edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4653] 
Protected Objects Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I rest my case. That sort of frivolous wasting of the House’s time is the reason why legislation like this bill cannot be moved through in a timely fashion. I was talking about the Elgin Marbles. New Zealand First has been outspoken in that respect. We believe that Greece and the Greek people have been robbed of part of their heritage and that the British Government should do the right thing. 
The bill mentions ventifacts. I want to tell the House about a personal experience I had with regard to ventifacts. I happen to have a ventifact on my window ledge at home. I never knew what a ventifact was until Waverley School visited us—the school I was teaching in—at Titikaveka on Rarotonga. People from that school told us they had on their beach the only protected rocks in New Zealand. Evidently a bill had been passed to protect the rocks on Waverley Beach because they have all been shaped by the wind—those are known as ventifacts. As a result those things look a bit like adzes. They are protected. Fortunately in my case the one I was given had been removed from the beach a long long time before and had come out of somebody’s garden. When people ask me what it is I am very proud to say I have one of our protected rocks. 
I want to finish off by saying New Zealand First did not have anybody on the Government Administration Committee so therefore I have not had a lot of information passed on to me about many of the issues around this bill. But it is certainly fundamental to New Zealand First’s philosophy that we should do everything we can to protect our unique heritage—it is what makes us and defines us as New Zealanders. Our very name New Zealand First subsumes that philosophy and carries that philosophy with it. Without further ado I say New Zealand First will most certainly be voting for this legislation and I congratulate all of the people who have worked to get the bill to the point of going through its third reading. 
Debate interrupted.
Donnelly Brian: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4653] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I rest my case. That sort of frivolous wasting of the House’s time is the reason why legislation like this bill cannot be moved through in a timely fashion. I was talking about the Elgin Marbles. New Zealand First has been outspoken in that respect. We believe that Greece and the Greek people have been robbed of part of their heritage and that the British Government should do the right thing. 
The bill mentions ventifacts. I want to tell the House about a personal experience I had with regard to ventifacts. I happen to have a ventifact on my window ledge at home. I never knew what a ventifact was until Waverley School visited us—the school I was teaching in—at Titikaveka on Rarotonga. People from that school told us they had on their beach the only protected rocks in New Zealand. Evidently a bill had been passed to protect the rocks on Waverley Beach because they have all been shaped by the wind—those are known as ventifacts. As a result those things look a bit like adzes. They are protected. Fortunately in my case the one I was given had been removed from the beach a long long time before and had come out of somebody’s garden. When people ask me what it is I am very proud to say I have one of our protected rocks. 
I want to finish off by saying New Zealand First did not have anybody on the Government Administration Committee so therefore I have not had a lot of information passed on to me about many of the issues around this bill. But it is certainly fundamental to New Zealand First’s philosophy that we should do everything we can to protect our unique heritage—it is what makes us and defines us as New Zealanders. Our very name New Zealand First subsumes that philosophy and carries that philosophy with it. Without further ado I say New Zealand First will most certainly be voting for this legislation and I congratulate all of the people who have worked to get the bill to the point of going through its third reading. 
Debate interrupted.
Tabling of Documents — Conduct in the House; Photograph 
Tabling of Documents — Conduct in the House; Photograph 
[Volume:633;Page:4653] 
Tabling of Documents 
Conduct in the House; Photograph 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt the member. I seek leave to table a picture that was referred to today before question time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that picture. Is there any objection? There is objection.
English Bill: Tabling of Documents — Conduct in the House; Photograph 
English Bill: Tabling of Documents — Conduct in the House; Photograph 
[Volume:633;Page:4653] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt the member. I seek leave to table a picture that was referred to today before question time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that picture. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Donnelly Brian: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4652] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill has one enormously important implication for New Zealand which is that it prohibits the exportation of taonga tuturu. I want to explain what I mean by that by telling everybody that some commentators have suggested that the present leader of New Zealand First the Rt Hon Winston Peters who is also the Minister of Foreign Affairs will at the end of his stint here take up a position overseas. There are suggestions he may go to the United Nations or to the Pacific Islands Forum or even that he may become the High Commissioner in London. Given the sterling work he is doing as the Minister of Foreign Affairs those suggestions are quite sensible and logical. He has received world recognition and he has charmed Condoleezza Rice so it is completely logical that people should make those suggestions. 
