edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for further consideration in committee of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill the second reading of the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill consideration in committee and the third reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and the first readings of the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: I don't think there is a point of order that could be had now but the member can try me.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The provision for extended sitting hours is a relatively new provision and I've been back and checked with the discussion that occurred at the time of the Standing Orders review and it's very clear that the intent of the House was that the provision for extended hours was for non-controversial bills. I've also checked—[Interruption] Non-controversial bills principally for Treaty settlements.SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. I was involved in a number of those discussions and what was absolutely clear was that where there was an acceptance by the Business Committee that it was for non-controversial bills there was almost a parallel provision for the Government to move a motion of this sort rather than do it through the Business Committee and there was no expectation that it would be non-controversial. It is also very clearly not a debatable motion.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.
Bennett Paula; Mallard TrevorTABLING OF DOCUMENTSWaiteti Marae Visit—Order of ServiceHon PAULA BENNETT (National—Upper Harbour): I seek leave to table the order of service of the Waiteti Marae event in partnership with the New Zealand Police.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mitchell Clayton; Mallard TrevorBROADCASTING (GAMES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE) AMENDMENT BILL AND BROADCASTING (GAMES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)Discharge and IntroductionCLAYTON MITCHELL (Whip—NZ First): Following discussions with parties I seek leave for the order of the day for the first reading of the Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill to be discharged and for the Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill (No 2) to be introduced and set down as members' orders of the day No. 10.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Bennett PaulaPERSONAL EXPLANATIONSMarae Visit—Member's Lack of InvolvementHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.SPEAKER: I think the member has to say in the general area with regard—Hon PAULA BENNETT: I wish to make a personal explanation in regards to a marae visit that I was accused of being at and sending invitations to.SPEAKER: Accused in this House?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes.SPEAKER: OK. The member wishes to make a personal explanation under the relevant Standing Order. Is there any objection? There is none.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you. Yesterday in this House the Rt Hon Winston Peters said he was invited to the marae to celebrate the appointment of Wallace Haumaha by the then Government of the day and the National Party and the Minister of Police as well. I believe I was the Minister of Police at that time. I wish to make it clear I did not attend the event nor was involved in who was invited or attended as it was organised by the marae in partnership with the New Zealand Police.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 8 AUGUST 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.SPEAKER'S OBSERVATIONSHon Koro Wētere—Response from FamilySPEAKER: Members I have received a response from the whānau of the late Hon Koro Wētere which I shall now read to the House: To the House of Representatives. The wife and family of the late Koro Tainui Wētere former MP for Western Māori wish to thank the House for your expressions of sympathy during the tangi. Our dad and grandad spent 26 years of his life in Parliament. You were his other family. All MPs' families share one thing in common: we share our mothers and fathers with the House and we share our whānau time with the entire country. This was our dad's other home his other family his other marae. So from one whānau to the other we the Wētere whānau wish to thank you for your kind words. We know our loss is your loss and our memories are your memories.When our dad resigned from Parliament he quoted a Māori proverb about the importance and status of the whānau both young and old: 'ka pū te ruha ka hao te rangatahi.' It means 'When one elder steps down the young step up and take hold of the reins.'—the proverb our dad quoted the day he stood and announced his resignation. He was saying 'Give our young people a chance to take the reins. Give them the homes that flourish with the Māori language give them the jobs to put kai on the table and give all men and women an equal wage so that we can pick up the reins when our time comes to be responsible members of our whānau.'We wish to thank the Prime Minister for giving her newly-born daughter a Māori name thereby recognising the indigenous language of this country. Ka pū te ruha ka hao te rangatahi.Thank you all for looking after our dad in his 26 years in Parliament."The Hon Mr Wētere is survived by his wife Girlie their two daughters three sons 16 grandkids and 14 great-grandchildren."
