Supreme Court Bill

Mr Speaker, I have been challenged on my understanding of Standing Order 301, “Amendments of member in charge”, which states: “The member in charge of a bill can require that all amendments in that member’s name to a provision be put as one question.” I pointed out that the Minister has the right to place the amendments where he or she chooses to do so, and that has been the custom for some considerable time. By doing it that way, it means other members can have their amendments voted on. Otherwise, those amendments in turn could be ruled out of order. That has not been accepted, and you have been recalled to give a Speaker’s ruling.

I suggest that the issue arises around the somewhat unusual wording of Standing Order 301. We are debating Part 1 and a series of members’ amendments have been put to the vote. The issue then arose as to whether the amendments of the Minister in charge of the bill would be put as one question. That is clearly contemplated by the first sentence of Standing Order 301. But it is more complicated than that. I am saying, with respect, that the Chairperson is not prepared to give meaning to the second sentence: “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill.” I suggest that there has been a clear breach of the second sentence, and that there are two possibilities for action. Possibility No. 1 is to suspend the Standing Orders in the face of that breach. Possibility No. 2, which is the possibility preferred by National, is that the amendments be revoted on in strict accordance with the second sentence of the Standing Order.

The second element is the meaning of the word “provision” as it appears in Standing Order 301, which allows the member to elect to have all amendments relating to a provision to be put as one. If “provision” in that sentence is to be read as “part”, then all the member’s amendments may be put at the beginning, and subsequent ones will perhaps be ruled out. If it just means “clause”, then the interpretation contended by the National Opposition will apply in any event, or there will be assistance for it. When the vote was called, it is not entirely clear that that was stated. I do not recall the exact words the Chair referred to. It could be that they were to all the amendments on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper—in which case “provision” covers more than the part.

I want to proceed further with Mr Worth’s point of order. I refer to the second sentence of Standing Order 301 that “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill.” We have voted already on two amendments proposed by the Hon Tony Ryall that relate to clauses 2 and 3. If we look at the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 151, we see there are also amendments to clauses 2 and 3. My understanding of Standing Order 301 is that the Minister’s amendments to those clauses should have been voted on before the Hon Tony Ryall’s amendments.

My point is that if the Minister’s amendments are being taken together, then that is an impossibility, because we would therefore have to have those amendments moved separately, and moved forward in terms of the amendments to clause 2 for the Minister, and other amendments to clause 2, clause 3, and so on. So it would actually negate the entire purpose of the Minister’s amendments being taken together. The practice has actually been to take the Minister’s amendments together at the end. From an Opposition’s perspective, that is actually an improvement, because if the Minister’s amendments are taken together at the start, that may well actually render out of order a whole sequence of Opposition amendments later on. Of course, if that is what the Opposition prefers, I am sure we would be happy to oblige.

I hear what the Minister is saying. However, when we did the Gambling Bill, the Minister’s amendments were taken first. A number of amendments I proposed were ruled out because they were overtaken by the Minister’s amendment, and Standing Order 301 states, quite clearly, that the amendments put forward by the Minister in charge of the bill are taken ahead of other amendments. So what we are seeing here is that members’ amendments have been put, and the Minister’s amendments have been put at the end, which is in contradiction to the way we handled the Gambling Bill.

I thank members for the way they have raised this point. It is an interesting one, and I have noted the comments made. It has been the custom to put the Minister’s amendments en bloc last. The Chair ruled this on 9 September in respect of the Gambling Bill, Hansard, at page 8469. I think, however, that the member is right with regard to Standing Order 301. Amendments from a Minister in the same place should be taken ahead of other amendments. There are two Minister’s amendments that fall into this category, relating to clauses 2 and 3. The Minister’s other amendments are not at the same place and are not affected by Standing Order 301. Technically, then, the Minister’s amendments to clauses 2 and 3 should have been taken first, but the votes have been taken, and the Committee can now go back only by leave. If leave is not forthcoming, votes shall be taken on the Minister’s clause 2 amendments first, then her clause 3 amendments, then the remaining amendments together. If anyone wants to seek leave, they can do so before we proceed.

I seek leave that the amendments to clauses 2 and 3, set out on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 151, be taken separately.

Leave is sought that those Minister’s amendments be taken—

💬 LINDSAY TISCH: Be revoted.

Mr Speaker, I think the language is not quite right. With the Clerk’s assistance, perhaps you might want to give us the language we need to get ourselves back to a position where we can recast those votes.