However this bill actually prohibits the exportation of taonga tuturu. I will explain the definition of that taonga. It relates to Maori culture history and society. No one can deny that Winston Peters has made a huge contribution to our society and our history as a nation—particularly for Maori. New paragraph (b) of the definition of taonga tuturu in clause 6 states: “was or appears to have been—(i) manufactured or modified in New Zealand by Maori;”. Well Winston Peters had a Maori father so therefore he meets that criterion. The only other criterion is that the taonga tuturu has to be more than 50 years old and certainly Winston Peters is more than 50 years old. So as a result of this bill Winston Peters will have to remain in New Zealand for the benefit of us all. We think that in itself is a good enough reason to vote for this legislation. 
The National member Christopher Finlayson expressed disappointment that the bill has not moved fast enough through the House. Maybe he could ask his colleagues to spend less time on frivolous points of order and time-wasting debates. Then the House could focus more on the real business which is to move important legislation like this bill through in a timely fashion. Who knows what may have gone out of this country in the interim period while those people were taking frivolous points of order? 
Christopher Finlayson also mentioned the Elgin Marbles. 
Debate interrupted.
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4628] 
3 
.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the 
 Member in charge of the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill) 
: What advice if any did she receive from the Insurance Council of New Zealand and the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand before introducing the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill? 
MARYAN STREET (Member in charge of the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 None before the introduction but I have received advice from the Insurance Council of New Zealand subsequently. The bill was not drafted on the advice of the insurance or real estate industries; it was drafted in response to concerns raised by the judiciary in the course of giving reasons for a judgment. 
Phil Heatley 
: Would it not have been smart professional and diligent to have talked to those two major players—the real estate and insurance sectors—because they tell us that under her bill landlords would struggle to get insurance for their tenants and tenants with a poor insurance history would be unable to get accommodation; as sponsor why did she not seek their advice? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are reminded that questions like answers should be succinct. 
MARYAN STREET 
: I have consulted the insurance industry but I also place significant weight on the findings of Judge MacAskill who when hearing the case of the students in Dunedin who were ruined by an insurance company for damage they did not cause stated: “The outcome of this proceeding though in accordance with the law is unjust. In general the pursuit of substantial claims against tenants with respect to damage caused carelessly is oppressive in effect and I respectfully urge that the law be reformed.” That is cause enough for this bill in my view. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a released submission before the select committee from the Insurance Council of New Zealand which states tenants will struggle to get insurance. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a released submission from the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand which states that tenants will struggle to get accommodation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4627] 
2.  
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: On what authority did she cancel the meeting of the committee on 2 August 2006 when the only item of business related to the inquiry of the committee into the 2005 General Election? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): 
 As chairperson of the committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Dr Richard Worth. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Thank you Madam Chair. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am still Madam Speaker for questions to members. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I apologise Madam Speaker. Why contrary to Speaker’s ruling 77/5 did the member cancel the meeting of the committee; was it to prevent discussion by the committee as to whether the expenditure of public funds by the office of Helen Clark on the Labour Party pledge card and leaflet was outside the scope of the relevant appropriation? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: As that member knows the committee’s agreement to meet was conditional on a particular report and as that member knows the report was not available.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4627] 
1.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How many submissions if any has the Finance and Expenditure Committee received on the Taxation (Annual Rates Savings Investment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill? 
SHANE JONES (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 I roto i te reo Maori 3681. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
In the Maori language 3681 
.] 
John Key 
: Is he aware that it is normal to receive about 50 submissions on a taxation bill that it is highly unique that we have received approximately 3600 and can he tell us from his diligent reading of those 3600 submissions how many are opposed to the bill? 
SHANE JONES 
: About 37 hours have been set aside to hear those submissioners who want to be heard and I look forward to Mr Key wrenching himself from his leadership ambitions and joining us to hear them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member did not need to make that comment. Would the member please rise and withdraw the comment. 
SHANE JONES 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4627] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I would remind members of course that the Standing Orders do require points of order to be made succinctly but using discretion I have allowed the member to complete his statement. I have done my own inquiry as to whether questions are addressed; I have not just isolated a few. It is interesting when one does the analysis to see in fact that the vast majority of questions are addressed. But some are not. That is why I have asked Ministers from time to time to address the question. But obviously we will in future take note of what members have been saying in order to ensure that—as the member quite rightly said—the executive is held to account through question time.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4625] 
12.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women's Affairs 
: What reports if any has she received supporting gender equity? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 I have seen a report that states: “the bedrock values I see as fundamental to New Zealanders are an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law religious and personal freedom and legal equality of the sexes. If you don’t accept these fundamentals then New Zealand isn’t the place for you.” These sentiments were expressed by the current Leader of the Opposition Don Brash in a speech last Friday. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other reports has she received on alternative approaches to gender equity? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have seen extracts from a book that identifies a lack of commitment to equality between the sexes. The book states for example: “The girls don’t need a high level of education because they are not permitted to be in paid employment after they marry.” This is of course unless the husband cannot work. This book is about the practices of the Exclusive Brethren funder of Don Brash and the National Party. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tenatatou katoa. What advice was sought from her ministry to permit the removal of the words: “a gender-inclusive curriculum which acknowledges and includes the educational needs and experiences of girls equally with those of boys” from the new draft curriculum statement; or as with the deletion of the Treaty of Waitangi principles from legislation does the Minister believe that not talking about the gender of Maori and non-Maori students enhances gender equity? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not have any advice from my ministry on that particular subject. If the member would like to put down a question I will be happy to answer it for him. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What advice was sought from her ministry about the removal of the words “non-sexism” or “non-racism” from the new draft curriculum statement and does she agree that the removal of those words endangers gender equity? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have brought no information to the House in respect of submissions the Ministry of Women’s Affairs may have made on the curriculum. I do not know the answer to that question. If the member puts down a written question I will be happy to provide the information to him.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4622] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Do we have an Associate Minister with responsibility for Auckland issues? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Does the member wish to put his question?