Tuesday 7 August 2018 - Volume 731
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to:after clause 3 insert the following new clause:3AExpiryThis Act and the amendments made to the principal Act by this Act expire with the close of polling day for the second general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 3 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to:replace this clause with the following new clause:2Commencement(1)Sections 4 5 and 6 come into force on the day specified in section 2A(5)(a) and subject to the requirement in that paragraph.(2)Section 3A comes into force on the day specified in section 2A(5)(b) and subject to the requirement in that paragraph.(3)The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to:replace on the day" with "at the close of polling day for the first general election held".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to: replace "on the day" with "at the close of polling day for the second general election held".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Clause 2 agreed to."
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 1 be agreed to:replace Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018" with "Electoral (New Procedure for Vacancies) Amendment Act 2018".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 1 be agreed to:replace "Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018" with "Electoral (MPs Vacancy) Amendment Act 2018".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Bennett to clause 1 be agreed to:replace "Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018" with "Electoral (Vacancy) Amendment Act 2018".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote as called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 1 agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 1 be agreed to: replace Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018" with "Electoral Amendment Act 2018".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that it consider and if it thinks appropriate adopt amendments to the Electoral Act in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith making explicit the overriding provisions of the Parliamentary Privilege Act.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
10. Defence Force—Living WageJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of DefenceDefence Force—Living Wage10. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand Defence Force's approach to paying the living wage?Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): The New Zealand Defence Force is a major employer of New Zealanders both civilian and military in our regions and in our cities and recently I received reports stating that the Government's excellent decision to move the core Public Service on to the living wage of at least $20.55 per hour does not directly apply to the New Zealand Defence Force as a non - Public Service department. However I am pleased to announce to the House that the New Zealand Defence Force will be implementing the living wage for all of its employees by 2019.Jenny Marcroft: What does this mean for New Zealand Defence Force civilian personnel?Hon RON MARK: Currently 8 percent of New Zealand Defence Force civilians are paid below the living wage as a result of the last nine years of Government. After this year's remuneration package which will come into effect in September and be backdated to July this figure will drop down to 6 percent.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop being reckless with the truth. Totally reckless with the truth.SPEAKER: Order!Hon RON MARK: Following the 2019 package all civilians will be on at least $20.55 per hour.Jenny Marcroft: What does this mean for New Zealand Defence Force military personnel? Hon RON MARK: All regular force members who have completed basic training are already paid above the living wage. Recruits undergoing training will remain at a level below the living wage but will receive and continue to receive free accommodation. I'm also happy to report today that the New Zealand Defence Force intend bringing all reservists up to at least the living wage.
5. KiwiBuild—Procurement and RiskHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentKiwiBuild—Procurement and Risk5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his reported statements regarding KiwiBuild?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes including my recent tweets.Hon Judith Collins: Wonderful. When he was reported yesterday by stuff.co.nz stating that KiwiBuild is not at risk of cost overruns because [the larger contractors are] not particularly involved in residential construction" did he know that a Housing New Zealand apartment block was being built by Ebert Construction that went into receivership last week?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.Hon Judith Collins: Then why did he say that?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because while there is some overlap between the vertical infrastructure sector and the residential market by and large they are two separate markets with different players and with different approaches to contracting.Hon Judith Collins: Is he now saying that large construction companies will not be building KiwiBuild and that small owner-operator companies will be contracted to build for KiwiBuild even when that involves large apartment blocks that he has foreseen in Northcote and also the Unitec sites?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No I'm not saying that but I would wonder really is the member using the collapse of Ebert Construction as yet another excuse for her Government not building affordable or State housing?Hon Judith Collins: If construction companies currently follow a "least-cost procurement model" does his announcement yesterday to relook at procurement practices mean that KiwiBuild house prices will now also rise in cost?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well while the Government has taken some responsibility of leadership because of the fact that public sector procurement accounts for 18 percent of the business in the vertical infrastructure market I think that's the right and responsible thing to do—to work with industry players to find new ways of procurement that can create a more efficient and competitive market. But that's not necessary—that's not necessary—in relation to the KiwiBuild programme because we already have put in place a highly collaborative and engaging process for working with developers to do the deals that will deliver the affordable homes that New Zealanders desperately want.Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder if you believe that that question has been addressed sufficiently. SPEAKER: I think it has been addressed. Answered—probably not but it was addressed."
