edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hodgson Pete: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5803] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In the few minutes between now and the dinner break I will see whether I can convince my colleague Mr Rodney Hide to change his vote on the basis of this logic. I understand that the member said he felt that passing this legislation did not matter. He did point out that it had no bearing on whether one paid the money or refunded any outstanding moneys. He did understand that the passage of this legislation lets no one off the hook in terms of one’s decision of whether to refund any outstanding moneys and he does understand that the non-passage of this legislation puts no one on the hook in respect of refunding any moneys owed. 
He also pointed out the fact that money has been unlawfully spent and even though Madam Speaker and Treasury think that the legislation should be passed he has an argument that asks: “If it were not passed what harm would be done?”. I will not respond to that; that is his point of view. But I do invite the member to reflect on this: we do not know now what we can spend money on. We do not know that now. There is a reason prospectively—not retrospectively I say to Mr Hide but prospectively—to say that this legislation should be supported because it provides parliamentarians with a brightline as to what they may and may not do prospectively until new rules are in place. The Auditor-General’s findings whether or not one agrees with them are broad wide reaching and significant. The changes have been enunciated by speaker after speaker. 
Well that ruling stands unless this legislation passes. Therefore all this stuff about Dr Brash going to Nelson to sign up a person from the Green Party into the National Party and all of the examples given by Dr Cullen in the first speech in this debate are true—and any legal opinion would back that. In fact the Solicitor-General’s own legal opinion backs that. 
Hon Bill English 
: It’s all rubbish. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Bill English says that it is all rubbish because that is as far as his intense intellectual ability takes him. The problem is that we do need to think prospectively. I would say to Mr Hide that there is a case for him to consider changing his vote to one of support—if not now then at the third reading because I do not think that this group of 121 people can operate unless there is validating legislation that tells us with some certainty what we can and cannot do. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Before we start I say to Mr English that I heard the comment he made as I sat down. Would the member like to withdraw and apologise? 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you.
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5791] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: We have dealt with this matter now. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am raising a new matter. Dr Cullen has just made a suggestion that my actions were out of time and I want to clarify that matter. This has been something of a brawl. I am not allowed to refer to the fact that the Leader of the House was not here at the time but I simply say that Dr Cullen may not be in full possession of the facts in relation to the proceedings of the House in the last hour or two. I respond to his assertion by simply saying that I have been trying to raise this point for some time now. The fact that the Speaker has chosen not to give me the call because other matters have been given precedence is not my responsibility and I reject absolutely the suggestion that I did not raise the matter in time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is probably correct in that a lot of other points of order have been raised. I did not realise that that was the particular point that you were going to raise.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5791] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This is quite important. The matter is now out of time. That matter should have been raised when it happened; the member cannot raise it later. It is now out of time. One could have made exactly the same point about Ms Bennett when she delayed her departure from this House. It is beyond the point of time that the matter should have been raised; the member should not try our patience further. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I noted that Mr Duynhoven did do that. I thought about interrupting the speaker and refrained from doing that. Mr Duynhoven went. I take your point Mr McCully.
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5791] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take you back to the events surrounding your request for Mr Duynhoven to leave the Chamber. When members are told by the Speaker to leave the Chamber they are required to go immediately with no further action taking place in the Chamber and normally the Speaker holds up proceedings to make sure that the member who has been instructed to leave does leave. 
 After Mr Duynhoven’s offence was drawn to your attention you decided you had to require him to leave. You instructed him to leave but rather than leaving he wandered over to the whip and engaged in a lengthy conversation. My colleague who had raised a further matter was already well into the development of his theme before Mr Duynhoven left the Chamber. I draw to your attention the fact that you had already ruled his actions to be disorderly by requiring him to leave the Chamber. The only thing that can happen after that is for his behaviour to be ruled to be grossly disorderly and for him to be named. That is the approach that you took with regard to one member today and I now require that you consider taking precisely that action in respect of Mr Duynhoven.
Hide Rodney: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5790] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that in the spirit of cooperation we should just move on but I want to draw your attention to something; I am not worried about it now but I want to make this point and then I am happy for Mr Brown to resume his speech. Your ruling has been a bit tough. I noticed that when Paula Bennett interjected on Trevor Mallard’s point of order you threw her out. When Mr Harry Duynhoven interjected on Judy Collins’ point of order you threw him out. But when Peter Brown interjected on mine as was acknowledged by everyone somehow that was perfectly OK and you did not offer any sanction whatsoever. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Hide I have already dealt with that. As I said when you raised several points of order several other people were interjecting at that time and there was a lot of discussion.