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4622] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to hold my question over until the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues can fit Parliament into her busy schedule. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4620] 
8.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for Senior Citizens 
: What progress is the Government making in encouraging participation in the workforce among senior citizens as outlined in Goal 9 of the Positive Ageing Strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 Since the implementation of the Positive Ageing Strategy a number of initiatives have been undertaken including the  
PeoplePower 
 project by the Department of Labour and the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust which provides information and employment strategies for older workers. Another is the Jobs Jolt package. An evaluation of the latter initiative suggests that the package resulted in a 4 percent decrease in the number of 55 to 59-year-olds receiving an unemployment benefit for a 9-month period. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has the Minister seen on obstacles to participation in the workforce by senior citizens? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I was very distressed to see a report that one of Parliament’s most senior members was prevented—in fact physically prevented—from effectively participating in his job yesterday by a man who has a very poor track record of dealing with senior citizens. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How will the broader entitlements being made available to senior citizens by way of the golden age card interface with the Government’s positive ageing strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As part of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First my associate Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters and I have been working well together to finalise the golden age card provisions. Those provisions will enhance the delivery of the Government’s Positive Ageing Strategy. I hope they are of some benefit to the current leader of the National Party.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4612] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is she satisfied that all Ministers referred to in the Ingram report acted with propriety at all times; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Findings in respect of Mr Field are well known. No conflict of interest with his ministerial role was found but the report did imply that errors of judgment were made by him as an MP. There were no findings that other Ministers acted with impropriety and I am entirely satisfied with that. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister share the assessment of her former Minister Taito Phillip Field that all that is at issue here are “some inferences which may have been drawn from reporting of the Ingram report.” or does she accept that the issues raised about Mr Field’s conduct as a Minister are more serious than that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have constantly said that the report implied errors of judgment and I have pointed out that as a result Mr Field was not reinstated as a Minister. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen Mr Field’s statement: “Much of the evidence presented in the report was untested. Some inferences which may be drawn are inaccurate.” and will she now agree that everyone’s best interests would be served by offering protection to those witnesses who refused to talk to the inquiry and letting the truth emerge? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The statement that the evidence was untested is of course entirely true because it was not a court of law. But as I have told the member a number of times I consider that more than enough money has been spent on this matter. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister not understand that by declining to facilitate arrangements for Mr Keith Williams or any of the Thai nationals present at Mr Field’s house in Samoa to be interviewed by the Ingram inquiry she leaves the clear impression that her then Minister of Immigration Mr Paul Swain and her then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Mr Phil Goff discussed and gave certain assurances about Mr Siriwan’s immigration status at that meeting—as asserted by Mr Williams? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Absolutely not because I have total confidence in those Ministers—far more confidence than I have in Dr Brash’s propriety in respect of the Exclusive Brethren. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Whose account of the 17 May 2005 meeting of Damien O’Connor and Taito Phillip Field does she believe: Taito Phillip Field who wrote the day after the meeting stating that in the case of Mr Siriwan Damien O’Connor would grant a special direction to cancel the 5-year penalty for his spouse and allow the reunification of Mr Siriwan with his spouse by granting him 2-year work permits to be issued in Apia; or Damien O’Connor who advised Mr Ingram that the Siriwan case was not decided—as stated in Mr Field’s letter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure that the case was not decided at the meeting.
Brown Peter: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Brown Peter: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4612] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I try not to join in the points of order debates that go on from time to time in this House but I feel I must draw your attention to the background behind this dispute. The Hon Tau Henare raised an issue that he knew to be untrue because he sat in our caucus at the time. The HMNZS 
 Charles Upham 
 was of huge concern— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brown I appreciate your frustration but there are other avenues for this. It has to be a point of order and the issue has been dealt with. 
