edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4555] 
1. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill 
: 
 What advice if any did she obtain in drafting her Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill on the number of independent contractors who could be potentially affected by the bill? 
DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The advice I received is that there are no reliable estimates of people employed on contracts for services that would include pay rates less than the minimum wage. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the member expect in the event her bill passes the first reading the select committee to take advice on all the circumstances in which contractors are allegedly employed including from her colleague Taito Phillip Field given his vast experience in underpaying people? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member has no responsibility for the select committee so that question is out of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question from Wayne Mapp simply asked the member where she would take advice from. Surely she has to take some advice from somewhere; if she does not she can just say she is not taking any. Dr Mapp gave an example which by your ruling today is now quite OK. It is a hypothetical proposition put to a member and as we have read in a number of Speakers’ rulings today hypothetical propositions are in order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes of course and the member did address that. It was the second question—the follow-up supplementary question—that was in effect asking the member about matters that the select committee is responsible for and for which she is not responsible. But certainly you are right and she did address that question. 
Peter Brown 
: Could the member clarify whether it is possible that under her bill a person could win a contract at an agreed overall price underachieve or underestimate or whatever then be legally entitled to increased remuneration in order to bring him or her up to the minimum wage level? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Those are very complex matters and I look forward to the debate on them during the first reading and in a select committee as appropriate. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is normally only one supplementary question on questions to members. They are not treated the same as questions to Ministers. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave then to ask the member whether she sought any advice from her colleague Taito Phillip Field given his deep experience in underpaying people. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask that question. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4552] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a couple of documents. The first is a list of the goals of the Government’s Cancer Control Strategy that quite clearly says “early detection”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Second is a transcript of an interview where the chairman of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners says that diagnosis is being delayed for people with potential cancers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Barker Rick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Barker Rick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4551] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a number of documents pertaining to question No. 9. I seek leave to table the report of the Government Administration Committee that shows the National Party does not support the Oaths Modernisation Bill going forward. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please be seated. The member asked whether this is out of order. There have been several members out of order when seeking to table documents today. No one interrupted those members on that side of the House when they made out-of-order points of order; they continued. I ask the same courtesy to be given to members on the other side of the House. Would the member please start again. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I seek leave to table the report of the Government Administration Committee that shows that the National Party opposed the Oaths Modernisation Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I seek leave to table the transcript from  
Checkpoint 
 on 28 July 2006 in which Dr Brash outlines his party’s new bedrock values policy backtracking on its opposition to the Oaths Modernisation Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I seek leave to table a page “An Open Documentary on Their Faith and Their Life” describing the views of the Exclusive Brethren on the place of women in society. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I seek leave to table the speech from Dr Don Brash on his party’s new bedrock values policy given at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment dated 28 July 2006. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I seek leave to table a  
New Zealand Herald  
article dated 29 July 2006 outlining Dr Brash’s proposed bedrock values blocking access to anyone who does not accept those tolerant values. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4549] 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to qualification criteria for New Zealand citizenship? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I have received a report that describes New Zealand’s current citizenship oaths as “timeless oaths” and notes that with “a country like ours with a short history we should not move to change them without good reason.” I have seen a second report stating: “we cannot support the bill going forward in respect of the Citizenship and Parliamentary Oaths.” The first report was from Dr Richard Worth MP and the second was from the National Party minority report on the Oaths Modernisations Bill. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on possible changes to qualification criteria for New Zealand citizenship? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have also seen a report that potential citizens of New Zealand should “share bedrock values” including “an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes” and that on that basis “we may need to look at the oath of allegiance for example to work out what it is that people are signing up for when they become New Zealand citizens.” Either Dr Brash was not aware of National Party policy or this is just another National Party flip-flop. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has the Minister seen any alternative policy on possible changes to qualification criteria for New Zealand citizenship? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes I have. I have seen a report that states: “Fathers are the breadwinners; mothers stay at home.” I have seen another report that states: “I cannot speak for the Exclusive Brethren” but goes on to state: “If you don’t believe in these values”—those values being the rule of law religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes—“then perhaps New Zealand isn’t the place you should move to.” The first was the view of the multimillion-dollar funder of the National Party the Exclusive Brethren; the second was the view of its good friend Dr Don Brash the leader of the National Party. Perhaps Don Brash was right when he said that too much bad red wine is bad for you after all. 
