CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought this was the appropriate moment to do it. I want to draw your attention to Standing Order 277(2) and ask you to do some investigation and come back to the House with a considered ruling on the point that I am about to raise. It turns on the interpretation of this Standing Order as to what a bill that is “the same or substantially the same in substance.” should be. I do not want to relitigate an issue from this morning. I want to clarify this for future circumstances. The question that I would like you to go away and turn your attention to is whether “the same or substantially the same” refers to the outcome a bill seeks to achieve or the means by which it seeks to achieve that outcome. The question that we were faced with this morning—and I want to make it clear that I am not relitigating that at all—was we had two bills in the ballot that sought the same outcome, but had different means through which they intended to deliver that.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point. I will indeed look into that. I suspect it may be a combination of both—that it may depend a little on whether or not a reasonably minor amendment can turn one bill into the other. But I think the issue is a legitimate issue, and I am very happy to look at that further.