Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeExclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4530. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment BillIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I am happy to take a call on this very short piece of legislation which actually only has four clauses but does something very important. Before I get under way with my speech I would like to acknowledge the work that the Local Government and Environment Committee has done on this bill. And I would like to acknowledge the work of the chair of that select committee Scott Simpson on this because I think actually this legislation that we are here debating in the House which Labour does support is actually an example of how a select committee can have a very good influence on a piece of legislation and can improve legislation that comes before it. Although this is a very short piece of legislation there is one clause of substance that being clause 4 which amends section 162 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Act. What this bill does in effect is it allows for the continuation of oil and gas operations for four specific operators that were in existence before the legislation was passed in terms of the exclusive economic zone legislation that was passed in 2013 both while they lodge their applications and while there may be appeals against those applications.So what we are here doing is actually playing fix-up again. We are playing fix-up on a piece of legislation where the primary piece of legislation needed to be sent back to the select committee for a major piece of redrafting. That piece of legislation then came before this House in the previous Parliament with a 14-page Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister because so many changes needed to be made to what was a very flawed piece of legislation. One month after the passage of that legislation there was a 37-page amendment bill in the Marine Legislation Bill—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Clause 1 title.Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes it is clause 1 that is right and that is the title clause which is around the exclusive economic zone. So it is the “Exclusive Economic Zone Fix-up Bill” that we are talking about here the piece of legislation that has had to play fix-up on the primary legislation and not for the first time as I was cataloguing there. We had the 37 pages of amendments to the Marine Legislation Bill brought in by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. But here we are again with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill—or the “Exclusive Economic Zone Fix-up Bill” as I prefer to call it. Here we are yet again because if we were not doing this fix-up bill what we would be doing is facing the closure of one of our main sources of natural gas at the end of this month. This legislation is required because this Government did not put in place adequate transitional arrangements into the principal legislation to allow for existing operators to transition into a regulatory regime. It would not exactly be rocket science to think: we are putting in place a new regulatory regime we have got some existing operators and we need to bring them inside the regulatory framework. Instead that was just left silent and there was a big gaping hole that could have led to huge economic costs to the country.We in the Labour Party absolutely believe in the need for a managed transition away from fossil fuels but simply shutting down a platform with no planning around it because the Government has made a mistake in legislation is not the way to do that. This is fix-up legislation and whose bungle are we fixing this time? Because when we came to look at this legislation this again was poorly drafted. So we are here doing a Nick Smith fix-up in the Chamber and the Committee. I guess the one thing we can be grateful for is that there were no provisions in the legislation for either power transfer stations or cemeteries to be put on the Māui platform because that is the kind of bungle that Minister can make. We are here because we are working on the very good work that the select committee has done and because of the fact that we would have had very open-ended legislation. So in talking to clause 1 of this bill it being the exclusive economic zone fix-up legislation—if it were not for the work of the select committee we would have been back here in only a very short period of time.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I will leave my substantive contribution to clause 4 which is basically really the only page of text in the whole legislation. But clause 1 deals with the title. I would like to propose a new title for the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I would like to call it the “One Law for Oil Bill” because although I have got the greatest respect for Miss Woods and although it is a further example of the Government not doing its homework and of poor legislative drafting really the blame has to fall squarely at the feet of Shell Todd Oil Services. So perhaps we should be calling it the “Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Shell Todd Oil’s Fix-up) Amendment Bill”.Let us just quickly go through the chronology to explain why I am suggesting these titles. Although the legislation was poorly drafted and was rushed through blame has to be placed at the feet of the very companythat this legislation—using the awesome power of this Parliament to introduce legislation and pass an Act of Parliament—benefits: a single company Shell Todd Oil Services. This was a company involved in the select committee process on the original legislation a company that was heavily involved in lobbying and seeing that legislation passed a company that knew full well the provisions of the legislation a company that Cabinet decided on 8 December 2014 to pass this legislation for and to bring in this amendment bill for. Yet it was not until 15 December more than a month later that Shell Todd Oil Services finally got around to applying for its marine consent.This amendment bill simply retrospectively allows this company to continue its existing activity now that its permit has expired in case there are any appeals. We know it has been a controversial application locally but the fact is that this company ran straight to Cabinet ran straight to Ministers asking them to pass an Act of Parliament to allow it to continue its activity before it even got a marine consent application in. So it is disappointing this company did not appear before the Local Government and Environment Committee but I would like to echo the comments of Miss Woods that it was a constructive select committee process. I would like to acknowledge the chair and all the members because the bill has been substantively improved since the first reading. Kia ora.