End of Life Choice Bill

Louisa Wall’s amendment to Part 1, to replace clause 3 and delete clause 4, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 235 is out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Chris Penk’s amendment replacing the definition of “assisted dying” in clause 3, set out on SOP 205—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Sorry, I think the doors need to be unlocked.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, I beg your pardon. Thank you. Unlock the doors. Sorry, I had the wrong piece of paper. So Chris Penk’s amendment is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Melissa Lee’s amendment replacing the definition of “attending medical practitioner” in clause 3, set out on SOP 269, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. The Hon Maggie Barry’s amendment to Part 1 relating to decision-making capacity is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Agnes Loheni’s amendment replacing the definition of “independent medical practitioner” in clause 3, set out on SOP 265, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to clause 3 be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. According to Standing Order 3, page 2, I seek leave for the committee to suspend its activities now and resume at the start of members’ orders on 21 August.

What Standing Order are you quoting?

Page 2 of the Standing Orders book.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): 32?

Page 2, under the provision of leave. Perhaps for clarity, Madam Chair can I say it says that “leave or leave of the House or leave of the committee means permission to do something that is granted without a dissentient voice”.

Can I just check with the member: you are seeking leave to report progress?

No. The idea of this is that the committee of the whole House determines its own destiny, and what I’m saying is that we simply suspend this process now and resume it at the start of members’ orders of the day on 21 August.

Which would be achieved by reporting progress. We’re talking the same thing, but the words—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, they’re two different things, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So the difficulty I have, if I may make the suggestion to the member, is that as the committee of the whole House, we cannot tell the House what to do. We have no powers over that. So if the member seeks leave—[Interruption] Hang on, just let me finish. If you seek leave that we report progress, then when the committee resumes, it will resume at the same place. You will achieve that in a way that is consistent with the functions of the committee of the whole House.

I read to you again from Standing Orders: “leave of the committee”—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I understand that—I understand that.

—“means permission to do something that is granted without dissentient voice”. I’ve asked us to do something; all I want is for the leave to be put.

I understand that, Mr Brownlee. What I’m saying to you, then, is that in the committee of the whole House, we do not have the power, when the House is resumed, to set the Order Paper. So all we will have done is suspended. That’s all we will have done. We cannot tell the House that we want to resume. So, I mean, I can put that leave, if that’s what you wish. I’m trying to be helpful to you by suggesting that we report progress. OK, so I’ll put that leave. Is there any objection? OK, there is objection.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 271 in the name of Agnes Loheni to clause 3 be agreed to.

Simeon Brown’s amendment to clause 4(c) to replace “terminal illness”, set out on SOP 284, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Chris Penk’s amendment to clause 4(c)(i) to insert “on the balance of probabilities”, set out on SOP 276, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Simon O’Connor’s amendment to clause 4(c)(i) to insert “beyond reasonable doubt”, set out on SOP 277, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Simon O’Connor’s amendment to clause 4(c)(i) to insert a reference to refusing medical treatment, set out on SOP 280, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Paulo Garcia’s amendment to clause 4(c)(i) to require unanimous agreement of medical practitioners, set out on SOP 281, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Simeon Brown’s amendment to clause 4(c)(i) to replace “6 months” with “1 month”, set out on SOP 282, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Simeon Brown’s amendment to clause 4(d) to refer to “increasing disability”, set out on SOP 285, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 286 in the name of Simeon Brown to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 263 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.