Worth Richard: Naming of Member 
Worth Richard: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5790] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the naming of Dr Nick Smith to be revoked. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Question by leave revoked.
Cullen Michael: Naming of Member 
Cullen Michael: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5790] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think we have got ourselves into a bit of an impasse here that it is useful to revisit. This is an important matter. It is one that the House has the right to consider properly. We are being held up here on an issue that is not of some insignificance. I do not wish to undermine your authority at all but I suggest that it would be appropriate for Dr Worth to seek the leave again to enable the House to move forward. Clearly Dr Smith will then be on some pretty clear notice about his behaviour moving forward and I am sure other members will be as well.
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5790] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document entitled  
Principles to underpin management by public entities of funding to non-government organisations 
. 
Document not tabled.
Worth Richard: Naming of Member 
Worth Richard: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5790] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I am glad that the Leader of the House is here because I seek leave for the naming of Dr Smith to be revoked. The reason for doing that is twofold. Firstly with great respect to you Madam Assistant Speaker I do not believe that when there was no call for a party vote you were entitled to require a party vote to be taken; and second—and I respect your ruling on this but I nevertheless suggest it is not correct—there has been a formal breach of those two Standing Orders that relate to naming Standing Order 87 and Standing Order 88. So that we can move on I seek leave for the revocation of the naming of Dr Smith. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5789] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have dealt with the matter that you have just raised Mr Brownlee. I have ruled on it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Madam Assistant Speaker have you ruled that the Standing Orders in the case of naming members no longer apply? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Of course I have not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that is exactly what you have done. You either follow the Standing Orders or do not. Naming someone is a serious matter. You cannot expect us to be totally compliant while the Speaker gets it wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is absolutely right; the naming of a member is a serious matter. That is why I referred to the Standing Order that the House be asked to name the member. All members of the House are very clear about that when a member is named. [ 
Interruption 
] I have dealt with this matter and there will be no further points of order on it.
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5789] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can we expect then to see a written ruling changing the Standing Orders to comply with your determination that as long as the Speaker loosely indicates what is intended then procedure is deemed to have been followed? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sure you cannot because it is unnecessary.
Roy Eric: Naming of Member 
Roy Eric: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5789] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mine is quite separate. I did raise a point of order and then it was kind of overtaken by other matters. The point I make is quite simply that procedural motions are quite prescribed and have to be adhered to accurately particularly because in the case of naming a member it is a very serious matter. There is a very prescribed and stated motion in Standing Order 87. You did not adhere precisely to that wording so I questioned the validity of your move. You mentioned that we had understood the intent. My point of order is that that is not the point. This is a procedural motion in which very exact wording must be used. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have already ruled on the matter. As I said the intent was clear in the naming. All members who voted on it are clear about the intent of the naming of a person in this House as the member—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Simon Power would you like to withdraw and apologise. 
Simon Power 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: As I said Mr Roy the intent was clear. All members are clear about the naming of a member. I asked the House to name this member. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry but I will not enter into this any longer.
Roy Eric: Naming of Member 
Roy Eric: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5789] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you repeat your ruling on the point that I made because I have completely missed the point you made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the points of order that numerous members have made about members not being able to participate in this debate because of their perceived pecuniary interest. What I have said very clearly is that this expenditure relating to the validation of appropriations in Vote Parliamentary Service affects all members generally.
Henare Tau: Naming of Member 
Henare Tau: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5788] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am not taking any more. Please be seated. I have warned the member that I have ruled on this point of order several times. If the member wants to raise a new point of order that is different but I must warn the member that I have ruled on this point of order. For the member continually to raise it is in itself out of order. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: During Rodney Hide’s point of order—and you have now dismissed two members of this House—Peter Brown interrupted. I ask you to treat equally everybody in this House and ask him to leave the Chamber for the exact reason that my colleague Paula Bennett and my colleague Harry Duynhoven were removed from the Chamber—for interjecting on a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: And while the member was making a point of order—Mr Hide—several members here were raising points of order. I was trying to clarify this matter which had become complicated. Please continue Mr Brown. 
Eric Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry Mr Roy—is this a new point of order? 
Eric Roy 
: No it is not because— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: OK I have ruled— 
Eric Roy 
: Could I please explain. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I have ruled on this point of order. That is the end of the story.
