McAnulty Kieran; Seymour David; Rurawhe AdrianPOINTS OF ORDERSevere Weather Emergency Legislation Bill—Compliance with Standing OrdersHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker I raise an issue with you under Standing Order 267 relating to the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill which as you know is an omnibus bill being passaged through the House tomorrow afternoon. I would ask for your considered ruling by 2 o'clock tomorrow—clause 14 of that bill seeks to amend part of the Local Government Act to reconcile issues relating to long-term planning with the new water services entities. Now Standing Order 267 requires that omnibus bills deal with interrelated topics that amend separate bills and my submission to you is that the amendment in clause 14 is not related to cyclone recovery. Indeed a number of district councils including Horowhenua and Gisborne pointed out to the select committee considering the two subsequent water services entities bills the Finance and Expenditure Committee that this was an anomaly and they recommended amending those clauses.So we have something of a dilemma: firstly you have the power to disallow a clause before a bill is introduced but it would be unfair to consider that you would know everything about every bill; that's just not realistic. What we have is a situation where the bill has had its first reading has gone to the Governance and Administration Committee today but it appears that the Standing Orders are silent on what to do about a clause in a bill that in my view is in clear opposition to the requirements of Standing Order 267. Now the committee will meet this afternoon and may have a resolution but I'm not that confident. So I'd like you to consider and rule as can be the case in the committee of the whole House for new amendments that clause 14 should be removed from this bill.We have worked very I think constructively to get the emergency legislation through and it would be a shame if this was sort of an irritant in that process. There are also other places including those two bills where the fix could be made. We have urgency on the week of 28 March. We have Budget urgency coming up. There are other places that this remedy could be achieved but I don't think this is within either the spirit or the letter of the Standing Orders.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Speaking to the point of order—thank you Mr Speaker—in response to that the rationale behind the inclusion was included in the introductory speech yesterday. We outlined that at the request of local government they would like this provision included so that they can make investments in water service infrastructure to repair that damaged by the cyclone. Also other councils have requested it so that they can make investments for resilience which has arisen as a major focus as a result of the damage from the cyclone. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Speaking to that point I thank the Minister and I certainly wouldn't want to imply—because he did mention it in the first reading—that this was being done by stealth. The really key point here though is that the changes being made by the bill are for affected regions which are named in the bill. The amendment of clause 14 will affect all 80-odd councils across the country and are irrespective of and not related to cyclone recovery.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): So that also applies to other changes proposed in the bill related to the Local Government Act including the allowance for those attending meetings via Zoom or other virtual means to be considered a quorum. That also applies to all councils not just those affected by the cyclone.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Speaking to the point of order—if I can help Mr Speaker. All laws apply equally to all people that's one of the main principles of lawmaking. So it's hardly a surprise that in pursuing the purpose of this bill some other councils might be affected as well. I frankly don't see what the discussions about.SPEAKER: Can I thank the Hon Michael Woodhouse for raising this issue and giving time for me to be advised by the Clerk of the House. I've thought carefully about it and am prepared to make a ruling right now. Normally I would not entertain a point of order relating to proceedings of a bill before select committee. However given the very short time frame for the passage of the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill I am prepared to consider it. The Speaker scrutinises bills at introduction for compliance with the rules for omnibus bills and may take steps at that stage to ensure a bill complies with the rule—Standing Order 265. I may not take these steps at a later stage except in relation to out of order amendments. If members do not think that provisions of a bill meet the test for permitted types of omnibus bills that is something for them to test with officials advising the select committee and then with the Minister in committee of the whole House. Ultimately they may vote accordingly.