Abortion Legislation Bill

I move, That the Abortion Legislation Bill be recommitted for the purpose only of considering Supplementary Order Paper 485 in my name, which relates to safe areas.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m willing to hear it—David Seymour.

It does relate very precisely to what we’ve just heard. Speaker’s ruling 120/4 says that a bill cannot be recommitted to insert a new clause if a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to the same effect has been ruled out by the Chair. Now, SOP 474 did have, largely, the same effect of what’s being proposed right now, and it was ruled out of order by the Chair as a result of it being contradictory to another decision made by the committee—namely, the acceptance of SOP 464. So it would seem, in accordance with Speaker’s ruling 120/4, that it is out of order for you, as Speaker, to accept the motion that’s just been proposed.

Is there any further comment on that? Can someone give me a copy of the SOP that was ruled out, please? Does the member have a copy of it? The member’s asked me to rule it out on the basis of something that—

It’s part of the parliamentary record. I didn’t realise it was incumbent upon me to provide a copy of it.

Even if it were not the case that, as Mr Seymour has correctly stated, a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) had already been ruled out in this space, the fact of the matter is that the content is substantially the same as that which has already been considered by an existing Supplementary Order Paper—that in the name of Mr Seymour himself—and it would be a contravention of Standing Order 140, in relation to the fact that a voice vote is carried to determine these matters. It would not be appropriate for this House to recommit a matter to the committee of the whole House, which it would then not be available for the committee to consider, in accordance with those Standing Orders.

My understanding, and not having it on hand with me right at the moment, is that 474 was the previous SOP in the name of Marama Davidson that was creating an alternative regime for safe areas. That is not what this SOP does. So while that may have been ruled out of order, this is substantively different.

I’ll have Simon O’Connor—we’ll have the whole crew.

If it’s possible to make sure that we—well, on this point of order, is it only on Mr Seymour’s effect, or are we able to bring the wider discussion before you put a motion forward?

💬 SPEAKER: Sorry?

I’m just wanting to make sure that once you’ve dealt with the very particular point of Mr Seymour’s, other aspects which are relevant to the motion can also be discussed, or—

💬 SPEAKER: No, they can’t. There’s no debate. It’s not a debatable motion.

No, it’s not to be debated. I just don’t want it to be—well, then, two points: while it’s not debatable, it then becomes incredibly relevant to the order of the House that we have an understanding of what the SOP is, otherwise we’re running blind. Secondly—

The member will resume his seat. We’re dealing with a very narrow point of order that has been raised by David Seymour. I’ll hear more on that.

I speak to the point of order made most recently by Jan Logie. Jan Logie claims that there is, she said, a difference in substance between SOP 485 and 474. That may well be true. My reading of them—I can’t see what difference she is referring to, and I reserve the right to contest that, however I refer you to the precise wording of Speaker’s ruling 120/4, which says “if the clause or one to the same effect has been ruled out of order by the chairperson.”

So it would seem to me that whether it’s the same substance, we can argue all day. The fact is that the initiative by Jan Logie, and Marama Davidson’s point of order have the same effect, and that is to introduce a form of safe area into the bill, or re-introduce it, after the Chair of the committee has ruled out a very similar amendment to introduce a similar form of safe area. Indeed, the committee of the whole House has ruled out the safe area concept completely, which led to SOP 474 being ruled out of order.

It’s not even necessary to rely on those points, accurate though they may be. Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand is clear that the recommittal mechanism is envisaged in a situation where a defect or oversight may be discovered in the bill. Objectively, that’s not so, because the committee of the whole House not only voted upon that matter but also stood that part of the bill at that stage, sir. It’s not for this House to seek a second crack at the sideline conversion after the final whistle has been blown.

Just speaking further to it, and clarifying in terms of the point of difference between SOP 474 and this SOP. SOP 474 was to set up the Director-General of Health as the person who made the decisions about granting safe areas, and also set up an infringement regime, as opposed to the original criminal regime. What this SOP does is restore the provisions that were recommended by the Abortion Legislation Committee that were certainly passed, but not reflecting the will of the numbers of this House, in the way that the voting happened in the committee stages.

We sought advice on how to rectify that and we were told that this was, indeed, the option available to us to rectify that, and that the House has control of its decisions, that we get to choose.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—I’ve got a new point.

Well, is it a—I’m about to rule on David Seymour’s. Is it a new point of order, or if it’s a point of order that goes to Mr Seymour’s point of order I will hear it, otherwise we’ll hear it after.

I just want to correct a statement that’s been made to you, in that Jan Logie said that the vote by the committee didn’t reflect the will of the committee. That’s not correct. The records show that very clearly. The will of the House was passed.

Was that the point that that Mr Brownlee wanted to make?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, I’ve got something else.

OK. Well, I’m in a position now to rule on Mr Seymour’s point. I recognise the fact that while this shouldn’t go on, we have a very senior member who wants to make a point of order when I have ruled. My ruling is a very similar one, that there is a difference between a House and the committee. The committee cannot make decisions which are inconsistent with each other, and that’s the reason that Chairs of the committee rule out matters that have been dealt with. The House, however, has the ability, in the end, to make a decision to ask the committee of the whole House to override a previous decision. That is of longstanding and it is an important precedent. Therefore, the rule of consistency within a committee does not apply to the House when it comes to a recommittal motion. I’m now ruling out David Seymour’s point of order, and I will refer to the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if there is a little bit of a gap in our Standing Orders, when I read them. Because if you look at page 449 of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, where it instructs on recommittal and multiple committal motions, it makes the point that if there is more than one member wanting to seek a motion to recommit, then it would be the most broad of the recommittal motions that would be put to the House.

Now, the difficulty here is that we have a provision under our Standing Orders that means that only one motion can be put at a time. That seems to me to be a problem in our Standing Orders that might well be fixed today by a ruling which would say that if there are other motions for recommittal on this bill, they could be considered for decision by the Speaker as to which was the most broad of those motions, both of them being recommittals. I think it is a bit of a dilemma. It’s a problem that while we refer to Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand most of the time—in fact, all the time, pretty much—for our guidance, and it is a rewritten document that has been written in the last couple of years, I think it would be something that you might well want to consider.

I want to thank the member for his suggestion. I think it is something which would be appropriate for the Standing Orders Committee to consider at the appropriate time. At the moment, there’s not only the reference in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand that the member has rightly drawn my attention to. In preparation for this, of course, it was part of the research, but I remember the Rt Hon David Carter referring to the quality of the judgment of Speaker Wall, and there is, at Speaker’s ruling 120/2 a very clear ruling from Speaker Wall on that matter.

A personal vote was called for on the question that the motion be agreed to.

Order! Order! Order! Even though the House is sitting, members in the gallery cannot participate. That member will now leave. [Interruption] Having not left, the member is now banned for a year.