Smith Lockwood: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9264] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members for a very interesting procedural discussion under point of order. I agree with the Hon Trevor Mallard that we are in territory without clear precedent in New Zealand’s parliamentary practice; therefore it is important. That is why I have listened very carefully to the points being made. I think very good points have been made by both sides in the last few minutes. 
I assure the Hon Darren Hughes that my thinking in this is certainly not governed by the number of amendments in itself. There could be any number of amendments that are different from each other to a piece of legislation. Opposition members or any member have the absolute right to put amendments that the Committee has not already decided upon. That is not the crucial issue. There are more substantive issues involved in this particular ruling that I am about to make. I think the crux of the whole thing comes down to the issue which was recognised by the Hon Trevor Mallard that if we look at what has been the practice in New Zealand in the past as was mentioned by the Hon Dr Nick Smith we see that when the Government—usually it is the Government—moves an amendment to a date and the Committee votes on that once that is accepted then any other amendments are ruled out. We have had that as a clear precedent in New Zealand. 
What has not been such a clear precedent in New Zealand and this is an issue that I am going to rule on at this stage and suggest a way forward for is the other side of that mention in  
Erskine May 
 which the Chair the Hon Rick Barker has emphasised and that is that  
Erskine May 
 also emphasises that a Chairperson has to also consider the admissibility of amendments that are substantially the same as an amendment that has already been negatived by the Committee. That is something that has not been our common practice in New Zealand I think it is fair to say. Yet what the Hon Dr Nick Smith pointed out in his point of order is that in the past our not having accepted that practice has led to a fairly unsatisfactory situation whereby it may lead to the Government doing exactly what the member suggested which is leaving out a date so that an amendment can be moved by the Government to put a date in and any other dates are then ruled out. 
I think the Hon Trevor Mallard has made an interesting point in accepting the basis of Erskine May’s advice on page 401. The Hon Trevor Mallard pointed out that the issue is what is considered to be substantially different and he pointed out that when it comes to dates 6 months’ difference is substantial compared with a difference of 1 or 2 days. I make it very clear to members that I will rule in favour of the Chair’s position on this. The Chair has found that the amendments are not admissible because the Committee has already negatived an amendment that is substantially the same as those other amendments. Therefore the Chair the Hon Rick Barker has ruled them out and I will support that ruling. 
In doing so I suggest to members that this matter be looked at further by the Standing Orders Committee. I think that what is different in our practice from the practice at Westminster is that at Westminster the Chair can select from a range of dates two or three amendments that are substantially different and test them. Once they are tested the rest are out. It may be that we should look at something similar. In our procedures in this Parliament we do not have the ability for the Chair to choose from a lot of amendments that are very very similar some that could be considered to be different. I think it is something I would like to have the Standing Orders Committee look at for the future. As Speaker I am genuinely concerned in the interests of the minority and that would overcome any concerns about the Chair deciding what might be substantially different because then the Committee would have decided that in the matter of two or three amendments that could be voted on in a reasonable space of time and that would then resolve that matter so that the Chair is not having to make that judgment totally on his or her own. That is what I want the Standing Orders Committee look at. 
But at the moment I am ruling in favour of the position adopted by the Chair of the Committee which is that because the Committee has already negatived an amendment that is substantially the same as these further amendments they are ruled out. I thank all the members. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I speak not in any way to litigate your ruling; it is in one that I think we will consider carefully and I hope the Standing Orders Committee does as well. I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. tomorrow 25 February on outside time with the normal arrangements for the lodging of questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.