Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9227] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I refer you Mr Chairperson to Speaker’s ruling 136/4 and go back to the question of the perforated piece of paper from a notebook which the Leader of the House is relying on. I quote: “An official document is not just a piece of paper with notes for the Minister’s guidance but is a more formal piece of writing conveying a message or memorandum or recording some matter between officials of the Government or between the Government and other persons.” That is the sort of document that in my opinion advice consists of. That is the way that Ministers get advice. It is official. There is a proper record of it. I do not know in whose hand the note on the perforated piece of notepaper is but it is my submission to you Mr Chairperson that in that form it cannot be an official document and therefore it cannot be the source of the advice that the Leader of the House has received. 
Just as a matter of guidance on fiscal aggregates my memory is that as far as Dr Cullen was concerned an amendment had to have an effect of more than $10 million before he would— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Can the member just sum up? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The next point I am making as to an effect on the fiscal aggregates is that Dr Cullen’s view was that a figure of $10 million was the point at which he would start being interested as to whether there was an effect on the fiscal aggregates. Dr Cullen used to make clear that the Government had a majority in the House and if we did not like an amendment we voted against it rather than attempting to have it ruled out through this method or through a financial veto. What he saw as an effect on the fiscal aggregates sufficient to trigger this mechanism or to trigger the financial veto—generally an effect would have to be bigger in order to trigger the financial veto—was something much more significant than the cost of this amendment which at most would be $1 million with the best estimate being about $200000. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: OK. Let me deal with what I think are three points that have come out. I think that this series of points of order on the process around this stuff is useful. I regard it as quite valuable. I will deal firstly with the last point that the Hon Trevor Mallard raised in terms of amount. There is no guidance for me anywhere that I can find in the Standing Orders Speakers’ rulings  
McGee 
 or anywhere that actually defines an amount. That is the prerogative of the Government. If it were $10 million or any figure it would be enshrined somewhere. That is my difficulty. Moving away from saying “This doesn’t fit.” or “That doesn’t fit.” I tell the Committee that there is no documented evidence for me to go to in order to determine what amount is trivial. 
Let us now go to whether it was appropriate or proper for the Leader of the House to have raised this matter and again we go to Speaker’s ruling 119/4 which states clearly in the second-to-last sentence: “It is quite proper for the Minister to raise the issue on official advice”. The member raised the matter of whether the paper was an official document but the ruling does not say “official document”; it states “official advice”. Again in the time that I have had at my disposal to look at this matter nowhere have I found a specification about what is official advice. As I said earlier I have to accept that the Leader of the House has received advice and I so rule on that. 
Then we come to the matter of the responsibility of the Chairperson which is my responsibility. I go to the latest edition of  
McGee 
 at page 381 and the fourth paragraph states in regard to this matter: “The chairperson does not determine such a matter on a balance of probabilities; a possibility is sufficient.” So I am guided by  
McGee  
on this matter in terms of ruling in favour of the point of order raised by Gerry Brownlee. 
We move now to the vote on the schedules.