edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10317] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think we can say that is still being market tested at the present time.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10317] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for giving us an indication of the next sitting’s business. I wonder whether he might give us a comment about the likelihood of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill passing during this term of the Government.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10317] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House goes into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 July priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill which is an 8-hour debate and the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill.
Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10366] 
Criminal Justice Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 26 June. 
Part 2 Amendments to Acts relating to Criminal Justice 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: When the bill was previously before the Committee Dr Richard Worth had the call. He has 1 minute remaining if he wishes to speak. If not honourable members it is time for me to leave the chair. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Points of Order — Discharge of sessional order—Television coverage of the House 
Points of Order — Discharge of sessional order—Television coverage of the House 
[Volume:640;Page:10350] 
Points of Order 
Discharge of sessional order—Television coverage of the House 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the sessional order on television coverage of the House be discharged and that it be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration. 
Motion not agreed to.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:640;Page:10317] 
Thursday 28 June 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House goes into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 July priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill which is an 8-hour debate and the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for giving us an indication of the next sitting’s business. I wonder whether he might give us a comment about the likelihood of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill passing during this term of the Government. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think we can say that is still being market tested at the present time.
Guy Nathan: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11026] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 Following on from Katrina Shanks’ very very good and informative address on clause 3 I was thinking about her mentioning the people sitting in traffic jams in Auckland. I was also thinking about the building inspectors who occasionally work in Wellington trying to get to the Kapiti coast where I live but who are snarled up in traffic as we speak. Those building inspectors who have been listening to their radios in their cars this afternoon will be having a quiet wee smirk at the Government over the shonky process we have seen in the Chamber in the last day and a half. 
Nick Smith has done extremely well to expose that here this afternoon. Those building inspectors will be thinking that this is the third attempt to change the Building Act. They are sick of heading off to conferences and seminars. They are sick of having to carry around all this bureaucracy and these large documents. They just get au fait with something and then the Labour Government brings in yet another change. So what do they have to do? They have to get in their cars and head off to another seminar down in Wellington and then turn round at 5 to 6 in the evening and get in the terrible traffic jam and head back out to the Kapiti coast. 
This legislation is a shambles. We have exposed the fact that the Government wanted to dismantle the 402 Standing Orders yesterday and Nick Smith and his team of Katrina Shanks Phil Heatley and Bob Clarkson have done extremely well in exposing the Government. What we need to be aware of is that in 2002—and I am speaking to clause 3—when the Building Act was amended by the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act it was meant to provide homeowners with a speedier more flexible and cost-effective alternative to the courts. Well I want to tell all those building inspectors who are quietly smirking in their cars as they listen to their radios that since 2002 when that Act was passed only 16 percent of those cases have been concluded. So 84 percent of people are still waiting to have their cases heard to try to get a conclusion after 5 long years of this Government. So what I want to say to Mr Cosgrove who talks about doing it once and doing it right is that we have seen a really shonky display in the last 2 days in this Chamber. What an embarrassment it has been to the Government. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11022] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that matter Dr Smith. It would appear that you are not entitled to do that. A ruling on the matter can be found in Speaker’s ruling 112/1 which states: “If a bill is recommitted for the purpose of considering amendments proposed on a Supplementary Order Paper the committee can only deal with such matters as are stated in the motion for recommittal.” We are dealing with Supplementary Order Paper 133 and with the division of the bill which is the subject of Supplementary Order Paper 134. The Speaker has ruled that those are the issues that the Committee is considering so there is no power to allow any member to bring in any extra matters or Supplementary Order Papers in fact. So can we move on to clause 3 and the question that it stand part.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11022] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Now having had the Speaker’s ruling that the very wide powers that the Committee has enable the movement of a Supplementary Order Paper on pretty much anything can I seek your clarification that it is now quite permissible for me and my colleagues to move a Supplementary Order Paper to change the Building Act or the Finance Act or the social welfare legislation or any other Act of Parliament and for those motions to be put to the Committee under the title of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill?
Wilson Margaret: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11021] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I will take a moment for some advice. I thank the Deputy Clerk and also the member for his comments. I agree with him that it is an important process and one that is used rarely and that therefore it is important to get it right. But the reality is that the process and procedure that has been followed however extraordinary it is has been followed correctly according to the Standing Orders. 