4. School Buildings—Christchurch Schools Rebuild ProgrammeDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of EducationSchool Buildings—Christchurch Schools Rebuild Programme4. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Education: What recent progress if any has been made on the Christchurch Schools Rebuild programme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last week I visited Hornby High School in Christchurch for the official opening of the first stage of a $26 million redevelopment of the school that will result in 45 new classrooms. This includes a new administration area library staff area and student canteen. In addition there'll be a new gymnasium and a new technology block.Dr Duncan Webb: What other schools in Christchurch are starting their rebuilds?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was also pleased to visit Oaklands primary school who are receiving three new school buildings and will have six buildings refurbished. Work on the redevelopment is expected to start in the next few weeks. This year's Budget provided an additional $62 million of funding to get the Christchurch schools rebuilding programme sped up so that Christchurch schools get the modern facilities that they need.
Rurawhe AdrianNew clause 3ACHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we have a number of proposals for a new clause 3A. Several of these are out of order but there are some—as the last one that we've just debated was—that I have accepted as new clauses which are therefore separately debatable. I will deal with the remaining ones shortly but first I want to advise the committee which amendments are out of order. The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment inserting new clause 3A relating to the referendum is out of order as being contingent on an amendment that has been negatived. The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment inserting a new clause 3A to insert a new section 3AAA is out of order for being outside the scope of the bill as its effect relates to the whole of the principal Act. The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which would insert a new section 27A relating to the protection of the reputation of former members of Parliament is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which would amend section 3A of the Act relating to the meaning of election advertisement" is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which inserts a new section 51A relating to a member ceasing to be a member of a political party is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. Nuk Korako's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which inserts a new section 45A relating to the expulsion of Māori constituency members is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which inserts a new section 35A relating to the expulsion of constituency members is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which inserts a new section 3B(4A) relating to the meaning of "regulated period" is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which amends section 6 of the Act relating to the powers of the Electoral Commission is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to insert a new clause 3A which inserts a new section 8A of the Act requiring the Electoral Commission to report on a by-election is out of order as being outside of the scope of the bill.New clauses 3A (Distortion of proportionality)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now have two amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith relating to the distortion of proportionality. These will be debated together but with the question put separately."
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Chair. This is an important piece of legislation and I want to deal with the amendment in the name of my colleague—I'm not sure this microphone is working but anyway—Virginia Andersen: We can hear you.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh that's good—thank you. I want to deal with the amendment in the name of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith which inserts new section 27A relating to the protection of the reputation of former members of Parliament. And it says that After section 27"—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! We are on new clause 3A.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh I'm sorry Mr Chair."
Rurawhe AdrianNew clause 3A (Expiry of Act)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come now to new clause 3A relating to the expiry of the bill.
Tolley AnneNew clause 2ACHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment inserting new clause 2A relating to the referendum is out of order as being contingent on an amendment that has been negatived.
Luxton Jo; Williams PotoJO LUXTON (Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call the Hon Jacqui Dean and I would encourage the member to stick to clause 2.
Williams PotoClause 2 CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The debate will be on clause 2 and the Hon Dr Nick Smith's proposed amendment to insert new clause 2A which is contingent on his amendment to clause 2.
Williams PotoCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members there has been a ruling that several tabled amendments are not in order. However there are two of those amendments that have been resubmitted and they are in order.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move that the question—Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It's very difficult over this side of the Chamber for us to get your attention when we're seeking the call. We've got amendments here—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's not a point of order. Hon David Bennett: —that need to be spoken about and I request the chance to speak on our amendment. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That is not a point of order. Hon Members: Mr Chairman.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No I'd already given the call to Kiritapu Allan.KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move That the question be now put.
Woodhouse Michael; Rurawhe AdrianHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The smooth running of this committee relies on members being well-informed about the rules of engagement whatever those rules are. Now it has been the practice in the last few months where members seeking what those rules are are being shut down for the good order of the House. Well I would suggest that actually the opposite would apply. A speedy resolution to a question like that will help the good order of the House and keep the committee running smoothly.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And again the member's questioning my ruling by—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well the member wants to know the answer.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm on my feet and I'm trying to answer your point of order and the member continues to speak. My ruling on that particular issue was about relevancy to the debate and I encourage the member to go to clause 1 which we are debating—OK? That was my ruling.
