State Sector Management Bill

I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Management Bill that it have the power to consider, and if it thinks fit, to adopt the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196. In speaking to this—

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to be clear. Has there been an agreement to allow the member to speak, and is what he has requested within the scope of the bill? If it is within the scope of the bill, then it would be considered as part of the Committee stage. If it is outside the scope of the bill, then there is no reason to allow this member to have a speech. I ask that you make a ruling on this matter immediately, and that we take some time to understand what is being proposed here. As a speaker, he may—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Points of order will be heard in silence. There is a constant barrage across the House, and this is quite a technical point. I want Chris Tremain to continue with his point of order.

💬 Chris Tremain: I am just asking that you have some time to consider what is being proposed in the debate that the Hon Trevor Mallard is putting on to the floor of the House. There have been previous instances in the last month or two where this tactic has been tried, and it has, I would add, been successful at that point in time for the Opposition. But with the benefit of hindsight, it should have never been allowed. If the presiding officer had been given the opportunity to consider what was being proposed, it would have been ruled out of order at that time, and the debate would not have been allowed to proceed. So I ask, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, that you consider whether what is being proposed is within the scope of the bill. If it is, it will be dealt with in the Committee stage. If it is outside the scope of bill, then I ask that it be ruled out of order immediately.

I say to members—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I am entitled to make a ruling. It is the Speaker’s prerogative. I do not need any particular assistance on this matter, thank you. Fortunately we have had some time to think about this matter in advance. The point of Mr Mallard’s instruction is that it proposes to set an amendment that seeks to amend the bill to allow for amendment to the functions of the Tertiary Education Commission, as set out in the Education Act 1989, by removing the commission’s role as a policy adviser to the Minister for Tertiary Education. Mr Mallard’s instruction proposes an amendment that is foreign to the bill, and if it is foreign to the bill, it is not a proper instruction. It is therefore out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was considerable consultation on this particular approach, and the advice I received is that any member can move an instruction to include something in a bill. It is regularly done by Ministers for matters that are outside the scope of the bill as a method of including them in the bill. That is the point of the instruction: if something is already part of the bill, and it can be considered by the Committee without an instruction, there would be no place for instructions whatsoever. Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, you know that instructions are regularly used in order to widen the scope of the bill and to include in a bill matters that are related but out of scope.

Clearly, this is a related matter. It is a State sector reorganisation matter. It is actually a transfer of policy function between two State agencies, so it is a State sector reorganisation matter. The House, of course, can vote against it now, or the House could deal with it later. In fact, the logical thing for the Government would probably be to save a lot of time and deal with it now, because it will deal with it later in the education area. It is a photocopy of Anne Tolley’s amendment. The Government supports it completely, and the Government could save a lot of time by doing it in the right place rather than in the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), which is the wrong place.

I go back to the original point. Can you explain, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, given your ruling, what possible area could be the subject of an instruction? The history of the House has been that instructions from the House to the Committee to consider matters are used for things that would otherwise be outside the scope of the bill. The right to do that has been both the Government’s and the Opposition’s. My anxiety with your ruling—because I want to be on the other side of the House in the not too distant future—is that you will be removing the right of anyone to move an instruction to extend the scope of a bill in order to include in it matters that would otherwise be out or order.

I just say to the member that matters that come before the House have to conform to the Standing Orders and the rules of this House. One cannot amend those by way of an instruction to the Committee by motion. The only method members have to do that is by seeking leave. I have had cases of bills amended by leave, as other presiding officers have. There has to be unanimity; it is not a majority decision.

The member’s amendment is outside of the scope of the bill. It is foreign to the bill, and it cannot be done by a motion. I have ruled it out of order. The member has asked what possible options members would have in the future. Members will have in the future exactly the same options they have today. They may seek leave, and it must be a majority decision. The matter is closed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is a slight extension of the previous point of order. It goes to the question of the history of the moving, at this stage of the debate, of motions that have certainly not been by leave that have extended the scope of the bill. That has happened on dozens of occasions since I have been a member of Parliament. Generally it is within the field of the bill, but the extension is for something that would not have otherwise been allowed.

If you are ruling in this way, I think you are setting a very dangerous precedent whereby Governments will not be able to extend the scope of bills. I can remember during the whole State sector reorganisation when much more major things came in at this late stage of the bill.

I will clarify it for the member one further time. There is a difference between extending the scope of the bill by resolution and something that is foreign to the bill. I am saying that this amendment is not within the scope; the amendment the member has moved is foreign to the bill. It is quite outside of the bill. In that particular case, the only method the member has available is to make the amendment by leave. The member is failing to make that distinction.

I make the point to the member again, if he cares to listen, that the member can move an instruction to the Committee on an amendment when it is consistent with the bill or associated with the bill, but if it is one step removed and it is foreign to the bill then the member cannot do it by a motion. In that particular case, the member can do it only by leave. I have ruled the member’s amendment out, and that is the end of the matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order goes right to the core of your ruling, which is whether this instruction is foreign. This is a State sector restructuring bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): My ruling on that instruction is that it is foreign to the bill. It is clear.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling that the Supplementary Order Paper that my colleague was promoting was foreign to the bill. I wonder whether you have had a chance to reflect on Speaker’s ruling 79/3. It is quite an ancient Speaker’s ruling, from my perspective, as it goes back to 1931. It sets out the conditions in which an instruction that may be foreign or contradictory can be referred to the Committee, or in which the House can confer a power on the Committee that it does not ordinarily possess, if that is the will of the House. I think 79/3 brings it into the competency of what the member Trevor Mallard was attempting to move. I wonder whether on that scale—

I respond to the member and say that if the member reads 79/3, he will see it is entirely consistent with what I have said. For the member’s assistance: “It is competent for a member to move an instruction the subject-matter of which is neither ‘irrelevant nor foreign nor contradictory to the decision of the House taken on the introduction and second reading of the bill,’”. I have said that the member’s amendment is foreign to the bill. I have ruled absolutely in accordance with the Speaker’s ruling from 1931. I thank the member for refreshing my memory.

I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Management Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, to adopt the typescript amendment to clause 25.

I say to Grant Robertson that his instruction to the Committee is out of order because it seeks to give the Committee the power to do something it already has the power to do. The Committee has that power; it does not need it again. This House does not need belts and braces.

I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Management Bill that it have the power to consider the amendments set out in the typescript amendment in the name of my colleague Grant Robertson to insert new clause 28A. This is a—

We will not have a speech on that motion. I say to the member that the member’s motion fails for exactly the same reason that I failed Mr Robertson’s. If an amendment is already on the Table and the Committee has the power to consider it, it is within scope and it does not need an instruction to the Committee.

I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Management Bill that it have the power to consider an amendment from Grant Robertson that is yet to be tabled in this House and is relevant to the bill.

I say to the member that we will not have motions that anticipate possible amendments. The Committee of the whole House has that power, of itself, and the Committee, having the power to consider any fine amendment moved by Grant Robertson, will decide on its own whether it agrees with it. It does not need an instruction to the Committee to do that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having listened to the three points of order from Trevor Mallard, all of which have been ruled out for lack of compliance with the Standing Orders; having listened to the shadow Leader of the House raise a point of order that, in fact, confirmed your ruling, and did not provide any evidence for it to be revisited; and having listened to the member for Wellington Central try the same tactic, I suggest to you that we are now at the point where the Opposition is trifling with your ruling. On two occasions you have declared the matter closed, and I suggest that we move on with the business at hand.

In Committee

Part 1 Provisions relating to research, science, and technology