Hide Rodney: Naming of Member 
Hide Rodney: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5788] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand your ruling about the court case but I will give a situation where it is quite different from that of every other member in this House and that is the situation of Peter Brown and the New Zealand First MPs who by their own words and actions have declared clearly a financial interest in this bill. They have said that if it is found that their spending has been unlawful then they will cough up $150000. 
Peter Brown 
: No we haven’t. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Peter Brown now says he will not. I notice that he can interrupt on my point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] I do want to hear Peter Brown’s speech eventually; I would rather that he was thrown out when he had finished his speech. But by his words he said: “If this legislation doesn’t pass we’ll have to pay the money. If the legislation does pass we won’t have to.” I cannot understand a more clear financial interest in a matter before this House than the one that Peter Brown and New Zealand First confront here today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: This affects all members generally. It is not— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It does not affect me because I have paid the money. It does not affect the National Party because they have paid the money. It does not affect the Maori Party because they have paid the money. It does not affect the Green Party because they have paid anyway. It does not affect the Labour Party because they are not going to pay it ever! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Hide you have made your point. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order? Because I have ruled on this point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated. I want all members to be very clear that I have ruled on this point of order relating to this appropriations bill for the Parliamentary Service. The points that members have been making affect all members generally. I have ruled on this matter. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I just check with the member because I have ruled on this matter. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Madam Assistant Speaker I think you will find out that it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I will just make it clear again. The bill is to validate expenditure and provide an interim funding arrangement. It is not to do with members individually—their pecuniary interest. Please continue Mr Brown.
Brash Don: Naming of Member 
Brash Don: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5787] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a different point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: A different point of order Dr Brash. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: You said that High Court cases did not invalidate legislation going through and I accept that completely. But Standing Order 166(1) states: “A member must before participating in the consideration of any item of business declare any financial interest that the member has in that business.” I think that all we are asking for is that members of the Labour Party who speak on this bill do declare they have a financial interest in its outcome. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No that is not correct. 
Eric Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is this a different point of order Mr Roy? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I have concluded. The information I have been given is that this financial interest is not different from that of other members generally.
Collins Judith: Naming of Member 
Collins Judith: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5787] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speakers’ ruling 63/1 which is in relation to a party vote. I do this because when it came to the vote in relation to the naming of Dr Nick Smith after the vote was lost on the voices you directed that there be a party vote. I quote the Speakers’ ruling: “A party vote is not an opportunity for a member who does not agree with the result on the voices to test the position of another party. The Chair will have the Clerk conduct a party vote only if asked to by a member who gave his or her voice contrary to the Chair’s declaration of the result on the voices.” I believe that your decision to require the Clerk to go ahead with a party vote was a wrong decision in terms of Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders. I seek that you revisit that decision because I believe that it invalidated your attempt to have Dr Smith named. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member is quite wrong. That is completely the Speaker’s call. [ 
Interruption 
] I have dealt with this issue and I will not have any further discussion on it.
Brash Don: Naming of Member 
Brash Don: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5787] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Dr Nick Smith raised a question about Standing Order 166. Unfortunately he did interject when you were giving your ruling. I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House if you were willing to explain more fully why the Labour Party speakers in this debate have no pecuniary interest given that as Dr Smith pointed out there is a case in the High Court at the moment that if it were to proceed would involve every member of the Labour Party caucus being up for an amount in excess of $10000. That is not a common interest for the rest of Parliament; it is peculiar to the Labour Party. I think those members do clearly have a direct pecuniary interest that is not general to the rest of Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I do not know whether you were here before Dr Brash but I clearly made a point that court proceedings do not prevent legislation from proceeding.
Hide Rodney: Naming of Member 
Hide Rodney: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5787] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Naming a member of Parliament as you know Madam Assistant Speaker is the most serious thing that can happen outside of a breach of privilege. So what has gone on here today is very serious indeed. It is not often that the Standing Orders specify the precise wording that has to be used. I cannot see how Dr Nick Smith can have any sense that there was a proper vote of Parliament when an incorrect procedure was followed. I think the easiest thing to do is essentially to validate the vote of the House by your naming him correctly and our having the vote again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I hardly think that is necessary. The intent was perfectly clear—as under Standing Order 87. Can I just say to members that we have had a lot of trifling points of order. I am not going to tolerate it much longer.