In any recommittal motion—and maybe I did not explain this carefully before—it is not actually required to specifically mention the Supplementary Order Papers though that motion of course did mention the division of the bill. So we are dealing with two separate matters. There was the original issue of the suspension of the Standing Orders to consider the Supplementary Order Paper; that was dealt with. Then there was the recommittal motion. It did not have to refer specifically—as I understand the member’s point—to the Supplementary Order Paper. It was passed. That was the correct process. The ruling given by the Chair in the Committee was the correct one and that is my ruling. Thank you.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11021] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is important that we are very clear about the issue. It is a very unusual procedure which has been used on very rare occasions to suspend the normal Standing Orders of Parliament for the way in which law is considered. For the Government to use its majority to suspend those Standing Orders is very unusual and it is a mechanism that should be used with great restraint. I could quote you Geoffrey Palmer’s comments about the use of that power. 
The issue is not the division of the bill. It is clear that the two resolutions that were passed were firstly to suspend the Standing Orders; and secondly to discharge the bill to refer it to the Committee and to allow the bill to be divided into parts. The issue is whether Supplementary Order Paper 134 can be considered by the Committee. Supplementary Order Paper 134 deals with issues that are outside the scope of the bill. It deals quite specifically with issues in the Building Act whereas the substantive bill deals only with issues in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act. The question arose during the Committee debate on the bill. Points were raised last evening. The Chairperson said very plainly that we could debate only the issues that were in Supplementary Order Paper 133. 
I think the correct ruling for you to make Madam Speaker is that it is not possible for the Committee to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134. If the Government had wanted the Committee to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134 that should have been specifically listed in the motion that was put to the House. So I seek clarification from you and I say that in this area of the suspension of the Standing Orders we should have very tight rules because to pass law without the normal process of a first reading a select committee process and a second reading goes to the heart of the powers of Parliament.
Wilson Margaret: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11021] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that. I have considered the matter and I have taken advice on it. I accept the advice that the Chair has already given to the Committee. The suspension of Standing Order 261 is a separate matter; to give authority for the consideration of an amendment that creates an omnibus bill is a separate matter. The recommittal motion dealt with the consideration of the amendment and the division of the bill. The Committee has the authority of course to override the bill. So the ruling that the Chairperson gave was correct. But further to all that Standing Order 305 gives the Committee the inherent power to divide the bill. That appears to be the issue—whether there is in fact power to divide the bill. That as far as I am concerned is the ruling I am giving.
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11020] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Madam Speaker you have been recalled to give a ruling on whether the recommittal and the process we are going through to divide the bill are in order. Representations have been made by a number of speakers particularly the Hon Dr Nick Smith in this regard. The ruling I gave was that what the Committee had done and the procedures we had gone through were in order. I gave that as my final ruling; hence you have been recalled.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11020] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled so a ruling may be put on this procedural issue. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11020] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is entirely for the member to take us out of Committee if he wishes to do so. It is my ruling that this matter is in order. But if the member wishes to proceed down the suggested course I await his decision.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11020] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The purposes of dividing the bill are fine. What the Minister does not have the right to do is to introduce a second Supplementary Order Paper. He could have included the issues that are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 on his original Supplementary Order Paper but he does not have the capacity to introduce a second Supplementary Order Paper. So I have to take the step of recalling the Speaker to get a definitive ruling on whether the Committee in fact has the power to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134.
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11020] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. He is quite correct in most of the issues that he outlines. Standing Order 261 is about the subject area of the bill. The suspension of that Standing Order enabled this bill to become an omnibus bill. The division of the bill does not require the suspension of the Standing Orders. That is an inherent power of the Committee of the whole House under Standing Order 305. The subsequent motion to recommit the bill was as follows: “That the order of the day for the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill be discharged and that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill.” The motion to move Supplementary Order Paper 134 is next on the list after we have dealt with clause 3. That motion will be debatable. Now I cannot really take the matter too much further than that. Supplementary Order Paper 134 divides the bill and is thus provided for under the motion to recommit the bill. There is no doubt that this is in order. That is my final ruling.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11020] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The key issue here is the suspension of Standing Order 261. The suspension of Standing Order 261 was related only to Supplementary Order Paper 133. Now Mr Barnett has argued that well no we can do this because Supplementary Order Paper 134 is within the scope of the bill. Well I want to draw your attention to Supplementary Order Paper 134. It refers to the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Act. I want you Mr Chairperson to refer to the base bill we are debating which is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. That Supplementary Order Paper is outside the scope of the bill. That is why the resolution was required for Supplementary Order Paper 133 and why it is absolutely irrefutably logical that that must also apply to Supplementary Order Paper 134.