Pansy Wong 
: I seek leave to table an email from the Department of Labour to other officials which states that the Minister of Finance and the then Minister of Immigration the Hon Lianne Dalziel said that we should forget about immigration criteria and simply sell New Zealand citizenship at the price of between $5 million and $10 million per person. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4549] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an  
Evening Post 
 article that clearly shows that the HMNZS  
Charles Upham 
 was purchased by the then National Government in 1994 which is 2 years before I even came to Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4540] 
3.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Will students who do not identify as Maori have an opportunity to experience a curriculum that reflects and values Te Ao Maori; if so how will this be done? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 The draft New Zealand curriculum proposes that all students experience a curriculum that reflects New Zealand’s bicultural heritage and its multicultural society. Each school will do this when that school uses the curriculum to design and implement programmes that meet the needs and interests of its particular students and community. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the publication of the new draft curriculum pre-empt discussions at the select committee about the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill given that any reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi has already been removed from the draft? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: What it does do is enhance the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and it ensures through the actions in the schools and through the support of this Government for Maori language that they will be there for a long long time. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What is the Government currently doing to support te reo Maori in New Zealand schools? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Labour-led Government is committed to supporting a range of te reo Maori learning. This includes the provision of funding to support teaching in Maori immersion for Maori medium resources to support teaching of Maori in mainstream settings and to develop a Maori language education outcomes framework. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi enhanced in this curriculum programme? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Participation. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa i te Whare. Why is it no longer an essential principle of the New Zealand curriculum that the New Zealand curriculum recognises the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It certainly does so in its actions. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What is the reason for removing the values of tolerance caring compassion non-sexism and non-racism; or has Labour done a deal with National to uphold and implement its PC eradication policy? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I would have thought very seriously that that party would be right behind this Labour-led Government in supporting our involvement in education. There are now eight learning areas. There were seven. The new learning area is learning languages. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I seek leave to table the principles of the  
New Zealand Curriculum Framework 
 of 1993 which state that the New Zealand curriculum recognises the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I seek leave to table the section on attitudes and values in the  
New Zealand Curriculum Framework 
 1993. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mapp Wayne: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Mapp Wayne: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4536] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I would like to refer you specifically to Speaker’s ruling 154/1 whereby Speaker Hunt said: “Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” Frankly it appears so often to members on this side of the House that that is hardly observed with any seriousness by members of the Government. I would urge that this area be looked at carefully if you want the House to be more orderly. This is the time of accountability of Ministers and they must take that seriously but so often they do not.
Dunne Peter: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Dunne Peter: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4536] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This may be an appropriate time to raise another issue. This issue actually lies I think at the heart of much of what we have just heard. Reference was made in an earlier point of order to Ministers addressing the question. I submit to you that the series of Speakers’ rulings—made by your predecessor in the main—about addressing the question are in fact the core of the problem. Prior to that one notes Speakers such as Mr Tapsell Mr Harrison Mr Kidd and others were very consistent in the view that they were not responsible for the content of an answer given. I refer you in particular to Speaker’s ruling 157/1 in which Mr Speaker Tapsell does introduce some conditions as to when a Minister may be called to order during the course of a response. 
I submit that the series of rulings that go beyond that and say in effect: “I am not responsible for the content of an answer. All I am responsible for is whether the question has been addressed.”—which was the import of Mr Hunt’s rulings—have in fact caused the problem that we have been working our way round for some time now. This may be an opportune time for you to look at that whole issue of not being responsible—quite properly—for the content of an answer and how that squares with the requirement that Ministers address the question. It seems to me that the two positions are virtually contradictory which is the cause of I think a lot of the aggravation we have had in recent months. Madam Speaker you may wish to consider a more lengthy ruling on that point in due course.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4536] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. I note that for over a month now I have been seeking precisely what Dr Worth has now sought. I ask members that when they are given the invitation to be consulted and to participate in determining how this House should be run they take it up at that time.
