Woodhouse Michael; Mallard Trevor; Hipkins ChrisHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker for that thorough ruling. Standing Order 154(2) provides for the information that needs to be contained in the proxy in order for it to be cast. Speaker's ruling 69/1 talks about the communication of withdrawal or amendment of that proxy that need not be in writing—it could be a telephone. As far as I can tell there is no ruling or standing order about the original proxy being cast in a manner other than by written piece of paper. I wonder if you could clarify whether that is the case and then consider—given the fact that Supplementary Order Papers may be tabled at a reasonably frequent rate through the committee of the whole House—whether it would be in order for somebody receiving a proxy to get that via an electronic means or verbal means as is available for amendment or withdrawal?SPEAKER: The short answer is that that is certainly an option for people doing it to get that sort of direction. It may be that if people feel that they will not be in a position to be constantly communicated with they may want to give a proxy indicating their views on some of the substantive issues and either say That's all I want to vote on." or they might want to give a more general authority to an individual—probably of like mind but not necessary—to exercise their proxy.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is important that we take some time to get this right given that there's some high stakes involved here potentially. With regard to proxy voting the other example of where I think there has been challenges in the past is where a member has come to the House—having given someone a proxy—and changed their mind. And therefore their vote has been cast twice: by the person who had their proxy voting one way and by them voting the other way. I just wanted seek some reassurance that it will be the in-person vote that takes precedence should that happen.The second part which you may also want to comment on is just an urging really that we take some time in the counting of the votes to be very careful. We saw an example in the most recent time this was voted on where an error was made where someone ended up voting in this case in the same way twice by error of counting. I just want to make sure that we don't rush the count of votes for the efficiency of the House and we take time to get it right given the ruling that you've just made.SPEAKER: Sure. And both of those I think are going to be fairly answered in the first way. I will say that since that time the member's name has been slightly reduced in size so it fits on one line and there's less likely to be confusion of that sort again. I won't make the same mistake again. The other thing that I have asked is that we do take a little bit more time when considering the amendments and check very carefully for dual-voting which when you have some members not voting—the fact that we had 121 should have been a pretty clear signal but there will be occasions where the numbers are below 120 and there's still a possibility of being on both sides. That is a specific check that I have asked to be done by the clerks and by the Chairs before votes are declared. I just hope that there'll be tolerance from members because it will take longer than members are used to to have votes. But this is another reason why I think it's particularly important that people do come and do it in person and if they have a proxy issued that is not being used that they make it very clear to the individual to whom they've given the proxy that they are there and voting physically.The one other point that I'll make is to reiterate a view which I've given quietly to some members and that is to make it clear that this is a conscience vote and personal votes. I don't think it is a good look to have whips from particular parties—especially the major parties—exercising the proxy votes during that time. It's better for people who have views on the issues to get like-minded people to exercise the votes so that the public are aware of the fact that there is a conscience vote. Obviously with the procedural votes that's not the case.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for your indulgence. This is a very important issue and I think we do need to understand what we're going into next Wednesday. I think at the latter part of your ruling you indicated that there were a number of principles—basically a principles framework within which the bill will proceed—and I just want to test how that might work. One of them was that the management of end of life choice can only be by a—I'm paraphrasing—qualified medical practitioner. That was one of the ones you raised is that right? My question is this: does that mean that an amendment by Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House that may offer an alternative to that will automatically be ruled out?SPEAKER: The short answer to that is yes. If there is a suggestion that medical practitioners of some type get—and you know there are discussions around the types of medical practitioners involved—taken out completely from the process then I would consider that that is inconsistent with the bill that has received a second reading.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Speaking to that point I think perhaps this may be an issue that needs to be canvassed at the Business Committee because I am concerned that this marks a pretty significant constitutional departure from the powers of the committee of the whole House to work within the purposes of the bill. The pillars that you have articulated I'm not convinced—and I'll need to look at it some more—they actually work outside of the purposes of the bill in which case this could be somewhat without precedent. I would encourage members of the Business Committee to consider whether that requires further discussion.SPEAKER: OK I'm always happy to have discussions with individual members or at the Business Committee but I will refer the House to Standing Order 302(1): "A committee of the whole House considers a bill to determine whether the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the bill as read a second time by the House." So there's an acceptance as part of that that the general principles have been accepted and you know while I am willing to listen to discussion as to whether I have properly described those principles it is something which I haven't given some thought to. But as I say I'm happy to have further discussions with individual members and the Business Committee. The purpose of this exercise is to make sure that members have a fair indication of how things are going to work next Wednesday and that people are properly prepared for that and not surprised by rulings which might occur."