Williamson Maurice: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18652] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that the financial veto and its provisions are to avoid the Crown being exposed to any financial liability. If you look at the amendment I am talking about then you will see that it may expose some regional councils to some liability to pay some compensation for declining but there is nothing in that that would force the Crown to have to compensate any regional council for that. If we set this as a precedent then we could allow the financial veto to be used on any legislation that may impact on revenues for any territorial local authorities regional councils or whatever. 
I would really like the Speaker of the House to give a more considered ruling on this because I have always understood that the financial veto applies only where there is a direct relationship and an exposure for the Crown. There is no mandatory requirement for the Crown to settle any compensation if they are declined. 
Hon Annette King 
: Where do you think they get their money from? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well there is the Minister chipping in on a point of order which she should not be doing—and her microphone is live and she should shut her mouth but frankly— 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh Maurice! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Actually she should. And as this is a point of order that member should shut hers too. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please be seated. First of all the Minister could not be heard on the microphone because I had my finger on it so she could not be heard. The other thing is that I would remind members that when there is a point of order on the floor it is terse and to the point and no one says anything other than the member addressing the Chamber. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I will leave it at that and I would not mind if it is possible someone giving us a clarification because I do believe that this move expands the use of a financial veto way beyond what Parliament and the Budgets of Ministers of Finance have to include. The Government funds a whole lot of organisations. If we were passing legislation that might make another organisation have some money shortfall and mean that the Government would have to come and pick that up then immediately the financial veto would kick in and there is no end to where that might lead. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I just refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 115/1 and I will read it for the member’s benefit: “During the committee of the whole House the Government will be able to make a submission to the chairperson that an amendment or a change proposed to be moved appears to have more than a minor impact on the fiscal aggregates … and 24 hours’ notice has not been given. If there is doubt about whether a proposed amendment may have more than a minor impact … and 24 hours’ notice has not been given the proposed amendment or change should be ruled out. The onus is on a member proposing to move an amendment to a bill … to give 24 hours’ notice if there is any possibility that the amendment may have an impact on the fiscal aggregates …”. So the Speaker’s ruling is quite specific but it does not stop the member from debating the issue. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I think that is an issue. When I was writing this stuff I did not have any—any—belief that this amendment has an impact on the fiscal aggregates and I think it would be very hard for a member to believe it would. It does not have any mandatory requirement for the Crown to pay anything to anybody. I would have put it in 24 hours sooner if I thought that this would mean an exposure to the Crown. It is not. I am just saying that this is an incredibly long bow to draw because if for instance the Arts Council or the ballet or something else found it had a shortfall because of some legislation then the Government could say it was ruling it out because it might have to pick it up at some later stage. There is no mandatory requirement for the Government to pick up any of the regional councils’ costs for declining a service. That is why I think that this issue needs to be referred to the Speaker. I am happy for it to be left in abeyance and for the veto to sit for now but I would like some further advice brought to the members of this Committee because it goes well beyond what I thought the financial veto does. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I just say that I have made a ruling on it and I have given the member the Speaker’s ruling. I might also add that the amendment may have more than a minor impact and that is straight from the Speaker’s ruling. The member may of course debate the issue here and I am happy to move on with that now.