Woodhouse Michael; Rurawhe AdrianHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I too was waiting for the member's speech to end. In the second part of your ruling I believe the committee heard you say that it was out of order for a member to refer to the lack of debate coming from one side or the other. If that was the case is that an existing Speaker's ruling—in which case would you mind pointing to it—and if not is it a new Speaker's ruling?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I think the member's slightly misinterpreted what I had said. What I said was—and actually the member can come and see me afterwards because I'm not going to debate this as a ruling that I've made.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Have you got a new point of order?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well it goes to—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No sit down.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes it is a broader point.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Will you sit down. If the member has a new point of order he can make it.
Ball Darroch; Rurawhe AdrianDARROCH BALL (Junior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When you first heard the point of order that was brought to your attention it should never have been heard because that point of order should have been brought up at the time. It is not the way of this House that five minutes after an incident occurred you should be hearing a point of order of that nature.Hon Mark Mitchell: Here's a party-hopper—party-hopper in the House.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Chris Bishop will stand withdraw and apologise. When I am on my feet you be silent.Hon Mark Mitchell: No that was me Mr Chair. I withdraw and apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And I apologise to Chris Bishop. OK. It is entirely my decision. Those are the rules.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No and I will direct members to the Hansard if they want to have a look at exactly what was said on the issue that I ruled on. I did apologise to the committee at the time. I should have dealt with it at that time. It is of a serious nature.
Ball Darroch; Rurawhe AdrianDARROCH BALL (Junior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that the issue has arisen with that misunderstanding from the member—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Order!Darroch Ball: Can I explain because that original point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): E noho i nāia tonu nei![Sit down immediately!]OK? Hon Member: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No I'm on my feet. Members you must not try to relitigate a decision of the Chair. Darroch Ball: I'm not. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It certainly sounded like it to me.Darroch Ball: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Have you got a new point of order? Darroch Ball: Well yes I've got a new point of order. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Point of order Darroch Ball.
van de Molen Tim; Rurawhe AdrianTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Look I didn't want to interrupt that member again but the previous point of order from Willie Jackson was quite disorderly in the use of a particular word. That word is an absolute affront to the dignity of this House and has been ruled out of order on many instances. I would encourage you to make an appropriate ruling to that effect. I draw your attention to Speaker's ruling 42/3 which highlights that most offensive word being used by that member bringing this House into absolute disrepute. I reject the use by that member of such a word.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): As I've said before in this debate it is the Chair's decision but on this occasion I should have addressed that at the time. The Hon Willie Jackson was making a point and he used words that he should not have and I should have picked him up at that time. So I will ask the Hon Willie Jackson to withdraw and apologise.Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order Mr Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No no no no.Hon Willie Jackson: I don't know what you're talking about.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I'm on my feet.Hon Willie Jackson: I don't know what you're talking about.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm on my feet and I have asked the member—Hon Willie Jackson: No.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well there are serious consequences.Hon Willie Jackson: What are you talking about?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): In your—I'm on my feet OK? If the member does not stand withdraw and apologise for the use of that particular word against another member of this House there are serious consequences for refusing to do so—ones that might be difficult for him in the future.Hon Member: Point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No no no. I have asked the member to stand withdraw and apologise.Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I withdraw and apologise. Right now I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point of order was that never in my political history had I swapped parties or jumped parties. That was the point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order!Hon Willie Jackson: —and there was an allegation—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order!Hon Willie Jackson: —against me that I had jumped parties.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. There are Standing Orders for a purpose: to set out rules. Within those Standing Orders is a pathway the member can take. It is not through a point of order; it is through seeking leave to make an explanation which is open to the member but he has to do that within the Standing Orders and he must respect the authority of the Chair. When I stand he must sit.
