Speaker’s Rulings — Committee of the Whole House—Amendments, Māori Purposes Bill

Shortly before the House went into Committee today, Chris Hipkins raised a point of order about three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on the Māori Purposes Bill, which had just been released. I have had time now to study the issue. The point of order queried the relevance to the bill as introduced of amendments set out in the Supplementary Order Papers. It also asked whether the statement on page 320 of McGee, “In the case of a bill introduced as an omnibus bill, substantive amendments to it are confined to those Acts already proposed to be amended by it substantively …”, still applies.

The general rule around the scope of amendments is that they must be relevant to the subject matter of the bill and consistent with its principles and objects. This applies to general omnibus bills. However, a Māori Purposes Bill is a special kind of omnibus bill that makes tidy-up amendments to legislation relating to Māori affairs, and I refer members to page 323 of McGee. Its scope is a little different in that it allows a broader range of amendments than those permitted for most other types of omnibus bills, provided they relate to Māori affairs.

The three SOPs released by the Minister for Māori Development (1) amend Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 in relation to reporting requirements for Māori incorporations, (2) amend Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015 in relation to post-settlement governance, and (3) amend the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003 in relation to redundant provisions covering output agreements. These amendments may not be in the scope of a general omnibus bill, but they do fit within the scope of a Māori Purposes Bill. I would remind Ministers that it is good practice to release SOPs early, particularly where they propose to insert new parts into a bill.

In answer to the second question, the rule described on page 320 of McGee no longer applies. The 2011 Standing Orders Committee recommended the removal of the rule, and the House adopted that recommendation, so it is now permissible in the case of an omnibus bill to make amendments to Acts not amended in the bill as introduced. I refer members to page 47 of the Standing Orders Committee report 2011. The new edition of McGee, due to be published by the Clerk early next year, will reflect that change. I thank members and return the House to Committee.