Roy Eric: Naming of Member 
Roy Eric: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5786] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am in some difficulty because I believe that procedure has not been followed correctly. You will know that when procedural motions take place such as a closure the wording of the motion has to be used precisely. The point of order that I make is that if you look at Standing Order 87 you will see that the correct wording of the naming was not adhered to. You said: “I move that the member be named.” Standing Order 87 says: “ ‘That [ 
such member 
] be suspended from the service of the House’. ” That is the naming process. I put it to you that in your attempt to deal with the disorder that you perceived you did not use the appropriate wording for the procedural motion that should have ensued at that point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I called on the House to judge the member.
Mapp Wayne: Naming of Member 
Mapp Wayne: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5786] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will hear the point when there is silence. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. You will have noticed a number of members here seeking leave to table certain things. The point that my honourable colleague Judith Collins made was about her points of order being able to be heard. I have to make this point although it does not give me any pleasure to make it: consistently when we on this side of the House make points of order on various things when you Madam Assistant Speaker are in the Chair before we have said two or three words you cut us off. If you want to know one of the reasons why there is often difficulty when you are Chair it is that on this side of the House we do not feel that we get fair treatment. It does pain me to say that Madam Assistant Speaker but I want you to reflect on what I am saying. I do not take trifling points of order but this is a serious matter and it will cause trouble for you in the future and trouble for the order of this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just say to the member that that was a very threatening statement to the Speaker. The member knows that there is a correct procedure if the member wants to complain about the Speaker and the member will follow that.
Hide Rodney: Naming of Member 
Hide Rodney: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5786] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That point of order from Judith Collins was not a great point of order but she was allowed to be heard in silence. You have ejected members of the National Party when they admitted to interjecting on a point of order and there is no doubt I know that if you asked the Hon Harry Duynhoven whether he interjected on Judith Collins’ point of order he would say he did and therefore I think you should ask him to leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The Hon Harry Duynhoven did you interject? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I did. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will leave. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven withdrew from the Chamber.
Collins Judith: Naming of Member 
Collins Judith: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5785] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise an issue under Speakers’ rulings 16/7 and 16/8 which relate to appropriate business attire for members of the House. I was wondering whether the electioneering badge being worn at the moment by some members of this House including yourself would be considered as part of business attire. I think it has electioneering on it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated; she is just trifling with the House. 
Judith Collins 
: No I’m not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just a minute I will explain. Many members wear as the member is wearing right now a support emblem or whatever one likes to call it. This badge is actually in support of board of trustees’ elections. It is exactly the same as the member is wearing herself. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled there is nothing against the dress code. 
Judith Collins 
: Madam Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Could you please be seated. 
Judith Collins 
: Could you please give me the courtesy of making my point of order without interrupting me. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I have ruled on the matter of the dress code. I have explained what it is if the member could not read it from there. It is exactly the same as many members wear in this House to support a cause or otherwise. If the member has a new point of order please raise it.
McCully Murray: Naming of Member 
McCully Murray: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5785] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the opinion of Mr Jack Hodder of the law firm Chapman Tripp which has been referred to by previous speakers and which I intend to refer to at length in the speeches that I will be giving to the House in respect of this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I thought that was one that Mr Brownlee just did but if it was not is there any objection? There is.
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5785] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 During the course of my speech I referred to a number of matters that are covered in the legal opinion given to the Speaker by Mr J Hodder and Ms BA Davies 11 October 2006. I seek leave to table that document. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Brown Peter: Naming of Member 
Brown Peter: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5785] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to draw to your attention that I was halfway through my speech and although I have no problem with Mr Brownlee taking as many points of order as he cares it is a custom of this House to allow a member to finish his or her speech then take the points of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Members are always entitled to take points of order as we have seen. But the House needs to get on with its business.
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5785] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just warn the member that I will not tolerate trifling points of order. The member cannot proceed to table matters that are not within the House’s business. We have dealt with this point on another occasion as the member well knows. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In my speech I referred to the  
Review of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition 
 DK Hunn and Henry Lang January 1990. I seek leave to table that report. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member wishes to table that report. Is there any objection? There is.
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
Brownlee Gerry: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5784] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table this piece of paper on which I have a number of scribblings. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I do not think that is enough explanation of what the member wants to table. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: These are my speech notes from before. Do you wish me to read them? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No. The member wants to table his speech notes. I just warn the member that he cannot trifle with the House. We have dealt with this matter before but the member wishes to table these speech notes. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Naming of Member 
Vote: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5784] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the House name Hon Dr Nick Smith whose conduct is grossly disorderly and judge the conduct of this member. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Question agreed to. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: This matter has been dealt with. You cannot relitigate or further debate a matter that has been dealt with.
