Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just heard from the Clerk, on your behalf, that there has been no report received from the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. That committee deliberated finally on Wednesday, 19 August—last week.

💬 Craig Foss: Thursday, 20!

I stand corrected; on Thursday, 20 August. The report, according to the Standing Orders, should immediately thereafter have been presented to the House. It has become apparent from statements made to the media today that have been publicly recorded—reported by NewsRoom and also in a press release from a Government member—that the report has been suppressed because after deliberation by the select committee, once the select committee had finished its business and there was then a report to the House, a member of the select committee sought to change a minority report and has stopped publication of the report. That is a most serious and egregious breach of the privileges of the House. As a member of the committee I am in breach of privilege if I talk about the report before it is presented to the House. I seek your authority, not the authority of the House, to table the report now, because the select committee has authorised it to be tabled. I ask you to give me a ruling on the matter.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will seek a little advice on the matter the member has raised. It is a most unusual matter of order, and I will seek some advice on it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As chair of the select committee can I just add some comments, which as I understand them may be relevant to your consideration. What the member says is correct; the committee did deliberate last week. As part of its deliberations it passed a resolution giving those who wished to submit minority reports until 5 p.m. last Thursday to do so. My understanding is that one of the submitters of a minority report is in the process of reviewing whether he or she wishes to continue with presenting such a report, and that that is what is delaying the presentation of the final report to the House. I think that is a relevant factor in your consideration.

I thank the honourable member.

I was also a member of the committee. I think probably in that case it would be wise to determine whether a report was submitted by 5 o’clock last Thursday, as the committee accepted, or whether the matter has been left hanging. I do not know the answer to that question, but the clerk will.

Again, I cannot be certain because the process is opaque to members, which I find very surprising, but my understanding is that a form of the minority report was submitted by email. I cannot verify that, but there are email copies of the minority report. From my perspective as an Opposition member, what appears to be happening, or what may be happening, is that the Government is having negotiations behind closed doors, trying to suggest to a minority party that was quite entitled to make—

Such allegations must not be made under a point of order. The matter that I as Speaker must consider, under the point of order, is whether there is any problem in respect of the Standing Orders, in terms of the length of time it is taking for the chair of the committee to submit the report. I point out to the House as I read the Standing Orders that it is the responsibility of the chair of the committee to present the report. The Hon David Parker is quite correct; the report should be presented to the House as soon as possible after a decision is made by the committee. But there are situations in which the Standing Orders recognise that there may be a reason for some delay. In fact, Speakers’ rulings point out that a delay of a week in reporting to the House is quite acceptable. The explanation given by the chair of the select committee seems perfectly reasonable at this stage. I ask that the chair of the committee makes sure the report is presented to the House as soon as possible, but the explanation he gave for why there has been a small delay sounds reasonable, given the decision of the committee to allow minority reports to be attached. The fact that a member had not completed his or her minority report to his or her satisfaction seems a reasonable explanation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply raise another point by way of a question, upon which your guidance would be appreciated. It is this: if a member or a party submits a minority report, the custom has always been to treat it as being that particular party’s or individual’s responsibility. So presumably if the member or party wishes to withdraw a minority report or to amend it prior to the publication of the final report, that responsibility also rests with them rather than with the committee as a whole.

Although I respect the Hon Peter Dunne’s opinion on such matters, his opinion must be wrong. The report is a report of the select committee, and once the select committee has deliberated on the report to Parliament it cannot withdraw it. The select committee has made its report to Parliament. All that happens thereafter is that the report is published. It may be embarrassing for a party to have discovered that it made a mistake, or it might have changed its mind for reasons of political imperative or negotiations, but that matter is outside of the report of the select committee. It can in no way be in order for any clerk of the committee or any member of the committee to amend the report once it has been deliberated upon by the committee. The committee is functus officio as soon as it has deliberated.

I just want to make clear two things. The first relates to Standing Order 244, and to Standing Order 245. They deal with the way in which reports of select committees are to be delivered to the House. What is salient in this case is that neither of those two Standing Orders applies, because no specific report-back date was applied to the bill. Secondly, that takes us to the position that was outlined by the Hon Peter Dunne, which is that the select committee itself has given authority for him to accept minority reports from other parties. Mr Speaker, you have said that you wish that to be done in a manner that is speedy and respectful of the House. I do not think the short time we have had since that decision by the committee represents anything other than that exact process, and Mr Dunne has indicated today that he accepts your ruling. I think that sets aside the concerns that the Hon David Parker is raising in a somewhat political manner.