Worth Richard: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Worth Richard: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4536] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I seek the leave of the House that your ruling be suspended so that the issue can be considered by the Business Committee and the respective caucuses of the parties with a view to its being either confirmed or amended in some way that would reduce the prospect of the disorder that I sincerely believe your ruling will bring.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4536] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members. I think the member who raised the original point of order should also note that I have frequently asked Ministers to address the question when an unsatisfactory reply has been given. But—more important—I have also asked members to address the Standing Order. I am a little surprised that they have not taken an opportunity to do so because to some extent it is the way in which the Standing Order is framed that is the problem. I would be more than happy for members to take that opportunity themselves—because it is the members who make the Standing Orders—so that we can get some clarification of this.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4535] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In fact this is not a new practice or a new issue at all. Indeed the fact that you are able to refer to quite longstanding Speakers’ rulings on addressing the question is precisely because this has always been an issue between Ministers and members opposite in the House and some day the member may have the chance to experience rulings from the other side of the equation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order. Do members wish to remain in this Chamber? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am in the middle of a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We’re hearing the point of order. Would that member please be seated until the member has had the courtesy— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You are objecting to my colleague interjecting because the imputation made by Dr Cullen was a smart alec remark quite outside the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member does not have the floor. I must say that when points were being raised by members on that side of the House interjections were not made yet one saw that they could have been. So I ask for some tolerance in the House and for members to allow the member to complete in silence his comment on the point of order. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said the notion that there is a requirement to address the question is of course what the Standing Orders actually state and the rulings on that have been repeated endlessly almost all the time that I have been in Parliament as people have raised points of order about the answers given by Ministers. But what we have just heard and what Dr Mapp—and indeed Mr Carter—said earlier raises another matter that has come up frequently in National Party points of order: that if the National Party does not like what is happening in the House it reserves the right to break the Standing Orders and to engage in endless barracking and a barrage of noise. That clearly is a breach of the Standing Orders and of good order within the House. If members have an issue that issue is to be raised by way of a point of order not by way of collective behaviour—some of it clearly orchestrated in advance of the House sitting—in order to try to undermine your authority.
Mapp Wayne: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Mapp Wayne: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4535] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have limited in some respects the way interjections are to be made during answers to questions. But this whole issue has arisen because of the way you have interpreted addressing the question. It seems to me that if a Minister has just tangentially referred to the subject matter of the question then that has been enough to be considered as addressing the question. But so often that has caused enormous frustration and I suggest that another possible and reasonable interpretation of addressing the question would be to actually address the way it is asked and the answering of that question. That would be addressing the question as opposed to the practice that has developed of making a tangential reference to the subject matter which is always going to lead to annoyance and frustration for members on this side of the House and frankly a lack of accountability by Ministers in relation to reasonable questions by members.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4534] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I can assure the member that I get the point. If he consults with his whips and checks with  
Hansard 
 he will realise that this issue has been around for some time. Before the end of the last session in fact I had raised it and I had sought some guidance and assistance from members in the House. It was specifically raised by the Hon Peter Dunne and as in accordance with normal practice when a ruling is sought the Speaker tries to give that ruling as soon as possible afterwards—which is what I have done.
Smith Nick: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Smith Nick: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4534] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have two points I wish to raise because the ruling that you have given is a very significant change to the practice of this Parliament during question time. My first point concerns whether there is any connection between this significant change in the balance between the Opposition and the Government and the tabling of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion of no confidence in yourself and—
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4534] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I can tell the member that it will be the same—there will be no intervention at all—if that helps him. This is only for questions which is why I have made it clear and why I suggest that members do read what I have said.
Worth Richard: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Worth Richard: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4534] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just reflecting on your ruling and its implications I ask what the position will now be in respect of interjections on points of order. If you are going to open up this cage completely it seems to me that you are going to encourage exactly what you do not want.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4534] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not changing the balance. I am reverting to what was the practice—which changed I understand from doing my research—when MMP came in. After a while some smaller parties in this House were not accorded the same amount of courtesy when they asked their questions; therefore Speaker Hunt began a practice of more interpretation. I agree entirely with the member that interjections for both questions and answers should be rare and reasonable. 
I am attempting to ensure that we do not get into the ridiculous situation that I have found myself in where people have been almost entrapping others who have coughed laughed or made some interjection that was perhaps not appropriate and the issue therefore has became not the purpose of the rule but in fact its strict application. I just ask members to take time to actually consider what I have said and I would very much appreciate any comments they have to be referred through their whips to the Business Committee.