Tolley Anne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11019] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am sorry but we argued that point with the Chair last night and it was firmly ruled that we could debate only what was on Supplementary Order Paper 133. We were told that just because we were in Committee that did not mean we could debate anything else. Our debate was confined clearly to what was on that Supplementary Order Paper— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: With some allowances. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: —with some allowances. But we could not widen the debate. We could not have a debate on Part 2 for instance or on other issues contained within Part 1.
Barnett Tim: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11019] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thought I would offer some further helpful advice. This is really to reiterate in a different way what I said previously. Once a bill has been recommitted to the Committee of the whole House which is the situation we are now in it is within the power of the Committee of the whole House to consider amendments within the scope of the bill which is what we are now doing. We are now in the Committee of the whole House and we are considering those amendments. I think it really is as plain and simple as that.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11019] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Can I read for the benefit of the Committee the exact motion: “That Standing Order 261 be suspended to permit the Committee of the whole House on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill to consider Supplementary Order Paper 133 relating to that bill and for the committee in its consideration of the bill to have the power to adopt if it thinks fit the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper.” There is no mention in that motion of the subsequent Supplementary Order Paper 134 tabled in the name of the Minister. I simply say that I cannot find any interpretation that will allow our Standing Orders to be suspended for a different Supplementary Order Paper. For instance if I tabled a Supplementary Order Paper right now to do A B C or D then you Mr Chairman would rightly say I cannot do that because it is outside the instructions from the House. 
Now there was a second resolution that the House considered as well which was that the bill not proceed with its third reading and be recommitted. That is perfectly proper but it was recommitted for the purpose—and the motion was quite explicit; the Minister quite explicitly said that the bill was to be recommitted for the purpose of considering Supplementary Order Paper 133 not Supplementary Order Paper 134. That is why I think the Government again has got itself into a mess. The only proper course to take is for us to come out of Committee and for a Minister if he or she wants to further dig a hole to move that Standing Order 261 be suspended so that the new Supplementary Order Paper can also be considered.
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11019] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You may do that of course Dr Smith but there were two motions agreed to by the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
Hon CLEM SIMICH 
: That was yesterday. One was to consider Supplementary Order Paper 133— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: And the second was to recommit. 
Hon CLEM SIMICH 
: No—and the other was to divide the bill. The other one was to consider—
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11019] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I was here in the Chamber. I want a clear ruling from you Mr Chairman. I have to say that when we suspend the Standing Orders of the House it is a very serious and very rare provision particularly if it is done by a plain majority of the House. If despite the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 134 was never mentioned in the motion before the House it is your intention to rule that Supplementary Order Paper 134 will be considered then I have no choice but to recall the Speaker if you go down that track.
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11018] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It seems fairly clear that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove moved that the order of the day for the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill be discharged and that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and dividing the bill. So notice was given to the House of that intention. I assume that is what the Minister said.
Barnett Tim: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11018] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Further to that point of order I very much appreciated your comments just now Mr Chairman but I would maybe invite you to address the couple of the points that I made. One is the understanding that the Committee of the whole House has the inherent power to divide a bill. That is inherent to the Committee; it does not need any particular permission to do that. I say firstly it is an inherent power of the Committee of the whole House to divide a bill and secondly the recommittal motion refers to that process but does not refer to Supplementary Order Paper 134. By dealing with Supplementary Order Paper 134 we are carrying out the intention of the motion.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11018] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. How is it possible for the Committee to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134 when the House has given no direction to enable us to do that? It is simply dancing on the head of a pin to say we should assume that we were going to divide the bill and that to divide the bill we need Supplementary Order Paper 134 so on that basis we can do what we like. I am sorry but if the Government wanted the House to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134 it needed to record that in its additional motion because it is absolutely clear that the provisions on Supplementary Order Paper 134 would breach Standing Order 261 in going outside the scope of the bill.