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): May I just briefly pay my respects to two gentlemen who passed away whose funerals earlier today members of this House participated in or attended: firstly Jerry Collins who was an iconic son of P-Town; and of course Peter Conway a former representative of the Council of Trade Unions. Both of them were quite passionate about this country of ours and both of them lived life to the fullest. I want to join with others and simply pay my respects to them.This bill here hasonly four clauses and it received only five submissions from the public. As to the first clause the title clause which the Government is asking us to debate no one made a submission. I think it might be fitting if the Government moved a motion at some stage for us to debate the whole piece of legislation as one part. I hate doing that but it just seems like we are having to try to fix up the mistakes of this Government time and time again. So I just put that for the Government to consider.I do want to say that of the people who made submissions on this bill three of them were opposed to the bill in totality one of them did not show any indication one way or the other and the other one was the association of the industry which was in favour of the bill. There was a submitter who caught my attention. This submitter raised other issues that relate to the title clause and her name is Tanea Tangaroa. She simply said: “We are not happy that Shell Todd will possibly be granted another perpetual licence to explore further wells and drill in an area that is inhabited by the last 55 Maui dolphins.” So you could say a potential title for this particular bill is one that acknowledges that 55 Māui’s dolphins are put at risk. Although the Government would look at only one side of the argument—the economics of this proposal—I think there is a much broader issue and a title about putting at risk the 55 Māui’s dolphins would broaden out the debate so that it included other issues that are of concern to people.The reason I think why no one made a submission on the title clause is that the public were not given sufficient time to take note that this bill was coming through. This is about the third or fourth time that the Government has had to change the original Act that it introduced in 2012. The reason why those five people did not make any submission on the title clause was that they could not figure out whether the Government was coming or going with the way that it has amended this particular bill over and over again.I put it to the Committee and I say to the Minister that we should be debating the substantive clause which is clause 4 because no one made any submissions on clause 1 clause 2 or clause 3. It was the substantive clause—clause 4—that the submissions paid attention to and I think we need to debate clause 4 significantly in the time that we have got to debate this particular clause.The title Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill is just a mouthful of a title and it should give an indication to our public about what on earth it means. Often it causes suspicion if we are not clear in the way that we write legislation. It causes suspicion. People ask what the Government is trying to hide when the title of a bill does not give clarity about what we are trying to do. As my colleague Dr Megan Woods has said in essence we have attempted to work with the Government to help it right the wrongs and the mistakes it has made in this particular part of legislation. We have said that based on the amended change that the select committee made and brought back to this House we are content to pass the legislation. But I have to say now looking at that clause that the Government needs to be clearer in future about what it wants to do.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I just remind the member of rules around repetition. We have heard this I do not know how many times now.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Well I will just make it brief then—I will just make it brief. All I am saying is that the Government prides itself on being open and transparent—any Government should—and one of the very first things that an open and transparent Government ought to do is to be clear about its legislation and the first thing that it ought to do is be clear about the title. The present title gives no indication to the general public—particularly those who are interested in what we do and want to hold this Government to account—as to what this bill does. So I would move—maybe I should not move. I suggest to the Government that we debate the substantive clause which is clause 4. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for all remaining clauses of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill to be considered in one debate with the questions on the clauses to be taken separately at its conclusion.