Smith Nick: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Smith Nick: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4534] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand from the new ruling you have given that interjections during questions as well as answers will be tolerated. I have absolutely no difficulty with your ruling in respect of Speaker Tapsell’s judgment contained in Speaker’s ruling 150/1—that if interjections completely disrupt the House then absolutely it is your right to intervene. 
 But you are substantially changing the balance of power within this Parliament with your ruling because when a member asks a question we can see from  
Hansard 
 that the amount of time he or she has in that question is only a fraction—usually on average about one-sixth—of the length of an answer. As long as I have been a member of this House the balancing factor in that 6:1 ratio during times of speaking has been the fact that members’ questions are heard in silence and that interjections are allowed providing they are rare and reasonable in respect of answers. So I want to get some clarification from you Madam Speaker about why you are changing the balance within this Parliament between the Opposition and Government around this key issue of questions.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4533] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I just point out that in that case we were not talking about question time; that was a point of order when there should have been no interjections from anyone and although Mr Brownlee was heard in silence Dr Cullen was not. I would draw members’ attention also to Standing Order 371 about the content of questions as well as answers. They are very similar. I agree with the member; if in fact there could be an abiding by both the Standing Orders it would lead to a more orderly time during question time. I would also point out—and a copy of the ruling will be available—that it is in fact a less strict interpretation than the one that had been given before.
Carter John: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Carter John: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4533] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I listened closely to your ruling on that matter and I want to just raise this point with you if you intend to apply a stricter application of the Speaker’s ruling. I want to draw your attention to Standing Order 377(2)(b) in particular on the content of answers which states that replies shall not contain inferences imputations etc. We have already had a case today where Mr Cullen Leader of the House was taking a point of order and strayed from the point to the situation where you got a lot of objections and interjections from this side of the House because he went outside the Standing Orders. If you expect this House—and in particular the Opposition—to understand your ruling and to have fewer interjections and less volume then it will be very important that we have the application of the Standing Orders in regard to the Minister’s questions and particularly we need you to intervene when the Prime Minister or a Minister strays off the subject matter when replying. Otherwise we will continue to have disorder in the House.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level 
[Volume:633;Page:4533] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I undertook to reflect on the complaints that I have been receiving on the level of noise and interjection during question time. I have received such complaints from members and from the public and the matter has been discussed at meetings of the Business Committee. 
Interjections are forms of intervention that arise in the course of a debate. They are part of the interchange that goes on when a member is making a speech in the House and another member challenges what is being said. Strictly speaking they are not part of the question process which is confined to one member asking a question of another member—usually a Minister—and the latter replying. Speaker’s ruling 150/1 given by Speaker Tapsell in 1996 makes this clear. 
But as Speaker Tapsell says members do interject during question time. It would be unrealistic to expect it to be otherwise. He went on to say that this is permitted as long as the interjections do not become disruptive. Since that ruling was given a practice has developed of Speakers trying to enforce an even stricter rule while a question is being asked of tolerating no interjections at all. This has led to a number of members being ordered to leave the Chamber. 
I have more recently sought to apply Speaker Tapsell’s ruling in its original form. As long as interjections are not disruptive they will be permitted regardless of whether they occur while a question is being asked or answered. But I stress that that is as long as interjections are not disruptive. Unfortunately we have experienced interjections from a number of members that are or at least appear to be concerted. Concerted interjections become barracking and barracking cannot be tolerated at all for it makes it impossible for members and persons listening to Parliament to follow proceedings. 
I therefore ask members to note that I am reverting fully to Speaker Tapsell’s 1996 ruling. Interjections will be permitted during question time as long as they are reasonable and not disorderly in themselves but concerted or widespread interjection will not be permitted and will be dealt with as appropriate by the Speaker. I ask for the cooperation of all members in this regard.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Ingram Report—Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Ingram Report—Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:4532] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is only fair that we point out that given the House was not prepared to have a debate on matters relating to this inquiry in the whole there can surely be no justification for one member to want to get up and make a statement on this particular issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee that is not a point of order.