Macindoe Tim; Rurawhe AdrianHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During the last 15 or so minutes you've given a number of rulings which we have listened to carefully. For many of those you have received frequent interjections particularly from the Hon Kris Faafoi and from the member Darroch Ball which is grossly disorderly as they have sought to influence your ruling. I ask that you please uphold the Standing Orders of this House by ensuring that members of the Government are not able to influence your ruling at later points in this debate. [Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Thank you. I want to thank the member because I do agree with him. When I have been on my feet I have addressed that issue. Members need to be mindful that when a point of order is being taken it is in silence. I give that message to both sides of the House because there have been contributions from both sides of the House.
Woodhouse Michael; Rurawhe Adrian; Smith NickHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you Mr Chairman. There's been a lot of activity. I would like to receive an assurance from the Chair that the individual decisions that have been made on each amendment are your decisions and not the Clerk's decisions because it's very important for the process—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's out of order. That is completely out of order and you need—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well it wasn't out of order the last time it was asked by Mr Mallard. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—you sit down. E noho. It is the sole decision of the Chair and that is final. There is no discussion on that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I've got a way forward. Having considered with the Clerk's Office I seek the leave of the House for the amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Mark Mitchell that currently is worded (New MPs Vacancy)" that the word "New" be removed so that the Chairman may reconsider Mr Mitchell's amendment.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The way forward is that the member just resubmits the—Hon Dr Nick Smith: But I am entitled to seek leave and if the members of the Government wish to deny leave—I thought it was a constructive way forward. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member doesn't need leave of the committee for the member the Hon Mark Mitchell to be able to resubmit his tabled amendment. The member already is able to do that so leave is not required of the committee."
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You asked for clarification specifically on what the intent was of changing the title of the bill—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—no I did not ask that. I asked that the member could if he wanted to resubmit that particular tabled amendment with very specific information about the grammar because my reading of it is that it's out of order. But I took on board the Hon Dr Nick Smith's contribution around that and that's the pathway open to the member. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Chairperson there are two ways we can proceed. I can move to recall the Speaker or we can get some clarity around the specific amendment—it's in the name of Mr Mark Mitchell. And what I want to discuss with you just briefly is that the principal change in the amendment bill we're considering is adding a new section to the Electoral Act titled Vacancies". In the current Electoral Act there are nine ways in which a vacancy can be created and this creates an additional way. And so it would be my submission to the Chair and if necessary to the Speaker that an amendment that replaces the word "(Integrity)" with "(New MPs Vacancy)" is actually a very unbiased accurate record of this bill creating a new mechanism for vacancies to be created for members of Parliament. So I simply leave it to the discretion of the Chair—that is if it is your intention to maintain your position that that amendment must be ruled out then it is the intention of the Opposition to recall the Speaker.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Now we are actually debating this. If the Hon Mark Mitchell's tabled amendment for example was replacing "(Integrity)" with just "(Vacancy)" that would be in order in my opinion but as it is stated in the tabled amendment it is not. I refer again to the Hon Michael Woodhouse's tabled amendment which replaces "(Integrity)" with "(New Procedure for Vacancies)" which I'm ruling to be in order. It's all a matter of how amendments are worded as to what ruling I can make on it and in my opinion those that I have gone through with the committee I've ruled out of order and there are at least two that are ruled in order."
Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you Mr Chair. I do want to thank you for having given an explanation of each of your decisions in respect of the different amendments and I do not wish to challenge your ruling. I respect your authority and your position in this House. However you sir I think replaced the Hon Anne Tolley in the Chair about 20 minutes ago and I want to make the point as I ask this question of you that I have been in the Chamber for the entire debate since we went into the committee stage and all of the debate so far has been very very serious. So my question to you sir is could you please explain to us how those of us—and it's just about every member who is in the Chamber at the moment—who have lodged an amendment or in some cases several amendments to date might get them in scope as they clearly have been very very serious and going to the heart of this bill because sir I believe that this is undermining our right as members of this Parliament to reflect the views of our electorates. [Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Just calm down—I'm on my feet. OK that's something that the member should take up with his own advisers or with the Clerk's Office but this is the time for the debate.