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave for that purpose is sought. Is there any objection? There is not. We will be debating clauses 2 to 4 as one motion.Clauses 2 to 4STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):Despite what our Green friend Gareth Hughes said the economic reality is that this bill had to pass through the House—there is no doubt about that. But I suppose the reason why a number of my colleagues have expressed concern about this bill is that we all know—even the Nats know—that this is really a sloppy way to put legislation in place. It is a very sloppy way to manage something that is very important to our environment.If we actually have a look at new section 162(5) in clause 4 it says—we are talking about the drilling for gas here; everybody knows what we are talking about—“the activity may continue without a marine consent until the application is decided under section 62 and any appeals are determined.” What this basically says to the people of New Zealand is: “This is going to go ahead no matter what. Don’t bother appealing because the activity is there and that is the way it is.” I do not think that is a particularly democratic way to do things. There is a lot better way to draft legislation that allows us to get this sort of bill through the House. There is no point in apportioning blame to Shell Todd Oil Services or to the Government—the bottom line is that we have ended in a situation that we have all admitted is suboptimal.I have heard National members stand up and say congratulations to Scott Simpson on the way that this has been managed. Well I would say that if the chair was on the ball when the original legislation came through the House they would have noted—and even the officials would have noted—that this is a glaring admission. You know one of our largest gas platforms has not got consent and the legislation does not cover this. So I am not too sure what went on in the select committee process Mr Chair. I am sure if you had been the chair of committee this would not have happened in any way shape or form—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Don’t bring me into it.STUART NASH: —but it is really messy legislation. But it also cuts to the heart of what we believe as a country and Megan Woods has spoken about this. Our global brand is around our being “clean green” and “100% Pure New Zealand”. It is what we go out there and market. I mean the Ministry of Economic Development or whatever it was called way back when valued our brand at $20 billion a year. That was in 2005 so I am sure it is worth a lot more than that now. The research also showed that 80 percent of New Zealand companies that seek to engage with overseas markets actually leverage off our brand. So part of this—Chris Bishop: Where have I heard this before?STUART NASH: That is right Mr Bishop. You have heard this before because I think it is such an important point. The Government keeps missing the mark on it and I just do not get it because it is so important to our country. What we have done by highlighting this is that you know we have worked incredibly hard and the Labour Government worked incredibly hard to actually develop a regulatory environment that was First World because overseas we are judged on how we manage the regulatory environment and on how big oil companies operate in our exclusive economic zone.By doing this—by having this sort of legislative burp I suppose or misstep—it just says to the world that we are not on top of our game and that also plays into our global brand of being a fantastic citizen and protector of the environment. We have got to get this sort of thing right and I say to the Minister who is in charge of this bill—and I understand that it is not the Minister in the chair. He has got his own issues managing a $2 billion 10-year project; good luck with that one. But I do say to the Minister who is involved with this bill that we have got to do better than this—we really do—as a country because if we continue to develop legislation in such an important area that does have a major consequence on our global brand then we will undo a whole lot of work that over the years has led to the reputation that we have got at the moment.You know back in the good old days we were seen as the cowboys of the wild west. You came down here you did whatever you wanted to do it did not matter and then you got out. If we were lucky as a country it went well and if we were not lucky then it did not go well but who cared? Because we were at the bottom of the Pacific no one cared. That has changed. The way we do business has changed. The way we do business in this country and the messages that we send to overseas markets have changed but this sort of legislation takes us back to the bad old days. We have caught it. The fact is though as mentioned in the legislation in new section 162(5) it basically says you do not need a consent to do this so this is going to be retrospective consenting if in fact there are a whole lot of appeals and I do not know whether there will be but if there are—there is nothing good about retrospective consenting in this sort of environment.The other thing that this does is just give impetus to those—and I am one of them I must admit—who put up the argument for alternative energies. We have got a good story to go out to the market at the moment. You know we are at 80 percent renewables in terms of our electricity generation. That is a very good story but both the National Party and the Labour Party have a target of 90 percent in 10 years. I think we will get there but this sort of stuff says—Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I was very much enjoying my colleague’s peroration there so apologies to my colleague. This is more of a signalling call. I rise to take a short call in support of this piece of legislation.I am going to pose a question at the start of this contribution and come back to it in the end. The question is: if a Minister falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it has he really fallen? If the gas stops pumping from an offshore oil platform and no one hears it stop has it really stopped pumping? The answer to the latter question is that—Hon Craig Foss: If David stands for leader and no one votes does it happen?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Mr Foss that was very Sino of you. The answer to the second question is yes because if the gas stops pumping people’s lights will go out people’s industries will grind to a halt and people will not be able to do what they need to do to get by. That is the kicker with this bill. We just cannot as a country on either side of the floor have a situation where a station that is producing 20 percent of our gas goes offline.That justifies an intervention that has been brought about because this bill needs to amend section 162 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. The problem for those who have just joined us is that—Chris Bishop: Ha ha!