I thank the member. Leave is sought to take the Minister’s clause 2 and clause 3 amendments first, then to retake the Opposition amendments to clauses 2 and 3 after that. Is there any objection to that? There is.

I seek your clarification, because your ruling creates, I think, a situation where Standing Order 301 is internally contradictory. What the Standing Order says is that the member in charge of a bill can require that all amendments in that member’s name be put as one question. You are now saying that if there are other amendments to that part, then that does not happen, and we proceed to take the amendments of the member in charge of the bill bit by bit, clause by clause, if necessary. I just do not understand this, Mr Speaker. It does not seem to me to make sense of Standing Order 301. I assume the import of Standing Order 301 is now that if there are any other amendments to that part, then all the Minister’s amendments are taken first, and any other amendments are taken subsequently—if they are still in order at that point.

That is exactly the point that I made earlier. We have voted already on the Hon Tony Ryall’s clause 2 and clause 3 amendments, which, according to Standing Order 301, should actually have come after the Minister’s amendments. That is why I sought leave for the Minister’s amendments to clauses 2 and 3, on Supplementary Order Paper 151, to be voted on separately ahead of the Hon Tony Ryall’s amendments, then we would vote on those. That is what I sought leave for—and the member denied leave.

That is not the point I was making, Mr Speaker.

The Minister might well have to divide the amendments if there are other amendments at the same place.

Mr Speaker, this really does make a nonsense of Standing Order 301. If, say, we have 30 clauses in a part and there are amendments to every one of those clauses, then if the Minister has amendments, all of those amendments then have to be taken one by one. But that is not what Standing Order 301 says. What it says very clearly is that the member in charge of a bill can require that all amendments in the member’s name be put as one question, and that any amendment proposed by the member in charge is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill. In this case, the place is, presumably, the part.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

We have agreed to take the bill part by part. The amendments are to that part, whether it be clause 14, clause 17, clause 21, or whatever the case may be. This is what the House has been doing for some considerable number of years now, and the import of your ruling is to change our procedures very significantly indeed from what they have been for a long time now. I suggest to you that if that is so, then there is no meaning to Standing Order 301, at all.

Well, let me just say again—[Interruption] I ask members to listen for a moment. I say again that technically the Minister’s amendments to clauses 2 and 3 should have been taken first. Right? But the votes have been taken. The Committee can now go back only by leave—I make that point. If leave is not forthcoming, votes would be taken on the Minister’s clause 2 amendments, her clause 3 amendments, then the remaining amendments all together.

I am really having considerable difficulty here, because that is not what the Standing Order says.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Dr Cullen has the call. The member will come next.

I have the floor, and I am trying to understand—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I said Dr Cullen has the call.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Well, you might have, but he did not call for a point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will be seated. If he makes another comment, he goes. I am talking to Dr Cullen.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No—I am listening to Dr Cullen.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Well, hang on, Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am listening to Dr Cullen.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: On what basis?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On the fact that he called a point of order.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: He did not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: He did.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Well, Hansard will not show that, sir.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Hansard will, and I say it will, and the member will now be seated. Dr Cullen.

I come back to my example. If there is an amendment to each clause, then, whether or not the Minister desires to take her or his amendments as one, that cannot be done. Standing Order 301 is simply circumvented by moving amendments to the part. Given that we are dealing with a bill part by part, that is the place in the bill that we are at at this point, and amendments become amendments to the part, because the question is that part 1, or whatever it is, stand part, followed by the amendments that are made to whatever clause it may be—clause 1, clause 14, clause 17, and so on.

We have now managed to come up with an interpretation that renders the first sentence of Standing Order 301, in practice, non-existent unless there are no other amendments to the part. That is not the way that this has been dealt with up to this point. It may well be why we have decided in the past to deal with those things at the end of each part, because it makes more sense than Opposition amendments being knocked out in advance by the Minister’s amendments.

I think we could spend a lot of time this evening discussing the finer points of the Standing Order and the circumstances that led us to this point of order in the first place. At the end of the day, much of the confusion probably surrounds the fact that the Standing Orders were written for a clause by clause debate. In that event, there would not be the confusion that currently exists. What is probably required, Mr Speaker, is a ruling from you that makes it very clear how these matters should be dealt with. Although we have the ability to say that we dealt with them in the Gambling Bill in one way, and in other bills dealt with them in other ways—and Dr Cullen says that for some 10 or more years now we have dealt with them in the way he believes we have, and as I think you were trying to rule—it would be far better, Mr Speaker, if you were to come up with a new ruling, given that the current Government has no desire to see any bill debated clause by clause—that would be too difficult for it, and probably too embarrassing. For you to come up with a new ruling would be quite a reasonable thing I think.

