The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Mr Assistant Speaker, there is a concern from Mr Power that the ruling I have given on one of his amendments to clause 2 is not acceptable. Mr Power’s amendment is: “To omit ‘the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent’ (lines 5 and 6 on page 1) and substitute ‘the day after the date on which the Controller and Auditor-General reports to Parliament that he has received confirmation that all political parties have repaid to the Parliamentary Service the amounts listed in Figure 2 and Figure 3 on pages 33 and 34 of the report of the Controller and Auditor-General titled ‘Advertising expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Service in the three months before the 2005 General Election’ as being expenditure outside the scope of the appropriation.”
I have ruled that it is out of order because it refers to an indeterminate event, not a specified time. Furthermore, to enlarge on that, my advice is that this amendment of Mr Power’s is distinct from his previous amendment to clause 2, which covered a particular time. With regard to the previous amendment, there will be a general election, and, therefore, there will be a fixed date for the return of the writs, but no such fixed event can be associated with the member’s second amendment. That is the point. There is no requirement for the Auditor-General to report on these matters, and, therefore, no determinate time. That was why the amendment was ruled out of order, Mr Assistant Speaker.
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
Madam Chairperson has summarised the factual position. She referred me, during the course of her ruling, to Speaker’s ruling 106/6, which states: “Amendments or parts of amendments which are too vague are out of order.” The difficulty I have with the ruling that has been given is that the vagaries that the Chairperson has referred to do not exist in the amendment I have proposed, because a determinate event is outlined in that amendment. That event is the reporting to Parliament—[ Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
There is a point of order on the floor. That means absolute silence.
—by the Controller and Auditor-General that all political parties have repaid to the Parliamentary Service those amounts listed in figures 2 and 3 on pages 33 and 34 of his report. When that amendment is compared with my previous amendment, which substituted “the day after the date of the return of the writs in the next General Election”, one sees that the reason for putting in the reference to the Auditor-General’s report to Parliament was to create the trigger that would actually result in a specific event occurring. It is no different, in my submission, from the situation that has historically been the case in many pieces of legislation, where the commencement date is the day after the Royal assent is given by the Governor-General’s signature. The two events have no specific day, date, or time; nonetheless, they of themselves are actual events that will occur at one point or another. The inclusion of the Auditor-General’s report to Parliament, as the event that triggers that, provides, in my submission, the necessary certainty to make that a determinate event.
We have heard from the Leader of the House that there is no guarantee that the Auditor-General will report. Likewise, it is my contention that a similar uncertainty could exist around assent being given by the Governor-General. On that basis, if we are having an argument about the level of certainty around either of those events occurring, one must be treated much like the other. For the purposes of legislation in this House, the assent by the Governor-General, as a commencement date, has been seen as a definite event and a determinate event. So, too, in my submission, should my amendment be seen in that light—that is, the date that the Auditor-General reports to Parliament that all parties have repaid the amounts owing.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
Mr Assistant Speaker, that is a very interesting argument, but might I put a couple of contrary arguments to you. The first, of course, is that the procedure for the giving of the Royal assent is laid down under the Constitution Act, so it is an event that must occur. The problem with the member’s amendment is actually quite a fundamental one: there is no requirement upon the Auditor-General to report on this matter, and he cannot now achieve that particular amendment. If there is no requirement, we would be placed in the extraordinary position where if the Auditor-General declined, for whatever reason, to report back on these matters, then the bill would never come into force. That, I think, would be a most unfortunate state of affairs, and one that should not be able to be placed in the hands of a particular individual, in that way. The Governor-General does not have that discretion open to him, under our constitution. There is a fundamental difference between those two things.
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) Link to this
The considerations that have just been outlined to the House by the Leader of the House might be very good reasons why it would be inconvenient indeed for the matter proposed by Mr Power to be put to the Committee and approved by the Committee. But they are not good reasons why a member should be told that his amendment will not be considered by the Committee. I ask that you have a good look at the words in Speaker’s ruling 106/6, which states: “Amendments or parts of amendments which are too vague are out of order.” The purpose of the ruling seems to me to be very clear: it is to make sure that the Committee does not embrace an amendment that is fundamentally meaningless, or about which there might be uncertainty. That provision in the Speakers’ rulings is there to ensure we pass good law.