McCully Murray: Naming of Member 
McCully Murray: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5784] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You put the motion. It was very clearly won on the voices and no member called for a ballot. I put it to you that the proper course for you and there is only one course open to you was to declare that the Noes have it. I invite you to make that calling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is not correct. It is up to the Speaker to call and I have said that the Ayes have it and that the vote be called. There will be silence during the voting.
Hartley Ann: Naming of Member 
Hartley Ann: Naming of Member 
[Volume:634;Page:5784] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s behaviour is disgraceful and I ask the House to name the member. The question now is  
That the House name Hon Dr Nick Smith whose conduct is grossly disorderly and judge the conduct of this member. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the House name Hon Dr Nick Smith whose conduct is grossly disorderly and judge the conduct of this member.
Williamson Maurice: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5773] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to carry on with the point of order I raised before but I ask you to look at Standing Order 80(2). Under the heading “Maintenance of Order” that Standing Order states: “Whenever the Speaker rises during a sitting members must sit down and be silent so that the Speaker can be heard without interruption.” Now I think that is a very clear Standing Order in our book—that is when the Speaker rises to his or her feet members must sit and remain silent. When my colleague Phil Heatley interjected you were not on your feet Madam Speaker and therefore I make the plea again—because Mr Heatley could easily not have realised you were in the process of standing—that he be allowed back in the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The point that I made stands exactly as I said. The ruling certainly does not state that the Speaker has to stand at every point. But I take the points that Mr Brownlee made and I say both those members can come back at 4 o’clock.
Vote: presentation of report 
Vote: presentation of report 
[Volume:634;Page:5767] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: presentation of report 
Cullen Michael: presentation of report 
[Volume:634;Page:5767] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I hereby present a report on unappropriated expenditure on Vote Parliamentary Service for the period from 1 July 1989 until the day on which the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill comes into force. I move  
That that paper be published.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:634;Page:5767] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:634;Page:5767] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill 
. 
This motion is moved in order that the House may address as quickly as possible the uncertainty around the legal status of past and current appropriations and it will also give the chance for the House to debate the Auditor-General’s report.
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5767] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to debate the Auditor-General’s report and the Speaker’s response. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5767] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As I pointed out in my ruling the administrative responsibility is with the Parliamentary Service Commission. If a member wishes to debate this matter all a member has to do is to seek leave to do so. [ 
Interruption 
] I have given my ruling Mr McCully. I have done you the courtesy of explaining the basis of the ruling again. I will enter into no further discussion on it. And the member should be seated while I am standing. I have given my ruling. I have explained the basis of the ruling. As far as I am concerned it is the end of the matter.
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5766] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek some elaboration of your ruling and you may wish to do this by way of a subsequent statement to the House. I thought you helpfully gave an indication to the House on Thursday as to your thinking on the question of ministerial responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition subsequently responded with a further letter to bolster his application for a snap debate in which he pointed out that the Minister of Finance had taken over some responsibility for the matter raised by the Auditor-General that he had made an announcement about his intention to legislate and that indeed the matters pertaining to the Public Finance Act then came into play which clearly of course do fall within the administrative responsibility of the Government. 
So while I can understand your reasoning so far as it went prior to the Minister of Finance taking the initiative and responding to the Auditor-General’s report I have some difficulty understanding how the actions of the Minister of Finance could still leave this matter outside the criteria for a snap debate. Without in any way challenging your ruling on this particular occasion I think it would help the House in the future in dealing with these matters if we could understand the reasoning by which we came to this process.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5766] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No Mr Brownlee. Of course any member can seek leave for the matter to be debated. That is the way in which matters are raised. Of course I am not indicating that that course of action could not be taken. It is the job of the Speaker to rule in terms of the Standing Orders and in this instance the Standing Order is clear.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5766] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This House took time to discuss as we have said before the issue of September 11—the planes flying into the World Trade Center. There was no ministerial responsibility for that. We could go through any number of other debates where the House has set aside time for a discussion about matters for which there is no ministerial responsibility. 
My point here is that you appear to be saying to the House that you have heard that the Government is going to fix it so members do not need to have a view on it. That is unfair.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5766] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. I have heard extensive comment on it. I ruled in accordance with Standing Order 380 that there is no ministerial responsibility. I also note that Dr Brash in fact included in his application an indication by way of a ministerial press release that the Government intends to introduce legislation. I would therefore ask the member to withdraw and apologise for his implication that something improper was done by the Speaker.