Personal Explanations — Ingram Report—Statement 
Personal Explanations — Ingram Report—Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:4532] 
Personal Explanations 
Ingram Report—Statement 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 350. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I point out that this a man who has apparently done nothing—apart from a bit of bad judgment— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is not a debate. Mr Brownlee please this is your last warning. Your seeking clarification is perfectly acceptable; debating the issue is not. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
Hon Member 
: For what reason? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could the member please indicate the subject of the personal statement. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 It is in relation to the Ingram report. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection. Mr Field you cannot give your personal statement. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is only fair that we point out that given the House was not prepared to have a debate on matters relating to this inquiry in the whole there can surely be no justification for one member to want to get up and make a statement on this particular issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee that is not a point of order.
Field Taito Phillip: Personal Explanations — Ingram Report—Statement 
Field Taito Phillip: Personal Explanations — Ingram Report—Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:4532] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 It is in relation to the Ingram report. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection. Mr Field you cannot give your personal statement.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Ingram Report—Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Ingram Report—Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:4532] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I point out that this a man who has apparently done nothing—apart from a bit of bad judgment— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is not a debate. Mr Brownlee please this is your last warning. Your seeking clarification is perfectly acceptable; debating the issue is not. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
Hon Member 
: For what reason? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could the member please indicate the subject of the personal statement.
Field Taito Phillip: Personal Explanations — Ingram Report—Statement 
Field Taito Phillip: Personal Explanations — Ingram Report—Statement 
[Volume:633;Page:4532] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 350. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
[Volume:633;Page:4532] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have heard from both sides and although clarification of the point of order can be sought it is not a matter of debate. Leave was sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
[Volume:633;Page:4532] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 If the member understood anything about the Standing Orders he would not have had that motion moved in the name of Dr Don Brash in any case because that motion has no virtue in relation to the Standing Orders of this Parliament. The imprest supply debate is a 3-hour debate. National members will have some seven or eight speeches in that particular debate and they may shout as much as they like—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members wish to remain to hear this point I ask Dr Cullen to start again so the rest of us can hear his point. We heard Mr Brownlee in relative silence. I therefore ask the House to respect Dr Cullen in his comment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The imprest supply debate is a 3-hour debate that can cover any matter in front of Parliament. National will have some seven or eight speakers in that debate—far more than the normal ration under a so-called open-ended debate when the closure is usually taken after two National speeches two Labour speeches and one speech each from the other parties around the House. I have also offered Mr Brownlee to extend the general debate tomorrow by an extra half an hour—so there would be some 18 speeches in that debate—and to take the vote on Dr Brash’s motion at the end of that. Given that the motion has absolutely no virtue it is extraordinarily generous that I have offered the Opposition members the chance to debate it. They are the ones interjecting during a point of order yet they claim that others are bringing the House into disrepute.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
[Volume:633;Page:4531] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The proposal by the Leader of the House is that we should hear not only the imprest supply motion—the confidence motion on the Government—but also the motion moved by Dr Don Brash and that the 3 hours set aside for the imprest supply debate should be a debate concurrent with Dr Brash’s motion thereby allowing the House no additional time to consider Dr Brash’s motion. If Dr Brash’s motion were put it would be an unlimited debate. If Dr Cullen wants to indicate that the imprest supply debate may now become an unlimited time debate then of course that would affect our decision on this matter. But we are not about to have our democratic rights trampled on by a Leader of the House who is playing fast and loose with the Standing Orders.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
[Volume:633;Page:4531] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for a debate to be held on members’ notice of motion No. 3 in the name of Dr Donald Brash the debate to be held in conjunction with the debate on Government order of the day No. 2 and with the vote on that motion to be taken at the end of the vote on Government order of the day No. 2.
Brash Don: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
Brash Don: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
[Volume:633;Page:4531] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 3 standing in my name on the Order Paper which reads as follows: “That this House has no confidence in the Speaker given her ruling in the matter of privilege made out against Taito Phillip Field for the reasons that having been given the responsibility of exercising the very wide discretion under Standing Order 399 of determining matters that should be referred to the Privileges Committee of this Parliament she has chosen to exercise that discretion in such a narrow legalistic and technical manner as to make it impossible for the Privileges Committee to ascertain the truth regarding the allegations against Taito Phillip Field or to uphold and protect the standards and reputation of this Parliament.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Points of Order — Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move 
[Volume:633;Page:4531] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wilson Margaret: List Member Vacancy 
Wilson Margaret: List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:633;Page:4531] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Charles Pierre Chauvel has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of James Robert Sutton.
