Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a serious point of order on which I would be grateful for your considered ruling. It concerns a serious procedural matter of constitutional import. The issue relates directly to a ruling delivered in this House by one of your predecessors, Speaker Hunt, in response to a point of order. I refer you to the New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, Volume 589, at page 6893. In that ruling, Speaker Hunt addressed the obligation of majorities on select committees to allow minorities to express their views in the reports of committees. Speaker Hunt was quite clear that a majority cannot adopt a report that misrepresents the diverging views on a select committee.

I acknowledge that it is not your normal practice to deal on the floor of the House with matters relating to select committees. However, as the ruling by Speaker Hunt in 2000 clearly shows, it is not without precedent for a Speaker to rule on a particularly serious matter relating to select committees that goes to the heart of the democratic process in respect of this House. This being the case, I feel obliged to bring to your attention and seek your considered ruling on the troubling events at the Law and Order Committee this morning. Those events are public, given the tabling of the interim report, and we have had advice from the Clerk that we can discuss them.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down. It is important that the matters the member will be raising are not still before the committee. Can I just check that an interim report has been tabled? It has been tabled.

This morning the chairperson, Ms Goudie, insisted that a minority report drafted by Labour members could not be included in the committee’s interim report to the House on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. This is an unprecedented act that came as a great shock to Labour members. We sought advice—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard.

—from the Clerk of the House, who advised the committee that she had no recollection of such decisions taking place in the past, except perhaps where there was unparliamentary language or something completely out of order. It is clear that Ms Goudie is attempting, by her actions in the committee this morning, to prevent Labour members from raising our very serious concerns about the process relating to this bill.

Finally, I seek your considered ruling on whether it should be within the power of Ms Goudie to prevent members from including their genuine views in a report of the House. If it is, what options are open to members to inform the House of concerns they have?

I refer you, Mr Speaker, to the second bullet point of Speaker’s ruling 91/4. It says: “A minority contribution, like every contribution, must be relevant to the subject before the committee. A chairperson rules on relevancy.” The same Speaker ruled that “A majority can refuse to admit differing views altogether. If a minority’s views are objectionable or too long, there may be a trade-off whereby the minority agrees to cull its contribution. But this must be done consensually; the majority cannot just rewrite a minority’s view.” In other words, the minority view from the minority itself has to be considerate of the wider committee report. There is specific reference elsewhere in this ruling to unparliamentary language, so I doubt that that is what Speaker Hunt was referring to in 2000 when he said that if “views are objectionable or too long, there may be a trade-off”.

I am suggesting that there has clearly been a discussion at a select committee, and there has clearly been a disagreement. Throughout Speakers’ rulings there are references to the chairperson’s ability to rule in these matters. If there was any doubt about that, the only course of action would be for the party that feels a little aggrieved to seek to have the report sent back to the committee. That would require a vote in Parliament.

I do not believe I need to hear more on this matter, because this is not a matter of order in this House, although I accept the point made by the honourable member that it is a matter that is serious in respect of the Standing Orders of the House. It is my understanding—and if I am wrong in this matter, I stand corrected—that it is within the power of a committee to decide by resolution whether a minority view is to be included in its report. It is my understanding that the particular committee to which the member is referring resolved that way. As far as I am concerned, that must be the end of the matter. If the member wants me to consider further matters, he is most welcome to come and see me about them.

I seek leave to table the minority report on the interim report written in respect of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, which was blocked by National and ACT members today.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.