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Not you Chris Bishop; you joined us at the last election. I mean people who have just started listening in. Chris Bishop has been here 5 minutes and he thinks he is an expert. Well you know that will wear off. That will wear off Chris as the guy sitting right behind you will be happy to tell you.Tim Macindoe: How many do you think have tuned in at this point?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Well you know the way the Government has been performing I would not be surprised if a few have tuned out. But here is why the change is necessary. Poor old Todd has got an appeal under way and the risk for the—Hon Craig Foss: The Hon Todd.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Maybe not poor maybe not that old but it is a figure of speech. So the company has the potential for an appeal which could interrupt its resource consent under the exclusive economic zone legislation. If it is appealed the company is held up from operations until the appeal has been heard and granted. That is the catch-22 that this bill is seeking to correct and fair enough because we do not want an unintended consequence where a legitimate appeal right results in a pre-emptive cessation of production when it is not required. So that is the problem we are trying to fix.This however is an inelegant solution for a couple of reasons—inelegant but necessary. No. 1 is that the bill names an individual company. That is bad legislative practice. We ought to be making across-the-board rules not legislating for individual stuff-ups by Ministers. No. 2 is that it is retrospective. Only in the rarest occasions will Parliament accommodate retrospective change and generally only when it is citizen-friendly as this arguably is. No. 3 is that this is ad hoc not strategic. It does not as my colleague Stuart Nash said fit neatly in a plan of an ongoing increase in our energy self-sufficiency. However it is what it is. Fourthly of course it is a patch-up job. It is a fix-up for a ministerial error which brings me to the first of the two questions.The Minister falling in the forest of course is Nick Smith deputised today to be as far away from Parliament as he could possibly be because he has had a right roasting over housing. He is the same Minister who is responsible for the lack of foresight in seeing this appeal provision as a problem while putting the original bill through so that Parliament now has to arguably waste its time to fix up those mistakes. If a Minister falls in the forest but there is no one there to hear it has he really fallen? Well those who might be looking to fill his shoes will know that he has fallen. Can we fix this? Yes we can yes we will yes we need to. Should we be here doing this? No we should not. So it is with some reluctance but with cooperation that the Labour Opposition is supporting this bill.THE CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call Gareth Hughes and remind the Committee that we are looking for new and novel and creative contributions. [Interruption]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Ha! No pressure—that is right. I rise to support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill and I agree with the member David Cunliffe: it is a fix-up job but it is a fix-up job for Shell Todd Oil Services. Let us be clear: the fact is this company did not get its time lines despite years of knowing how the legislation worked. As I said in an earlier contribution it was involved in the select committee process on the original legislation. It had decades of warning of when its permit was going to expire but before it even put in its application the company ran off to Cabinet and got it to draft this retrospective legislation to give the company a retrospective consent for its marine application for the Māui gas field. That is why I lay the blame at Shell Todd Oil Services. It should have got its house in order. It should have got its time lines in order. This is a substantial company after all and here is Parliament using its awesome power to pass legislation fixing it for the company.Crucially nowhere in the documentation nowhere in the select committee process—no one from Shell Todd Oil Services remember even fronted to the Local Government and Environment Committee—could actually tell us what the impacts of not passing this legislation were. The Green Party was opposed in the first reading because there were not any arguments for the necessity of passing this legislation. Sure the platform could have shut down for a short while. It subsequently received its marine consent from the Environmental Protection Authority. We have got substantial gas storage facilities in New Zealand. The spectre of stoves not working lights not turning on was raised but no one can actually explain how that possibly could be and whether in fact the only penalty would be that this company would itself face some financial penalties for not delivering its gas supply contracts. So those are two myths that we would like to challenge.I would like to turn to why we are supporting this legislation which is that it was improved substantially in the select committee. The two key areas that were improved were the specified time frames and the completeness of applications. What this bill effectively does under the transitional provisions of the original exclusive economic zone legislation is allow a company that has an existing permit that expires to continue for the period for which any appeals might take. One of the crucial problems with the way this amendment bill was originally drafted was that a company could put in an application the day before its permit expired even if that permit had gone for 30 or 35 years knowing full well that under this new amended version of the exclusive economic zone legislation it could continue for as long as the process took as long as any future appeals took. That is why Eugenie Sage and I and other members on the committee thought it was important that there were some specified time frames around it. There were various choices: 6 9 12 months. Six months would have aligned with the Resource Management Act but the committee in its wisdom thought it was good to go to 9 months which is consistent with the Environmental