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5766] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will take up a number of points. First of all Madam Speaker obviously your decision on such a matter is final and in itself is not open to debate. Secondly on the point of view of foreknowledge by yourself of the Government’s intentions I say that my answer in the House to a question asked by the member was that the Government was going to introduce legislation under urgency as soon as possible. But I have no difficulty in stating that in response to your report to the House which recommended validation I wrote to you yesterday consequent upon Cabinet decisions that it was the Government’s intention to introduce a bill under urgency today to be passed through all stages. There is nothing improper at all in the Leader of the House communicating that information to the Speaker when the Speaker has recommended to the House that action be taken. 
The third point of course is that the primary reason why you have turned down the application is that the responsibility lies with the Parliamentary Service Commission not with a Government Minister. Therefore it fails to meet the actual test of responsibility.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5765] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On what basis are you declining the applications? Firstly if you are making the case that Parliament is about to enter into a debate you cannot possibly know that that is the case. That most certainly should not have affected your decision. 
Secondly although you are saying this is a matter that is to do with the Minister responsible for these matters it is also a matter very much at the heart of concern for all parliamentarians. Although the way you have ruled is interesting Parliament itself has not had an opportunity to express a view on the Auditor-General’s report. What we have instead apparently is the Parliamentary Service telling us that it is now working for the Government and that it has been party to the drafting of this legislation. Effectively it is making itself a servant of the Government and is showing you—and therefore this House—a high degree of disrespect. 
Thirdly this debate today is on a very narrow issue relating to a whole spectrum of things. It deals only with the validation of appropriations and barely touches on anything else. In any event how can you rule that Parliament itself cannot express a view on this and how fair is it that the whole organisation of this place including your offices have been in cahoots with the Government to effect exactly this result?
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response 
[Volume:634;Page:5765] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Auditor-General’s report on advertising expenditure and the Speaker’s response to the report. I have also received a similar application from Dr Don Brash. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence and involve the administrative and ministerial responsibilities of the Government. This is a particular case of recent occurrence; this is the first day upon which it could be considered. However as I pointed out to members in my ruling on Thursday it does not involve the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. It is clear that ministerial responsibility lies with the Minister responsible for Vote Parliamentary Service and administrative responsibility lies with the Parliamentary Service. The Government’s intention to introduce validating legislation does not alter this. 
I understand that the Government intends to introduce a bill today under urgency which seeks to validate the parliamentary expenditure in question. This will provide the House with ample opportunity to canvass the issues raised in the reports. Both applications are therefore declined.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5765] 
12.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Has he received any reports on the response to the Government’s newly expanded rates rebate scheme? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes despite the opposition of National and ACT to the rates rebate amendments to extend coverage earlier this year rates rebates totalling over $26.9 million have been approved for some 59560 New Zealand households in just the first few weeks of the 2006-07 year. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How does this compare with the level of rebates for 2005-06? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: This compares with the 4200 households that received a rebate for the whole of the 2005-06 year. In other words there has been a fourteenfold increase in households receiving rebates and an almost fortyfold increase in the total value of rebates provided in just the first few weeks of the 2006-07 rating year.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5759] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister of Police has given an answer to one of my questions which I think he needs to reflect on and to possibly make an adjustment to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. Points of order are heard in silence. That is the last warning. Would Mr Mark please be succinct in his point of order. 
RON MARK 
: I seek leave of the House to table answer to written question No. 286 from the Minister of Police which states: “Statistics on gang affiliations are recorded by the police.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5758] 
8.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What further progress is he anticipating in strengthening and rebuilding the New Zealand Defence Force? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The 2006 long-term development plan update was released today and records major progress in rebuilding the New Zealand Defence Force after National halved expenditure on defence as a percentage of GDP in the 1990s. The plan lists 13 major projects that have been approved by Government and are now in the acquisition phase five projects that have been approved in principle by Government and 12 in the capability development phase. Seven new projects have been added to the plan including infrastructure projects at Devonport and Ohakea major upgrades for the Anzac frigates replacement of pilot training aircraft and the possible acquisition of a new satellite communications system. 
Jill Pettis 
: Have final decisions been taken on the purchase of light utility training helicopters to go into service alongside the NH90s? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Final decisions have been made by Cabinet to purchase six light utility training helicopters to replace the Sioux helicopters. They will have capabilities far in excess of the existing aircraft. They are expected to cost up to $110 million and will be a major asset complementing the decision and the contract signed to buy eight NH90 medium utility helicopters.