💬 Hon David Parker: Mr Speaker—

No, I do not need the matter to go on any further; I think I have heard quite sufficient on it. The point the Hon Gerry Brownlee made is perfectly correct, in that as long as the procedures of the committee are within the Standing Orders, the committee is the master of its own decision making. It seems from what the chair of the committee has said that the committee deliberated and decided that minority reports could be attached to the final report. That is therefore a decision of the committee and not a matter that can be litigated in the House. In fact, the report is a matter for the committee to agree, and if there is doubt about the decisions the committee has made then the committee should probably reconvene and agree a process of confirming the report outside of a committee meeting. It is a matter for the committee whether minority reports are included; it is not a matter for the House. The remedy for the questioner—and it was a perfectly fair question—is that as long as the committee is proceeding within the Standing Orders, these matters are matters for the committee to sort out, not the House to sort out.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points to make to you. Firstly, the select committee existed only with one item of business before it. Now that the committee has reported—or the committee at least thought it had reported; it directed the chairperson to make the report—the committee cannot meet again, because it was set up only by a motion of the House to do one thing. So your ruling that the committee could meet again to talk about the matter further cannot be so. It has completed its work. It no longer exists once its report is made.

Secondly, Speaker’s ruling 93/2 makes clear that “As soon as the chairperson of a committee is directed to make a report to the House it should be made with the least possible delay.” You have commented on that timing by saying that about a week is acceptable. From what I understand the Hon David Parker said, a week has passed today. Today is the House’s last sitting day before an adjournment for 1 week. The matter being reported on was so important to the House that it resolved to set up a special select committee to consider it. I just wonder whether we could have some guidance from you as to when you believe the period of delay is no longer acceptable. The committee has resolved that Mr Dunne present the report to the House. A week has now passed, and I think the House is entitled to know why a different process has been used from what is ordinarily the case.

We have been over this. The process that is being followed is one that the select committee determined for itself. If the Labour Party has decided that it does not want a smaller party to put in a minority report, then that would be OK, that is a political position it can take. There is no procedural breach here at all. The Hon Peter Dunne, as the committee directed him, is giving the parties concerned an opportunity to present their minority reports.

I do not need to hear any more on the matter. The chair of the committee has told the House what the committee agreed. The House cannot dispute that. The chair of the committee advised the House that the committee agreed that when the main report was deliberated on, the parties were at liberty to attach minority reports to it, and there is some delay in one or more parties doing so. That is not a matter for the House to take further time on. We cannot doubt the word of the chair of the committee. If there is concern among the committee that the matter has not been reported to the House, I am sure the committee can get together again should it wish to do so. The report is not out of the hands of the committee until it has been reported to the House. It has not been reported to the House, and the House must take the word of the chair of the committee why it has not been. There is no further matter that the House can consider under the Standing Orders.

💬 Hon Members: Point of order—

It must be on a different matter because I have ruled on that matter. I will take Jeanette Fitzsimons’ point of order first.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I think a matter has been missed in the debate. I do not want to challenge your ruling, but I do not know how else to do it. It is the question of whether—

I have made it very clear that this is not a matter for the House. Under no Standing Order is this a matter for the House; it is a matter for the committee. I have ruled that this matter must not be raised further. I have ruled on it.

💬 Hon David Parker: Point of order—

The Hon David Parker might note that the Speaker is on his feet.

💬 Hon David Parker: Point of order—

He will sit down while I am on my feet. I have made no move to sit down. I have ruled on the matter. It is not a matter that can be handled in this way in the House. I listened carefully, I sought advice, and I have made a careful judgment on the matter. That is the end of the matter. I warn any members who wish to trifle with that ruling that they do so at their own risk.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we need a further ruling from you on the position between when a bill is reported to the House and when a committee has resolved to report it. It has always been my understanding that when a committee has passed a motion—

Can I be clear with the honourable member. I believe that he is litigating the same issue.

No, I am asking you to rule on whether a committee can again pick up a bill on which it has already resolved to report.

Let me put it in very simple terms for the member. The chair of the committee has advised the House that when the committee deliberated, it decided that parties could attach minority reports to the report. The chair of the committee is waiting for that to happen so that he can present the report to the House. I believe that that is what the chair told the House.

