Speaker’s Rulings — Overseas Investment Amendment Bill—Inadmissible Amendment

The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill has just been reported to the House by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The bill contains an amendment at clause 5 of schedule 1AA that exempts a specified property development from the consent provisions of the bill.

Bills that come before the House are one of three kinds: public bills, which include Government and members’ bills; private bills; or local bills. A bill may not be a hybrid of two types, as is permitted in the UK House of Commons. Accordingly, matters that should be in one kind of bill cannot be introduced to another kind of bill by way of amendment.

On rare occasions, Speakers have ruled out such clauses. Speaker Hunt did so when proposed amendments to a public bill were found to belong, more properly, in a private bill—Speaker’s ruling 118/1. Speaker Burke ruled out a clause from the Taxation Reform Bill (No 7). That clause belonged in a local bill. I recall it well because the bill was in my name. A future Speaker, Robin Gray, objected to my attempts to seek leave to retain the clause in the bill—New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, Volume 504, page 14723. Speaker Barnard ruled out four clauses from the Finance Bill (No 2) because they belonged in a private bill—New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, Volume 257, pages 1024 to 1025.

The distinctions between types of bills matter to this House. Private and local bills affect only a select group of people, rather than the general public. They have specific public notification requirements as a result, to enable others to be aware of proposed bills and to comment on them. Public bills have no such notification requirements. The classification of a bill also changes how the House deals with it and the permitted scope of amendments. If any question arises as to the classification of a bill, the Speaker decides the matter, under Standing Order 253(2).

In the case of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill the amendment in clause 5 of schedule 1AA would exempt a specified property development from the general application of the law. I appreciate that the amendment was made by the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the request of the landowner in order to preserve the value of the land purchased as commercial redress following Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The committee was motivated by a desire to assist and be fair to the landowner. It received a submission and the majority felt it made a good case and was presented as being unique. The project is advanced with a significant reserve established, one world-class golf course open, another planned, and various high-yield tourism and recreation activities. What the committee failed to establish was whether there may have been any other developments similarly advanced and whether significant actual losses could occur.

The bill currently contains regulation-making powers in new section 61B, which gives the power to grant exemptions from the Act. These powers may be wide enough to grant the exemptions in the clause in question, but if not, the House could consider a more general time-limited amendment.

I would caution committees to be mindful with the nature of amendments they recommend and to carefully consider the advice they receive from the Clerk’s Office on the admissibility of amendments, or to call the Clerk, or in extreme cases myself, if there is still doubt. The amendment is ruled out of order as belonging in a private, not a public, bill. The bill will be reprinted with the amendment struck out.