The proposition that Mr Power has put forward is a very straightforward one. It requires that the provisions of this legislation should not come into force until the date on which the Auditor-General has presented a certificate. That is a perfectly straightforward proposition; there is no dispute or argument about it. It might be that the Committee would not want to adopt Mr Power’s amendment; on the previous voting patterns available, it is very likely that the Committee would not want to. But that is no reason why the Committee should not have it within its power to consider the amendment. It is a clear proposal, so there would be no uncertainty about what was before the Committee. I put it to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that it is quite wrong for the Chair to rule it out—on advice, I admit—when it is clear that the member is putting a proposition about which the Committee would have a very clear choice and could vote accordingly.
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
Just following on from my colleague, and after listening to the Leader of the House’s view of events, I put this point: this is not a trivial amendment. Many amendments have been considered trivial by the Clerk and by the Committee Chairperson, and those have been, in my opinion, rightly ruled out. This amendment was thought through very carefully, and I submit that the Committee, as the master of this legislation, should have the opportunity to consider by way of a vote what is not in itself a vague amendment. That is all I am seeking. I am not asking for the provision to be included; I am simply asking for the Committee to have an opportunity to vote on it.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Having sought some advice on the matter, I tell members that an amendment to a commencement date must provide certainty about when the Act is to come into force. An amendment that relies on an indeterminate event is not in order. The proposed amendment relies on the Auditor-General making a report to the House. There is no requirement for the Auditor-General to report, nor a time set for the report. The member compares the proposed amendment with his amendment providing for the Act to come into effect after the return of the writs. That is a time set by statutory requirements; there is certainty about such a date. The member’s proposed amendment does not provide sufficient certainty. It is therefore not in order.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your advice gives you, I suppose, confidence to say—as you just have—that the member’s amendment does not provide certainty, and therefore cannot proceed. But where is it stated in our Standing Orders, or anywhere else, that there must be certainty in the way in which you have prescribed it? There is no doubt that the sequence of events would take place, if this amendment were passed by the Committee— remember that we are asking only why the Committee cannot even consider the amendment; it seems extraordinary that it has been ruled out so quickly. There is a clear sequence of events, and there would be a determined date. Why does this House, apparently, not have the capability to produce a law written in such a way?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
Again, a ruling is being questioned. It is perfectly legitimate to call back the Speaker, but now your ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker, is being questioned, which is somewhat ironic in the context of the current debate before the House and the Committee—but it is not for the first time during this process. The point is, of course, that determinacy is not a matter of a specific date but of the fact that that date must occur. There must be an election and the writs must be returned. That is provided for under statute. There is no requirement for the Auditor-General to report. Therefore, if he chose not to, the amendment would mean that nothing would ever happen. That certainly is very vague. It cannot be placed in the hands of an individual, in that fashion, as to whether an Act of this Parliament comes into force. I think that is the point being made. It is not whether it is 7 February or 12 March; it is the fact that there is no certainty about the date occurring, at all.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
That is an interesting argument from Dr Cullen, but quite clearly the situation would be an expectation on the Governor-General and, as has been said repeatedly by members on this side, no greater or lesser expectation falls upon the Governor-General to give the Royal assent to any legislation. Dr Cullen is saying that the House cannot even consider this prospect because of his particular reading of this situation. He and others who want to back that suggest that leaving the Auditor-General with some obligation in this matter is somehow unacceptable. Well, this whole legislation is in front of us because the Auditor-General accepted his obligations. To rule out the opportunity for the House even to consider this type of legislation, I think, needs to be rethought.
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) Link to this
Members will all want to be able to follow the rulings of the Speaker. They often seek guidance from Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders to enable themselves to do so. On this occasion—and I am not questioning your ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker—I invite you to provide a written ruling for the House, because the ruling you have just given to us orally goes a step further than Speaker’s ruling 106/6. It adds a requirement for a new criterion to be met for an amendment to be within the Standing Orders. If members are to gain anything from this experience, I suggest it would be helpful if you were to provide a written ruling that can be added to the Speakers’ rulings to give guidance to members in future.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
I thank the member for his consideration and understanding. I am sure that something along those lines will be considered. In the meantime, I now declare the House back in Committee.