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11018] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for contributing to the point of order raised. My recollection is that the House agreed to two motions yesterday. The first was the motion to suspend Standing Order 261 and when that was agreed to the House went on to recommit the bill by motion to consider the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 133 and to divide the bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Those words were never used. 
Hon CLEM SIMICH 
: That is my recollection of what Mr Cosgrove moved. We proceeded from there. Of course we are now on clause 3 which is a separate question altogether.
Tolley Anne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11018] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 We had considerable debate in this Chamber last night at the beginning of the Committee stage about exactly what we were able to debate in the Committee of the whole House. It was made very clear to us that we could debate only what was set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. Hence there was no wide-ranging debate on Part 1; we were confined to the clauses on Supplementary Order Paper 133. We were not allowed any debate on Part 2 and moved straight into Part 3—again as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 133. At no stage during that whole process was Supplementary Order Paper 134 and the dividing of the bill referred to. We were instructed by the Chair to stick to Supplementary Order Paper 133. He did say that he would listen carefully to our debate and that if we erred beyond that slightly he would make a judgment call. But his direction to us was quite specific: that we were to be focused on Supplementary Order Paper 133 only.
Barnett Tim: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11018] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 In response to that I make a couple of points. Firstly my understanding is that the Committee of the whole House which we are now in has an inherent power to divide legislation. That is the first point I would like to make. Regardless of whatever the motion said that brings us to the point we are at now that inherent power is held by the Committee of the whole House. Secondly the recommittal motion does refer to the splitting of the bill albeit it does not refer to the number of the Supplementary Order Paper which is 134 and to which Dr Smith referred.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11017] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 If the Government wishes to suspend the Standing Orders in order for us to consider Supplementary Order Paper 134 that should have been in the Minister’s motion. The Minister’s motion is quite explicit; it refers only to Supplementary Order Paper 133. I cannot see that the Government has any wiggle room to now claim that we have to consider another Supplementary Order Paper of amendments when the specific instruction from the House was that Standing Order 261 was suspended only for the purposes of considering Supplementary Order Paper 133. 
I further point out to you that the suspension of Standing Order 261 is with regard to considering matters outside the scope of a bill. The matters covered on Supplementary Order Paper 134 are specifically outside the scope of the bill. That Supplementary Order Paper deals with issues that are now to be in the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill. 
I think there has been an error by the Government. The proper process for the Government is to go back to the full House. If the Government wishes to continue to pursue this matter we would need to consider a new motion from the Government to suspend the Standing Orders for the purposes of Supplementary Order Papers 133 and 134.
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11017] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If I could address the issues you have raised Dr Smith we have been dealing with two motions. The first of course was that in notice of motion No. 1 on the Order Paper. Then we moved to the motion to recommit which dealt with the division of the bill. It dealt with Supplementary Order Paper 133 and the dividing of the bill which is on Supplementary Order Paper 134 albeit the motion did not mention Supplementary Order Paper 134.
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:11017] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I have a very important point of order which I ask for your considered ruling on. The Minister has tabled not just Supplementary Order Paper 133 but also Supplementary Order Paper 134. I want you to reflect on the motion that was passed by the House to overrule the Standing Orders. The motion is to “permit the Committee of the whole House … to consider Supplementary Order Paper 133 relating to that bill …” . That motion relates to the suspension of the Standing Orders. The suspension of the Standing Orders is an extraordinary power of the Government. It says that the Government is going to throw out the normal rules of the House. 
But the House agreed to throw out the rules of the House for the consideration of Supplementary Order Paper 133 only. The motion is quite specifically about Supplementary Order Paper 133. Then early in the Committee stage a ruling from Mr Robertson a very competent Chair said that in debating the recommittal of this bill we needed to debate Supplementary Order Paper 133 because in the motion that was moved by the Minister he said that we needed to recommit the bill for the purposes of considering that Supplementary Order Paper. 