Smith Nick; Rurawhe AdrianHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand many of the rulings that you have made in respect of those tabled amendments. I don't want to challenge your ruling—I want us to be able to get on with the debate—but I would ask whether you would indulge me and just reconsider one of those amendments.The very purpose of this amendment creates a new way of creating vacancies for MPs. The amendment I'm referring to is the (New MPs Vacancy)" bill title. Now I'm not asking you to make a ruling immediately—I think that would be unhelpful—but we don't want to go through the procedure of recalling the Speaker. I would like to give you time just to reflect on that particular one which actually is a very operational statement of what the bill does. So I'm not expecting an immediate ruling but members of the Opposition feel very strongly about this. We will go down the procedure of recalling the Speaker but I don't want to do that immediately. We would prefer to allow you just to reflect on which of these amendments are being negative and which ones are sufficiently neutral that you might reconsider.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): On that particular amendment can I invite the member to resubmit it with clarity about exactly what he means—the grammar in particular.Hon Dr Nick Smith: It's in my colleague Mark Mitchell's name: "(New MPs Vacancy)"."
Bennett David; Rurawhe AdrianHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you and I note that you have said that my title is not being ruled out because it not an objective description of the bill so that is good. That means that it is an objective description of the bill. But you did rule it out on the basis that the word democracy" is not serious. I find that offensive when we are in this House which is about democracy. This is the Parliament of New Zealand—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That's clearly questioning my ruling which you're not allowed to do. That is not a point of order. I call on the next—"
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): For the purposes of clarity I'll go through that list again and I'll tell you the basis for my ruling on each one of them. Todd Muller's tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with Electoral (Lack of Integrity) Amendment Bill" is out of order as rejecting the title of the bill. Todd Muller's tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with "Electoral (Brendan Horan Memorial) Amendment Bill" is out of order as rejecting the title of the bill. Simon O'Connor's tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with "Electoral (Limits on MPs' Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill" is out of order as rejecting the title of the bill.Chris Penk's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Dead Rat)" is out of order as not a serious amendment. Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Obnoxious)" is out of order as not a serious amendment. Todd Muller's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Removal of Integrity)" is out of order as not a serious amendment. Todd Muller's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Brendan Horan)" is out of order as not a serious amendment. The Hon David Bennett's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Democracy Weakening)" is out of order as not a serious amendment. Matt King's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Winston Peters Power Grab)" is out of order as not a serious amendment. The Hon Tim Macindoe's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Orwellian)" is out of order as not a serious amendment.The Hon Mark Mitchell's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(New MPs Vacancy)" is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Stuart Smith's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Limits on MPs Free Speech)" is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Simon O'Connor's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Limits on MPs' Freedom of Association)" is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Free Speech Chilling)" is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. Lawrence Yule's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(New Constraints on MPs Freedom of Speech)" is out of order as not an objective description of the bill. The Hon Nick Smith's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Political Party Dictatorship)" is out of order as not an objective description of the bill.Hon Members: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I just haven't finished yet. And just for further clarity and to give some comparison the Hon Mark Mitchell's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(New MPs Vacancy)" being ruled out of order as not an objective description of the bill—one could compare that with the tabled amendment from Michael Woodhouse to clause 1 to replace "(Integrity)" with "(New Procedure for Vacancies)" which is ruled in order."
Woodhouse Michael; Rurawhe AdrianHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your ruling. It was very difficult. Naturally you had to work quite quickly through the amendments that were being ruled in and out but I did my best to stratify them between those that I would accept had an element of hyperbole criticism—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!Hon Michael Woodhouse: This is an important point.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes and I'm on my feet so you sit. I've made my ruling and any attempt to debate that ruling is out of order.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In that case would you explain to me why Mr Mitchell's amendment which has no pejorative statements in it—it merely said (New MPs Vacancy)"—could somehow be considered a criticism of the bill?"
Bennett David; Faafoi Kris; Rurawhe AdrianHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just request you to please give me an explanation of what part of (Democracy Weakening)" you found objectionable.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): I understand what the members of the Opposition are trying to do but they failed to read the second part of Speakers' ruling 114/6 that the amendments "must be a serious or objective description of the bill" or "an attempt to criticise its content". It's pretty clear what you're attempting to do and it doesn't meet the second strand of that Speakers' ruling test.Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No I'm going to rule on this point of order. I'm going to repeat the ruling that I made for the point of order from the Hon Dr Nick Smith in that it is the sole decision of the Chair to rule amendments in or out. I have ruled that one out. For the purposes of the Hon David Bennett I will indulge him and tell him his amendment is ruled out of order as it is in my opinion not a serious amendment."