The committee resolved, as I said, that minority reports could be submitted up to 5 p.m. last Thursday. Subsequent to that date, one of the parties that had submitted a minority report sought to withdraw that minority report. That is what is delaying the publication of the final report. That was the point I raised with you, Mr Speaker. Because the committee did not deliberate on the minority reports—and in this case it ruled that it would not—then it must be the prerogative of those that have submitted the reports either to submit them or to withdraw them. That is the point that has delayed the publication of the final report.

I want to resolve this issue, and I apologise that I misunderstood what the chair of the committee was telling the House. The chair of the committee has made clear to the House now that the deadline for submitting the minority reports has passed, and a party wished to withdraw or somehow change its report. If that is a problem, it is a matter for the committee to resolve. There is nothing that I can see in the Standing Orders that prevents the committee from doing so, because it made its decision subject to those reports being done. It seems that a problem has now emerged from that decision. There is nothing wrong with the committee, should it choose to do so, reconvening to reconsider that matter, because the report has not been presented to the House.

The report is still in the hands of the committee. The committee made a decision that had certain conditions attached to it, for certain things to happen, and there has been a problem in the committee with that decision. The House does not need to take further time on it. If there is a problem, it is in the hands of the committee to resolve that problem.

💬 Hon Members: Point of order—

I will hear the person who raised the point of order first, David Parker, but I make it very clear that I am running out of patience on this matter because it is not a matter for the order of the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, if the Speaker is running out of patience with me after he misinterpreted Mr Dunne’s advice to him, that is not my problem.

The member will resume his seat immediately. Either way, I make it clear to the member that this matter is not a problem for the House, because the report has not been presented back to the House; it is still in the hands of the committee. It is the responsibility of the committee to resolve this difference, and it is not—

💬 Hon David Parker: Point of order—

Is the member having difficulty seeing? The Speaker is on his feet. Either way, it is not a problem for the House to resolve; it is a matter for the committee to resolve. The chair of the committee, I am sure as an experienced member, is perfectly capable of resolving the problem. That is the end of the matter.

💬 Hon Members: Point of order—

I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard, as long as it is a different point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a completely different point of order. I am seeking an assurance from you that each of the reports that was given by all parties to the chair of the select committee formed part of the papers of the select committee and will be available to the public on the tabling of the report.

I do not believe that that is a matter the Speaker can get involved in or rule on; it is a matter for the committee.

Hon members: Point of order—

I have ruled on that, I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is a matter for the committee. The Speaker cannot rule on that matter, but I will hear him further.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am going to ask you to give a considered ruling on the matter. You are the only person, once a committee is finished—as it has, because it has deliberated and reported—who can rule on whether papers submitted to the committee, as part of its work, are available to the public.

If the member can cite the Standing Order under which I do that, I will hear him later on in the session.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might help if I cite Speaker’s ruling 92/2 from Speaker Steward in 1892 and gently offer it to the Speaker for some reflection. I can read it out.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that it is all right; it is a long Speaker’s ruling. The House does not need to hear all of it.

Just as long as you are aware of it, because it has been around for a hundred and something years.

I say to Opposition members that I have been very patient with the time. The House has wasted over a quarter of an hour on this matter, which is a matter for the committee; it is not a matter for the House. I will look at the issue that has been raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Pete Hodgson, because I am interested in the historical precedent there. I will look at that matter of at what point the report becomes a matter for the House and not the committee. I will look at those matters, but the House will not take further time on them today.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Point of order—

It had better be a different point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am genuinely not trying to try your patience, but the point I have been trying to make all the way through is to ask whether it is a matter for the Speaker and this House if a decision made by the committee was not adhered to. That is the central part of the question. The facts are these: three minority reports were tabled at the committee; if in fact the fourth minority report was sent to the Clerk before 5 o’clock on Thursday, then that was the matter that met the requirements of the select committee decision. If the report was later withdrawn, then that is very different from whether that report was not submitted at all. That is the matter on which I was seeking information earlier. The committee no longer meets, so we cannot find that out. But it seems to me there is a big difference between extending the time because someone did not get a report in, and receiving that report, sending everything off for proofreading, and then having someone want to withdraw that report. That is what I am trying to establish.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We will now go to question No. 1.