Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of question time you made a ruling on the member’s bill introduced by Andrew Little, the Healthy Homes Guarantee (No 2) Bill.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, can I have the point of order please.

Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I had to tell you what it was about. I have had the opportunity to read that ruling carefully, and it is an unprecedented ruling. We could not find any example of where a member’s bill has been deemed out of order after it had been introduced. I want to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 115/1. In that particular Speaker’s ruling it deals with the issue of where two member’s bills are lodged in the ballot with basically the same content, similar content, or content that could be deemed to be similar. In that particular instance, it establishes very clearly the precedent that the issue should be resolved before a ballot is taken. So in this case there would have to be a pre-ballot if two bills were drawn out of the ballot with the same content. Therefore, it establishes a fairly clear expectation by members that if there is an issue—a problem with the content of the bill—it will be resolved before a ballot is taken.

I draw your further attention to Standing Order 278(3), which says that it is possible for a member to have only one bill in the ballot at any given time. Therefore, if there is a problem with a bill that a member has in the ballot—and this bill has been in the ballot and published on the website for 4 months—it is incumbent, and I think there is a reasonable expectation on the part of the member, that this would be resolved before a ballot is conducted.

I have been further advised that the office of the Leader of the Opposition sought advice from the Clerk’s Office and was assured that, in fact, this bill met the Standing Orders. The members of this House must be able to have confidence that the advice they receive from the Clerk’s Office is, in fact, accurate. I, therefore, ask that you withdraw the ruling pending further consideration of the matter by either the Standing Orders Committee or the Business Committee.

It seems to me that the difficulty with the particular Speaker’s ruling that the chief Opposition whip, Chris Hipkins, is relying upon is that that essentially refers to two bills that are drawn out of the ballot at the same time, whereas your ruling relates to one where a bill has already been defeated in the same calendar year. So I want to suggest that the two are not the same. I accept the fact that there is a significant issue for you to look at, but I just make the point that I do not believe that the two situations are the same.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

No, I need no further assistance. The member has had plenty of opportunity to explain his position. I have given considerable thought to this matter, and I think I have charted a very fair way forward on this case. The member’s very first point is right—this is the first time that this has ever happened. The member may well have read the ruling. I think I added a little more to the ruling when I delivered it, but I made the point that in my mind this bill should never have been accepted. If advice was given that it was acceptable, I do not accept that that advice was right. Mistakes do happen. I, therefore, needed to chart a way forward subsequent to the bill being drawn out of the ballot, and I think I have found a very fair mechanism for that to move forward. But I stated at the very end of the ruling that I expect far more scrutiny to take place from the Clerk and his staff before bills are accepted into the ballot in the first place. I think we are creating history here; I hope we do not have an opportunity to see it repeated. But I think I have given a very fair way forward for this particular case, and I do not intend to review the decision at all.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

This is a fresh point of order, I take it?

💬 Hon David Parker: Yes it is.

I certainly hope we are not relitigating.

No, no I am not. My point of order relates to what is meant by a difference of substance. If, for example, the Labour Party was to present a bill to say that income tax rates should go up or down by 1 percent and it failed, and then another party was to present a member’s bill that said tax rates should go up by 2 percent or down by 2 percent, that would be a difference in substance. I do not think it has to be a different subject matter for it to be a difference of substance. I think that we get on a slippery slope if you, as Speaker, try to interpret what a difference in substance is in such a narrow and particular way.

And, again, this point I have covered quite adequately earlier in response to a point of order raised by the member’s colleague Grant Robertson. You cannot define the difference in substance exactly at this stage; it will depend on the circumstances. In the particular case I am dealing with, in one bill the only change that has been identified to me was that the previous bill had the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority as the monitor of the situation. This one changes it to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, but, of course, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority actually comes under its auspices. So in this case I am quite satisfied that the change was minimal, and so minimal that we are dealing with the same situation, but I accept the point the member has made around tax rates, where what looks like a relatively minor nominal value could be quite a significant impact. That will be a discussion that will occur at the time between the Clerk and the Speaker of the day. [Interruption] Is there a further fresh point of order? Because I do not intend to litigate this any further, but I am happy if it is a fresh point of order.

Well, I am seeking clarification, because how can the Speaker know the basis upon which members cast a vote for legislation? Members could say: “Well, actually, I did not like that legislation because I did not think it should be the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; it should be the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.” You cannot know that—

No. [Interruption] Order! We have now got to the situation where we are just relitigating a decision I have given. In this particular case the rules are quite clear with regard to the Standing Orders. A bill that has been defeated cannot be brought back almost exactly the same in a calendar year. In my opinion, that is what has happened. I have found a way forward by which I have not ruled it out of order at this stage. If it was to come forward in this calendar year, I would do so, and I have clearly made that statement to the House. If the member bothers to look at the Order Paper, the chances of that happening are indeed very, very slim, so I think we have found a way forward. But the point made by Chris Hipkins is that this is the first time it has ever happened. It is a precedent. I hope it never happens again. I am not prepared to enter—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Point of order—

We are now wasting a lot of time. If it is a fresh point of order, I am happy to hear it, but it is to have nothing to do with the ruling I gave earlier.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply ask you to reconsider the last part of my point of order, which was to take the matter to the Business Committee or the Standing Orders Committee, because the effect of the ruling that you have just made is that members can have no confidence in the advice they receive from the Office of the Clerk, and that cannot be allowed to stand.

Order! That is not a fair statement at all. I gave this considerable thought. I sought counsel before I made this decision and—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member wants to leave the Chamber by interjecting while I am on my feet, he is going the right way about it. I gave considerable thought to this issue. As I said, I think I have charted a very fair path forward, and I do not intend to relitigate the matter.