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When I read the relevant Speakers' ruling it says this: An amendment to the title of the bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents." For that reason I do understand why for instance the "(Lack of Integrity)" amendment has been ruled out by you. But I do want to raise with you—and can I be very specific. I have a report in my hand from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It's an organisation that represents 104 members of this Parliament. It represents 172 Parliaments around the world—and it is on the very specific issue of the free parliamentary mandate. In the conclusion of this report the Inter-Parliamentary Union based in Geneva says that countries that have provisions of this sort are best described as a "political party dictatorship". Darroch Ball: How is this a point of order?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is absolutely a point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Points of order are heard in silence.Darroch Ball: Well if it's not a point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No I am not going to be arguing with you OK. I will make that decision. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So my point Mr Chairman is that if it is acceptable for the Inter-Parliamentary Union—and I remind you that 104 members of this Parliament are members of this organisation. It is an organisation that represents 8000 parliamentarians around the world. It produced a very specific report on the provisions in this bill and its key conclusion was that these provisions can best be described as a political party dictatorship. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And so Dr Smith? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And so my point to you is this: when Speakers' ruling 114/6 says that "An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description" how is it that you can rule out a description of this bill when the very organisation that this Parliament is proud to be representative of concludes very much that that is a fair and serious description of this bill? CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the honourable member and he's been in this House for a very long time. The Chair's decision on ruling amendments in or out is solely the Chair's and is not debatable so I'm ruling that that is not a point of order that the member can make. The decision on his particular amendment is that it is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House to table the 40-page report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union that specifically describes the provision in this bill and I want to know Mr Chairman whether you considered that in your ruling that my amendment was out of order. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for the purpose of tabling that document. Is there any objection? There is objection."
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I just want to take a bit of advice—just a minute. Just to make it explicitly clear then I am going to go through each one that I have thus far ruled out of order. So Todd Muller's tabled amendment to replace the title with Electoral (Lack Of Integrity) Amendment Bill" is ruled out. Todd Muller's tabled amendment to replace the title with "Electoral (Brendan Horan Memorial) Amendment Bill" is ruled out. Simon O'Connor's tabled amendment to omit and replace the title with "Electoral (Limits on MPs' Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill" is ruled out. Chris Penk's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Dead Rat)" is ruled out. Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Obnoxious)" is ruled out. Todd Muller's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Removal of Integrity)" is ruled out. Todd Muller's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Brendan Horan)" is ruled out. The Hon David Bennett's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Democracy Weakening)" is ruled out. Matt King's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Winston Peters Power Grab)" is ruled out. The Hon Tim Macindoe's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Orwellian)" is ruled out. The Hon Mark Mitchell's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(New MPs Vacancy)" is ruled out. Stuart Smith's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Limits on MPs Free Speech)" is ruled out. Simon O'Connor's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Limits on MPs' Freedom of Association)" is ruled out. Simeon Brown's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Free Speech Chilling)" is ruled out. Lawrence Yule's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(New Constraints on MPs Freedom of Speech)" is ruled out. The Hon Dr Nick Smith's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(Political Party Dictatorship)" is ruled out. The Hon Michael Woodhouse's tabled amendment to replace "(Integrity)" with "(New"—oh sorry. I beg your pardon. I'm ruling that one in order."
Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I strongly endorse the comments of my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse and I want to make the point that I am one of those members who is in the Chamber at the moment who has tabled an amendment that you may have decided would be inappropriate or whatever term you've chosen to use. I want to assure you that the amendment that is tabled in my name is one that I feel very very seriously strongly disposed to argue and defend. I would be offended if you prejudged the issue before I had even had an opportunity to explain to you why I have deliberately chosen that particular title because I'd like to have at least five minutes to be able to do just that. I think it's outrageous given the nature of this debate to be told in advance that we will not even have a chance to explain why we've worked so hard on these amendments.