The ruling I seek from you Mr Chair is that it is not proper within the instructions that we have from the House for any consideration to be given to Supplementary Order Paper 134 and that it would be a breach of the processes of the House for us to consider any motions in respect of that Supplementary Order Paper.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10996] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to ask one further supplementary question of the Minister of State Services regarding the question previously asked in addition to our allocation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10990] 
8.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the number of New Zealanders in paid employment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen a major proposal to tackle unemployment by the reintroduction of a failed Work for the Dole scheme. Under this proposal unemployment beneficiaries would be forced to work in make-work schemes where they would earn nothing more than the dole and where they would have their chances of getting a real job reduced. That major policy announcement came from National spokesperson Judith Collins which suggests that Bill English is right and that she has been pushed beyond her capacity because she does not realise that the policy has already proved to be a failure. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What further reports has the Minister received on the number of New Zealanders in paid employment; and will Ms Collins continue as such? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have received a report today that shows that we have the best employment and unemployment statistics ever. The latest household labour force survey shows that—and I will do these one at a time—there are fewer unemployed people than ever before there are more people in paid employment than ever before the New Zealand labour force is bigger than ever before more women are employed than ever before and more Maori are employed than ever before. The good news just keeps rolling out. Meanwhile the National Party wants to bring back Work for the Dole. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has he seen on the number of Maori in paid employment since Labour became the Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is just more good news. I am delighted to report that there are more Maori in paid employment than ever before. Maori unemployment is down to just 7 percent. That is a huge improvement. When National was in Government Maori unemployment was at 18.6 percent. That is another example of New Zealanders being better off under Labour.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10987] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to go back to the ruling you just made and suggest that it may be time for you to look at a number of Speakers’ rulings and come back to the House with a considered ruling because on the face of it there are some contradictory Speakers’ rulings in regard to questions. There is for instance Speakers’ ruling 153/5 which states: “The Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question and has no responsibility for the quality of the answer that is given …”. That ruling was by Mr Speaker Harrison and Mr Speaker Arthur. Then over a couple of pages there is Speaker’s ruling 155/6 by Mr Hunt on two occasions that: “Any answer must address the question asked.” It “must be a direct response; it cannot be on an unrelated matter …” etc. We get ourselves into the position where on the one hand you rule in accordance with the earlier set of rulings that you are not responsible for the content or quality of an answer but then there is this other Speaker’s ruling about Ministers having to address the question. It has seemed to me for some time that therein lies the conflict we get into trouble with at question time. It may be time for you to take some time to reflect upon the rulings of those various Speakers and give a more contemporary and considered ruling for the future to guide us. Otherwise I think the confusion is going to continue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to do so.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10987] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Twice during Dr Cullen speaking to that point of order National MP David Bennett interjected on him. I thought you had now given two warnings that points of order are to be heard in silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes and I will reinforce that. Unfortunately for the member however members on his own side also interjected at the end. But I would remind members that I will not be tolerant in future. We are not going to have today the disorder we have had in the House this week.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10986] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There can be no merit in that argument. The Minister stated clearly that she misunderstood the question. She cannot then be accused of trying to mislead the House in the nature of the answer she gave. It is quite unlike saying “I support the war in Iraq.” and then later saying “I didn’t support the war in Iraq.” That is a clear contradiction. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Maybe I can assist members here. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 19/1: “A point of order is a matter concerning the procedures of the House in which the Speaker can take action—”. It is not for the Speaker however to decide whether a Minister’s answer is correct. That is very clear in the Standing Orders and in Speakers’ rulings. The issue is obviously a matter for debate which was the point I was endeavouring to make. It is for the House to consider but it is not for the Speaker to consider because it is not a point of order. The Speaker does not intervene in the debate.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10986] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 155/6. That particular ruling issued by Speaker Hunt in 2001 and 2004 states very clearly with regard to answers from Ministers that the answer “cannot be on an unrelated matter that it suits the Minister to introduce.” Of course the ruling goes on to say that that does not mean there has to be an answer or that it will be satisfactory. But our point in this case is that Annette King saying “I thought you were referring to when Dr Prebble knew” even though his name was never mentioned and she was asked twice when she knew fails that particular test.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10983] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In answer to the last supplementary question asked of the Minister to the previous question the Minister told us that she first knew of David Benson-Pope’s expressing a view to Mr Logan about the employment of the new communications manager on 29 July. David Benson-Pope announced that to the House on 26 July and was out of his job on 27 July. Does the Minister want to correct her answer or did she know about it a whole month earlier than that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister to reply although that was not a point of order.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10983] 
4.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on enrolments in the KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The latest data is that the total number of enrolments received by the Inland Revenue Department has reached nearly 92000. Treasury’s forecast was that 345000 would have enrolled by the end of the first year—that is by 30 June 2008—an average of just under 30000 per month. Although some further opt-outs from the cohorts who have already enrolled will still occur the final take-up for that cohort seems very likely to be running well ahead of the forecast contrary to a number of reports. 