Protection Authority process around the exclusive economic zone legislation and the implementation of it. We think 9 months is a huge amount of time for a company to get its ducks in a row and make sure it has applied.Secondly it was important that the completeness of the application was resolved and clarified in this. What we do not want to see is companies put in incomplete applications right before the deadline. We have seen previous applications—and there has been only a handful in front of the Environmental Protection Authority under this new legislation but I know that the Trans-Tasman Resources case had three or more full pages of further additional questions requested by the authority’s independent decision-making committee because the application was not complete. In fact an impact assessment statement for Anadarko’s drilling off the Raglan coast under the transitional provisions of the original legislation was not even provided to the authority before it gave it the tick of approval to drill what was our deepest-ever well close to the Māui’s dolphin sanctuary as a previous member has raised. So we thought it was important that a complete application had to be mentioned to clarify it—it is crystal clear for everyone involved.We were opposed to this legislation in the first reading because of the inadequate information provided because it simply looked like this company was running to the Government before even putting in its application—well that is what it did; it looked like the company did not get its time lines in order—but since then the bill has been improved. I would like to once again acknowledge the committee members for the constructive positive relationship on the committee. The legislation has been improved. It is now roughly analogous to similar provisions in the Resource Management Act. There are around three other companies that face this but we are not talking for decades so let us hope they do learn the lessons of Shell Todd Oil Services.RON MARK (NZ First): I rise to take a call. I will take your guidance Mr Chairman and I will try to be new novel and creative in my contribution but I do have to be a tad boring in terms of putting New Zealand First’s position on the record. I do remind some of the—[Interruption] Sorry Mr Foss. What was that again?Hon Craig Foss: Irony’s not allowed in here.RON MARK: Irony is not allowed? We will stay with you. I think you should be at home worrying about your next nomination actually Mr Foss but never mind. I have to put on the record New Zealand First’s position and forgive me if we take a slightly boring line in some aspects because there are some things that we would like to mention in respect of the considerations of the bill. There is not a lot I can disagree with in the summations that have been made already.I went back through prior to coming down to the Chamber some of the submissions particularly the submission from Tanea Tangaroa who expressed her whānau and hapū’s concerns over the imposition on their rights in terms of determining how the natural resources within the blue waters might be managed and the affairs and worries about the 55 Māui’s dolphins. I did listen with great interest to the presentation or the submission from the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand and I was somewhat mystified to say the least. It seemed to me that the genesis of this piece of legislation actually lies in the legislation that went through in 2013 which all occurred while I was out of the House having my sabbatical break as the Mayor of Carterton.What I gleaned from those submissions was that the base legislation that was passed in 2013 was flawed. It had holes in it. The responsibility for that is the National Government’s. In fact the responsibility for that was one Mr Nick Smith’s. It injected a problem into the legislation a problem that the oil industry wanted the Government to resolve. Cabinet agreed that the problem that was injected in was not its intent—it was an oversight—and moved to satisfy the oil company’s needs by putting this legislation in front of the House. It is interesting to think back as to where this problem occurred because in light of what is happening today—in an attempt to be creative and interesting—one cannot escape the obvious conclusion that wherever Nick Smith tends to walk disaster tends to follow. We are seeing time and time again whether it was in local government with the rushed botched way in which he attacked the Local Government Act and now with what is happening with Ngāti Whātua and the right of first refusal and then on top of that this piece of legislation that this House is spending an exorbitant amount of time and taxpayers’ money fixing up legislation that Mr Smith is responsible for.I am really pleased that on the select committee we have people of the calibre of Scott Simpson and Todd Muller. These are the types of people who could quite easily slot into Nick Smith’s job and do a far better job than that which we are trying to redress right now. There is only one reason we are here doing this. It is because of the Minister’s failings. The question when we talk about this bill—and we are all unanimously in agreement with the measures that have to be taken. We actually agreed on the amendment to change the application for a marine consent the lead time to 9 months. We unanimously agreed on that by sitting down and talking it through—something that the Minister himself is not renowned for. Talking things through is not what he is widely acknowledged for. He does not display the skills of someone who can talk things through and hence we are fixing his stuff-up.David Bennett: Why don’t you walk in the park with old Cunliffe?RON MARK: So Mr David Bennett who will never be in Cabinet—in fact Todd Muller will be there before him—interjects across the Chamber but he does it in a very embarrassed way because he is embarrassed for Nick Smith. He is embarrassed for Nick Smith but I would only say to Mr Bennett: “You’re backing a dead horse. Get on the right horse. Smith’s gone. The sooner he’s out of his misery the sooner we’ll stop having to pass legislation like this to fix his muck-ups.”I will not actually stop with Mr Smith. The oil company Shell Todd Oil Services needs to accept some responsibility itself.