not a point of order because it is not relevant to the bill that is currently before the House, which is the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. There was an opportunity for, and we were expecting, Mr Finlayson to move a motion. We were waiting for him to move a motion; he did not. He missed it. What happened then was that the Clerk called the next bill and you offered the call repeatedly. I tried to get the call; my colleague Maryan Street tried to get the call. I tried to get a Minister to speak on the bill that is currently before the House. Neither of the two Ministers who were in the House, the Attorney-General or the Minister for Social Development and Employment, rose. You called repeatedly for a Minister; a Minister did not rise. I am not quite sure what happens now. I think possibly we might even move on to the next business. I think it is a matter of getting advice. But it is very, very clear that the Minister now—and there has been one call on that bill—has an ability to adjourn the House, if he wants to. He can take a call on that bill and adjourn the House, or he can wait for another couple of calls and at that point move a motion to get the House back into Committee. But for at least two calls now, a Government call and an Opposition call, we are on the student loan legislation.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) : I was watching events on television—this is a high-rating programme—and saw what happened. I clearly heard you call Government order of the day No. 5. I saw the Clerk stand and read out the name of that bill. I then heard, although the microphone was not live, the unmistakable sound of the call of Mr Mallard saying: “Mr Speaker! Mr Speaker—”, and I heard you say that you were seeking advice.

Clearly, Mr Mallard cannot be the first speaker on a Government bill, because a Minister is required to move a motion with regard to the second reading. Mr Mallard points out that neither Minister present in the Chamber did move so, so we are in a quandary. There is no question that we have moved on from the Judicial Matters Bill; I think that is clear. We have called Government order of the day No. 5 and we are on to that. However, I see that the Minister of Revenue, Mr Dunne, has arrived. The bill is in his name. I think that for the best sense of order, the most appropriate thing would be for Mr Dunne now to move the second reading of this bill so that we can proceed. Otherwise, I think we are at an impasse that cannot otherwise be resolved. I cannot seek leave on behalf of another member, but we would have no objection if Mr Dunne sought leave to take a call at this time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I do not need any further assistance. I think the only thing we are very clear of is that the House is in a somewhat confused state. Even in the report of the proceedings in the Committee there was some question about how that was summed up and presented. I can understand there being some element of confusion about that. Consequently, the Hon Christopher Finlayson may not have had quite the opportunity to make the point he was going to make. In any case, I have called Government order of the day No. 5. Only a Minister can respond to that, and that is why I could not give the call to the members who were both seeking it. I think they understand that. I am prepared to take a call from a Minister on Government order of the day No. 5.