Overseas Investment Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, the House is in its consideration of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. On Part 1 we have 39 amendments. I’ve made a ruling under—

I’m just going to ask the member to hold to for a second. I’m going to ask Willow-Jean Prime to come so I can whisper in her ear, please. We are going to start again. I apologise to the House.

Mr Speaker, there are 39 amendments that the committee is considering. I have made a ruling under Standing Order 307(4) that upon—well, I’ll read what I’ve said: 39 amendments proposing changes to the definition of residential land to exclude land of various values and in various districts. These amendments are so similar in substance that I think I must test the will of the committee. I put the first amendment, which was not agreed to, and I subsequently ruled the following 38 out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised a point of order as the Chairman had finished his decision and we’d read out a number of amendments which, to him, were unacceptable. I do apologise for interrupting your evening, but I did that because I’ve never seen such a procedure in my time here. I asked for the Standing Order that was relevant, and Mr Chairman referred me to 307(4). I wanted to take a point of order before you were called, but at that stage he concluded the discussion.

But 307(4) said that “The [chairman], at his … discretion, may put a single question on a group of amendments if—(a) the amendments stand in the name of the same member:”—that does not apply in this case—“(b) the amendments lend themselves to being grouped on the account of their content or subject-matter, or because they form a single alternative proposition:”—that does not apply in this situation. And “(c) grouping of the amendments is necessary to enable the committee’s effective consideration of the bill.” I say to you that none of those three apply.

I know that he would be backing himself by Speaker’s ruling 117/2 by a former Speaker, Smith, and he argues that it could be done this way if the amendments are substantially the same in general—that they’re all the same. I say to you that the original amendment moved by my colleague Hamish Walker was to exclude Queenstown from the effect of the legislation. We had 25 submissions, from memory, effectively saying that Queenstown should be excluded for good reason. We had other submitters come to the Finance and Expenditure Committee arguing that their geographic region should be excluded for particular reasons that they argued quite passionately about.

What has happened here is that Mr Chairman has assumed, or concluded, that, geographically, we are homogenous; that all regions are the same. And I say to you that that is just not New Zealand. We are a diverse country. We have different issues in Auckland to what we have in Christchurch to what we have in Queenstown. I think, on this particular occasion, the committee stage of the House and the ability of the Opposition to move amendments which were not ruled out of order prior to the first result—it’s just not the way this committee should run. We have a right, we have the ability, we have a duty and a responsibility to put forward relevant amendments which were not ruled out of order. Then, on the passing of one particular amendment, to then say the rest are out of order, I think, is not right.

Speaking to the point of order, could I just correct one aspect of the Rt Hon David Carter’s submission to you. My recollection of what occurred is that the Chairman said, “There are a lot of similar amendments. I’m going to test the will of the House by putting one.” He put that one, and then, that one having been voted down, he listed the others that on that basis would be ruled out of order.

Just by way of clarification, the Rt Hon David Carter referred to Standing Order 307(4). It may indeed have been the rule that the Chair referred to, but I think that was by way of slip, because the relevant rule is, of course, 307(5): “Where [the] amendments … proposed [are] …, in the opinion of the chairperson, … the same in substance,” and the Chair made it very clear that that was the basis upon which he was ruling, and, here, it’s my submission that it’s very much the case.

I thank the member for that comment. I don’t think that anyone could make that judgment that—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: I just want to make a comment on—

The member might want to reply to the comment that the Hon David Parker’s made. I’m not—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: No, I just wanted to make a comment in regards to Dr Duncan Webb. I’m saying—

No, no. I’ve indicated that the Chair indicated which of the Standing Orders he was referring to. The question I have, and either the Minister in charge of the bill or my predecessor might want to indicate to me—is it correct that there are, essentially, two sets of amendment, one of which goes to geographical region and the other group of which goes to value? Is that accurate?

💬 Hon David Parker: Yes, and what’s happened is, as you’ll see from the form of them, there’s been a pre-prepared form which has left room for changing the dollar amount and changing the district.

OK. And the one that has been dealt with has to do with geographical area?

Tim van de Molen: No, both the value and the geographical location were included.

So they’re both in this—sorry, I do apologise to the House. I was momentarily distracted. I now have the areas and I think it’s fair to say this has not made it any easier for me to make a ruling.

The next question that I want to ask, because I obviously didn’t go to the select committee but the clear impression I got from reports from the select committee—media reports from the select committee rather than the report of the committee—was that the most submissions and the strongest submissions as to exclusion came from Queenstown. Is that a fair summary?

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: If I can help, I was in the committee and that would be a fair summation.

Is there anyone who dissents from that point of view?

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: With respect, I don’t think that’s correct. There were a large number from Queenstown but I recall there were significant numbers from Auckland Central arguing for exemption. There was certainly quite a high profile case that you yourself have ruled on on a particular Northland iwi asking for an exemption, so they were widespread right across New Zealand. Just about every submitter who came to us said, “We agree with the bill but just make sure we’re excluded.”

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: With respect to the Rt Hon David Carter, I think that’s not quite correct. In fact, the Queenstown ones were based around the values of the properties involved. The submissions around central Auckland were actually to do with building of apartment blocks and the like, so they were quite different in nature. In fact, the ones I recall being around the value of properties being built were substantially from Queenstown. That was the real focus of them.

Right—I think I am ready to rule on this and I do apologise. I am often watching the House during the debate but I was distracted at the vital time tonight. The Chairman has been listening to the debate. It is, in the end, his judgment, as long as there’ve been a sufficient number of calls, as to whether the amendments are similar enough in order to be grouped. He’s heard the debate and he’s scrutinised the amendments.

The Hon Gerry Brownlee, in fact, may be able to help me, but I think it was the 2011 Standing Orders Committee that considered this area of work and there were decisions made at that time to, effectively, extend the debate and to reduce the voting time because that was the view of members—that it was better to debate issues and then, in the end, to have a quicker voting period. I’ve been informed that we’ve had 26 calls in this debate. That is, I think it’s fair to say, generous, and in my opinion I can see no reason to overturn the view of the Chair on this question. Therefore the House is once again in committee on the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Debate resumed.