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members the question is that clauses 2 3 and 4 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye those against will say No. The Ayes have it. I will report this bill without amendment presently.TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could I just make the point that you have just put the question when not a single National member has spoken despite the fact that several National members were seeking the call—not too slowly because they have sought the call before and been overturned.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I take the member’s point. However the question has been put. The debate was becoming repetitious. I take the point that National members did not receive a call. I take it they are not upset that the matter has now moved on and we are now about to debate the Environmental Reporting Bill.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just note that you put the question on clauses 2 3 and 4 of this bill but there are actually an additional three clauses of the bill—5 6 and 7. So I am wondering what the Chair’s intention is to do with those clauses of the bill. Maybe a National Party member might like to take a call on one of those clauses.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The member makes an excellent point. The question is that clause 2 stand part. [Interruption] I am sorry. The question is that clause 2 stand part. All those in favour will say Aye—TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could I ask you to explain to this Committee when there are members of all sides of the Committee seeking the call why you are shutting down the debate particularly when no Government member has had a chance to speak. And could I also make the point that there was agreement between the parties as to how this debate would be dealt with and we are within the time frame and all members expected that the time frame would be observed.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I will take the member’s point. If a member from the Government seeks a call—[Interruption] I call Scott Simpson. [Interruption] I will remind the member seeking the call that we are looking for novel new and creative contributions to the debate.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking a clarification as to procedure. Unanimous as we are with the Government whip on the matter that we are within the bounds of the time that had been informally agreed for this debate and therefore in principle that we welcome the opportunity for Government members to make a contribution to the debate nonetheless your previous ruling was that you had already put the question on clauses 2 3 and 4 and my good colleague Dr Megan Woods had noted that clauses 5 6 and 7 were still available for debate. I wonder whether your intention was in fact to carry out the vote that you had put and then to open up debate leniently on the remaining clauses.RON MARK (NZ First): In order to be try to be helpful I recognise that this puts you in a very awkward position as the Chair. It is unusual for a whip to challenge the decision of the Chair particularly when the question has been put. I worry that that actually might set a precedent. Maybe a way forward might well be that if someone sought leave for an extra call to be given at this point in time setting aside what is normal rules and conventions and the Standing Orders that would do it without the embarrassment of a senior whip being seen to be challenging the authority of the Chair in such a manner.TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): Can I just make the point that I quite deliberately did not challenge the Chair’s ruling. I used the words “may I draw to your attention” that this had occurred because I was not seeking to challenge your ruling so much as to express surprise that the question had been put before Government members had taken a call. I believe that the Hon David Cunliffe has correctly discussed the position that we are now in and I wonder whether with the agreement of the Committee we might seek leave.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I can inform the Committee that I have taken advice. I am obviously the author of my own rather public nest which is not as tidy as it was when we started at 7.30 this evening. I have put those clauses in error as clauses 2 3 and 4 and having moved to the vote I now need to do that. So my advice is that I need to put the question that clause 2 stand part and then move through to clause 3 and clause 4.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There are two parts to this point of order. The first is to correct my earlier point of order where I indicated—and it was supported by the Government whip—that in the event that it was clauses 5 6 and 7 we could treat them separately from 2 3 and 4. On closer inspection however I see that they are subclauses of clause 4 and so cannot be put separately. The advice that we have received is that it may be possible by leave with your willingness to look leniently at the process and in view of your comment about the nest to extend the debate on clauses 2 3 and 4. I would ask you to consider that.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am sorry but the advice I have had—and I repeat it to the Committee—is that we now need to go through the vote separately on clauses 2 3 and 4 without further debate because it has been put.TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a fresh point of order and I wish to emphasise that I am certainly not challenging your ruling. I am simply making the point that at the start of this particular debate I sought leave—and it was agreed by the whole Committee—for the debate to be taken as one question but for the votes to be taken separately. Therefore I believe it is now appropriate for you to take the vote on each clause separately because that was the resolution of the Committee.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I will be taking the votes separately but I will be moving between the votes on clauses 2 3 and 4 without further debate.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Clause 4 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.