Mr Speaker, I would like to respond to Dr Cullen’s suggestion to you and to point out the obvious flaw in his argument. The Standing Order needs to be read as a whole. It is not a question of giving substantial and greater weight to the first sentence—both sentences have equal weight. Dr Cullen is quite right in what he says the consequence will be if the two sentences are given equal weight. But it is a very simple and cardinal rule of interpretation that Standing Order 301 must be read as a whole. Maybe it is fortuitous that this issue has emerged. Maybe it is contrary to the practice of the House, and the House has been following a practice that is contrary to the Standing Order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I now understand what the issue is, and I have heard the arguments concerned. The “place” is the place within the part at which the amendment stands. This is what occurred on 9 September—on pages 8513 and 8514 in Hansard—on Part 4 of the Gambling Bill. The Minister’s amendments were taken as two questions. I thank members, because I have had an opportunity to consult everything since then. The Chairman has apparently put the question on all the Minister’s amendments. Therefore, it is too late to go back and put the Minister’s clause 2 and clause 3 amendments again. Therefore, unless leave is forthcoming, the only question remaining is that the part stand part. That is the only question remaining, unless leave is forthcoming. Does anyone want to seek leave?

Mr Speaker, I know my colleague behind me is going to seek leave, but I wonder whether for the future, when we go through this process, you could explain exactly what will occur with Ministers’ amendments. Are we now going to see Ministers’ amendments in future bills adhering to Standing Order 301, and being put upfront on each occasion, or are we going to see them being put at the end?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the amendments are at the same place they will go upfront, and any Opposition ones thereafter will be ruled out. That is quite specific according to the Standing Order. Of course, the Standing Orders Committee is looking at this whole thing. This is a very interesting point. Mr Tisch wanted to seek leave.

Before we do that, Mr Speaker, can I just say that I think this is quite a substantial change.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is not a change but it is an interesting point, and I can see the point that is being made.

So from now on when we go into the Committee of the whole House, a Minister’s amendments will be where the Minister requests them to be, moved as one. Let us say that we are dealing with Part 1, and the Minister has amendments—to use Dr Cullen’s example—to clauses 7 and 14, when we come to vote on the part, the Minister’s amendments will be put first. I am just trying to understand—if the Opposition—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If they are in the same place.

Yes, let us come to that. Let us say that a part has 14 clauses, and, within that part, the Minister has amendments to clauses 7 and 14, the Opposition has amendments to clauses 6 and 12, and the Minister requires his or her amendments to be put as one question. Do I take it that the Opposition’s amendment to clause 6 would be put, then the Minister’s amendments to clauses 7 and 14 would be put as one question, then the Opposition’s amendment to, for example, clause 12, may or may not be put depending on whether the Minister’s amendments were passed? If the Minister’s amendments were passed, then it may be that the Opposition’s amendment could not be put because the part was already amended?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is a very interesting question. From the example the member has given it does not seem to me that they would be in the same place. I will have a look at this. I will look at the whole transcript, and, if necessary, I will come back with something further. Unless leave is forthcoming the only question remaining is that the part stand part.

From here—I may have missed a part of it—am I to take it that the leave, when it is sought, will be on the basis that the word “provision”, where it appears in Standing Order 301, is being read as if it meant “part”; if so, we have the consequence, as you have said, that the precedent established would be that a Minister’s amendments would be put first and they may well rule out many others.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, leave can be sought to do anything. If leave is granted, that can apply for this particular case.

Can I just complete my point, Mr Speaker. The difficulty that I think you have portended, and that the Hon Dr Cullen was referring to, is not there if “provision” is read in its natural meaning, recognising that this Standing Order would have been drafted by people before part by part debates were the norm. If “provision” means “clause”, then the difficulty is very much reduced.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I agree with the member that because we have clauses and parts and that type of thing, it might well be something that the Standing Orders Committee has to look at. I say again that unless leave is forthcoming, the only question remaining is that the part stand part.

I seek leave that the amendments to clauses 2 and 3 set out on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 151 be voted on separately.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. So the only question forthcoming is that the part stand part.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is another question. The other question is that if leave is not given, then the question cannot be put on clauses 2 and 3, because this amendment is surely for the benefit—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, it already has been.

Not on the Minister’s—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry, it has been. I have been advised by my people in front of me that it has been. The only question forthcoming is that the part stand part. I declare the House in Committee again on the Supreme Court Bill.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Supreme Court of New Zealand (continued)