Shane Jones 
: Has he seen any other reports on support for the scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a huge range of support for the scheme within the public arena and within this House. The one exception is the National Party which simply cannot make up its mind. Indeed I have in front of me a photograph of Mr Bill English appropriately in Doubtful Sound saying: “We will sit and watch KiwiSaver for a time.” So far the National members have voted against the original bill the KiwiSaver Bill voted against the extensions to KiwiSaver in the Budget legislation and voted against the bill with the employer contributions which is in front of the select committee. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: If the current rate of uptake continues to be ahead of the forecast and to be strong will the Government in time give consideration to removing the voluntary opt-out provision of the scheme and making it a compulsory one for all New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I think the compulsory opt-out provision is the best way to proceed. It does not raise further issues around the structure of New Zealand superannuation which a fully compulsory scheme might. What it does mean is that we will have achieved a major shift in New Zealanders’ savings behaviour.
Sharples Pita: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament 
Sharples Pita: Tabling of Documents — Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament 
[Volume:641;Page:10978] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my signed copy of the code of conduct for members of Parliament. I was away at the time when our parties put this forward. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee Select Committees—Official Business 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee Select Committees—Official Business 
[Volume:641;Page:10978] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the point and I can inform the member and the House that the matter is already under consideration by the Clerk’s Office. Once there has been a full report then the suitable and recommended action will be taken including a report to this House if that is required.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee Select Committees—Official Business 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee Select Committees—Official Business 
[Volume:641;Page:10977] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well as long as the point of order is consistent with the Standing Orders that is fine. 
RON MARK 
: My question Madam Speaker is to you and asks you to consider whether it is appropriate and what the implications are for a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee currently visiting Australia on an official select committee tour on official select committee business to go AWOL from that committee to the point where not even the party the member belongs to is sure exactly where he is to take a film crew with him to the Northern Territory and then to proceed to unleash a tirade of abuse on the Australian authorities for the second time particularly at a time when New Zealand Maori MPs are back here trying to deal with child abuse in this nation. 
I ask whether you will investigate this matter in respect of Mr Hone Harawira and report back to the House. We have issues that must be addressed. He is away on official select committee business and on that basis his vote counts—his proxy counts. The question has to be: how many times has his vote been cast in this House improperly? The second question has to be the financial implications of a member being away on select committee business funded by the House but using that opportunity to do other business; whether that ‘financially’ is or is not appropriate and where the adjustments need to be made. This is a serious issue. It impacts on select committees on how they operate and on how members operate in this House. I ask you to look at it.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee Select Committees—Official Business 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee Select Committees—Official Business 
[Volume:641;Page:10977] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before I commence my point of order can I say to you that I have a slightly long point of order and I ask for your indulgence in the House if I am to get to the core of this matter.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee Select Committees—Official Business 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee Select Committees—Official Business 
[Volume:641;Page:10977] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I was considering that this morning and hope to have a report to the House next week.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee Select Committees—Official Business 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Auditor-General—Officers of Parliament Committee Select Committees—Official Business 
[Volume:641;Page:10977] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On 26 July I raised with you a point of order relating to the Public Audit Act the role of the Auditor-General and the oversight of his work programme by the Officers of Parliament Committee. You undertook to come back with a report. I was wondering when that report might be available and whether it will also include questions as to the accountability of the Auditor-General to Parliament for his actions and just how that accountability is exercised.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:10977] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill which is a 3-hour debate. The Government will also seek to make progress on the remaining stages of the Major Events Management Bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill the second reading of the Income Tax Bill and the first readings of the Limited Partnerships Bill the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Immigration Bill. Wednesday of course is a members’ day.
Vote: Regulatory Responsibility Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Regulatory Responsibility Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10315] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Regulatory Responsibility Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 114 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time.