Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill

The Government has delivered to the Clerk a certificate not concurring in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—[Interruption] Order—given under Standing Order 327. As a result of the issue of the financial veto certificate, the bill may still be debated, but the Speaker will not put a question on the third reading at the conclusion of the debate—Standing Order 328(3).

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 327(2). I have got possession of the certificate that you have just noted. What is required under Standing Order 327(2) are two things: the Government has to “state with some particularity the nature of the impact [of this] on the composition of the Vote and the reason why the Government does not concur in the change.” The veto certificate certainly does give some detail about the impact on the vote in terms of the amount spent. However, when it comes to the question of whether or not there is any particularity on the reason why, the Government simply states that it “does not concur”. I do not believe this fulfils the obligations under Standing Order 327(2). This is very unusual. It happens very, very rarely, and I would ask that consideration be given as to whether the certificate in fact breaches Standing Order 327(2).

The certificate complies in every respect. I would respectfully suggest that you might encourage the member raising this point of order to simply look for the word “particularity” in a dictionary, to better understand what it means. [Interruption]

Order! This is not something that happens frequently, so I have given the matter quite a lot of thought. The judgment about whether a bill has more than a minor impact on the fiscal aggregates is one for the Government to make. I have had a look at the certificate. It does not get officially tabled in the House because it is delivered to the Clerk. However, the Clerk has copies available for members who may want to look at what has been set out by the Minister within the certificate. I have certainly had a look at it, and I concur that it does comply with all Standing Orders. The Speaker has no role in evaluating the financial veto beyond ensuring that it complies with the Standing Orders. I have looked at it, and I concur that it does.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is this a further point of order?

Yes, it is. In the comments you have made just now, you have referred to the question of fiscal aggregates, and I have in my original comments noted that although that is under Standing Order 327(1), I am raising my point of order under Standing Order 327(2). I have acknowledged in my original comments that I do believe that it has fulfilled the first of the two criteria in 327(2) about the nature of the impact on the composition of the vote. The second part of that is particularity on the reason why the Government does not concur with the change. All it has stated in the final paragraph of the veto is that it does not, and I do not believe that is sufficient for something that is so unique, where the will of Parliament is for the bill to be passed but the Government does not want to pass it. It should have to have particular reasons; it has failed to do that.

Yes, but Standing Order 327(2) is actually about a vote. It is not about the bill. I have had a look at the certificate; I have ruled that it does comply. I accept the point that the member is making, but I do not think it is relevant in this case.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your ruling, you have outlined that the bill in question will have a third reading but no vote at the end of that. I wondered whether you could inform the House about what precedent you have used to derive that ruling from and whether that has occurred before.

If the member had listened to me, I gave that in my ruling—Standing Order 328(3).

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We are not still arguing, I hope? Further point of order—fresh point of order.

I seek leave to table a petition signed by 16,085 people asking for John Key and Bill English to respect Parliament’s will and the needs of children and their families and to not veto the bill extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

Leave is sought to table that petition. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Sorry, leave is sought to table that petition. I am putting the leave. There is no objection. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.