Event: Members Sworn 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Volume:633;Page:4531] 
Members Sworn 
Charles Chauvel was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took his seat in the House.
Members Sworn 
Members Sworn 
[Volume:633;Page:4531] 
Members Sworn 
Charles Chauvel was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took his seat in the House.
List Member Vacancy 
List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:633;Page:4531] 
List Member Vacancy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Charles Pierre Chauvel has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of James Robert Sutton.
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Hon Jim Sutton Labour 
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Hon Jim Sutton Labour 
[Volume:633;Page:4531] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Jim Sutton resigning his seat in the House with effect on 30 July 2006.
Resignations — Hon Jim Sutton Labour 
Resignations — Hon Jim Sutton Labour 
[Volume:633;Page:4531] 
Tuesday 1 August 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Hon Jim Sutton Labour 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Jim Sutton resigning his seat in the House with effect on 30 July 2006.
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4735] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4734] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Question agreed to.
Choudhary Ashraf: Meat Board Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Meat Board Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4716] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 Salaam aleikum Mr Chairperson and peace be upon you. 
First I thank my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber particularly Nathan Guy who has summarised this bill very well. I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee who are in support of this bill. I thank the officials who have done a great job in preparing the bill and also the submitters—farmers Federated Farmers companies and a number of individuals—who have made submissions on the bill. We heard a variety of arguments both in favour of and in opposition to the bill. 
I wish to say just briefly that the select committee has unanimously agreed that the bill does not require any change and it has commended the bill to the House as it is bar some technical points. Essentially this bill amends the Meat Board Act of 2004. The amendments allow the Act to become more clear and ensure that the intent of the Act is lawful to allow other non-exporters to export meat. The provision involves a very small amount of quota meat—only 2 to 3 percent of the total quota available for export. I think the bill generally just clarifies the Act we already have and once again I thank my colleagues for supporting it.
Anderton Jim: Meat Board Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Meat Board Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4714] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I will give just a brief word by way of introduction. I first thank the Primary Production Committee for the instructive and expeditious approach it took to this bill. The committee has not recommended any changes of substance to the bill. It has recommended some minor changes to ensure that the bill replicates the changes in drafting style adopted by the House in March 2006 and I support the changes that the committee has suggested to Parliament. I hope the bill can now proceed as quickly as possible through the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Meat Board Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Meat Board Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4714] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is it the wish of the Committee that the bill be taken as one question. It is? The bill will be taken as one question.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4708] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I think the member was totally clear and I thank him for the succinctness of his arguments. I understand the point that he is making.
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4708] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is the first point of order I have raised in my time in this place and I have tried to be as succinct as possible. You kindly are going to give the House a considered ruling which I think would be most helpful but would it not be helpful if you heard the rest of my submission on the point so that you have a full appreciation of the arguments on behalf of the Opposition?
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4708] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I thank the member; I have heard enough. I have noticed a growing practice of questions to members which is perfectly in order. Therefore I think it is appropriate that I give a ruling on these matters. I will take that under advisement and give a ruling. 
Paula Bennett 
: So can’t he ask his question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Obviously the member did not understand what I have just said. I have ruled that I will consider it. My ruling is “no”. It is consistent with my understanding of the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. The members have raised the issue I will take it under advisement and I will rule. We will now move on to Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2. 
Hon Member 
: So be it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: So be it. Thank you.
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4707] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 There would appear to be no reason in principle why the deputy chairperson of a select committee cannot answer a question when the member who chairs the committee is absent. I refer you Madam Speaker to Standing Order 203 which addresses the issue of the absence of the chairperson. It provides that in the absence of a chairperson from a meeting and so on the deputy chairperson may step into the place of the chairperson. 
The issue is whether a meeting of Parliament is a sitting or whether it can also be a meeting. I refer you to Standing Order 12 for some guidance because it refers to “Proceedings on meeting of new Parliament”. So there would seem to be no reason in principle why Standing Order 203 could not be interpreted to include not only a meeting of a select committee but also a meeting of Parliament. That is the principal reason why—