PETER BROWN 
: What I suggest is that if you are to reflect on this—and I personally urge you to reflect on it—then you should reflect on the whole scenario. An MP stood up and made allegations that were known to be untrue which was the start of the whole thing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand and I was trying to indicate to members that all members are entitled to the same respect.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4612] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think there is a concern here and I believe that the behaviour of MPs in this House is of some public interest. Mr Ron Mark in particular made an obscene gesture across the Chamber and I think the public has a right to know that that is the sort of behaviour being exhibited. I think there would be concern amongst the public and indeed in this House if the proposal to have Parliament in control of the cameras therefore somehow shielded the behaviour we saw from Mr Mark. It would become a farce. We have to be very very careful. If Parliament is going to take control of the feed then people who contribute in the way Mr Mark did should be shown on TV. That feed should be available. Such members are making a contribution albeit a silent one. The idea that somehow Mr Mark would be protected by Parliament in terms of his behaviour and the way he made his interjection would be seen by the public of New Zealand to be very self-serving indeed. I personally think that the TV cameras did us all a service.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4612] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Points of order are of course to be made succinctly but I thank the member for his contribution. As the member well knows—and he was at the committee meeting where this matter was discussed—the same rules will apply whatever the feed. I do not think we should take anything more on this but I do appreciate and hear what is being said by all the members.
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4611] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. First of all you have indicated you are going to see the tape and I welcome that. But when you consider the tape I want you to resist following the course that the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested to you. He seemed to suggest to you that your purpose in viewing the tape might be to consider whether the TV3 cameraman or TV3 as an organisation were in breach of their obligations to the House by filming it rather than taking some account of whether Mr Mark had behaved in a grossly disorderly fashion for which some further punishment might be meted out. I for one suggest to you that TV3 is fully within its rights to film an exchange within the House that was clearly a significant event occurring within the Chamber at the time. If you are to pursue TV3 in this matter I suggest that you will compound the problem in that people will regard the House as being even sillier than Mr Mark portrayed it to be yesterday. I think the focus of your further inquiry needs to be very much on the conduct of Mr Mark. If TV3 was to be pursued in the manner suggested by Dr Cullen I think most members on this side of the House for a start would regret that very strongly.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4612] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Madam Speaker you have already dealt with the issue of the behaviour of Mr Mark and it is out of order to relitigate that behaviour now.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4612] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their comments. I think the Hon Murray McCully’s comment probably highlights the dilemma a Speaker has. I have just heard several points of order from members who have told me to apply the rules strictly and I now hear another plea that I should not apply the rules strictly. I endeavour to apply the rules fairly and I endeavour to apply them equally to all members of the House. From time to time we will all see matters slightly differently.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4611] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but consistent with the Standing Orders as the member knows there is another appropriate process and the member is perfectly entitled to raise a matter of privilege with me. It is not in this House.
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4611] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the last few days we have been looking at issues that touch Standing Orders 399 and 400. This is a different point from the point Dr Mapp raised which was the issue of disorder in the House. This I would say to you Madam Speaker is an example of a contempt and should be dealt with differently. We are not here where a withdrawal and an apology would assuage a contempt. It clearly does not; nor does an abuse of the rules relating to personal statements do that. We have here a clear example of contempt within Standing Order 400. I draw your attention to Standing Order 400(o).
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4611] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comments. He is probably quite right in the sense that I have run a very robust House. I have not applied the Standing Orders strictly because I have not felt that that is what members want. I thank Dr Mapp for making it quite clear now that the Standing Orders in all their full glory should be enforced strictly and I shall endeavour to do that.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4611] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal statement. Firstly I want to apologise unreservedly if I have caused offence and brought the House into disrepute. 
I also say to you Madam Speaker that yesterday was robust for me. I sat in this Chamber and listened to point of order after point of order directed to you raising issues such as interjections by members of the House over questioners. Those points of order that I listened to were made by members of the National Party and I was reflecting at the time on the fact that it was the deputy leader of the National Party whom you had to censure last week for interjecting over my leader. I was inflamed by some of the comments. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be seated. The personal statement procedure is to address the point; it does not allow a member to go on and make a speech. Would the member please bring his personal statement to a suitable conclusion. 
RON MARK 
: I will try my level best to stay within the Standing Orders but I understand it is the opportunity to explain my actions and my decision the consequences of my actions and the reasons that I did something. 
The reasons I did that were probably an accumulation of a number of frustrating factors that I took on board and took offence to. I took offence to what I cannot term a lie because that word cannot be used in the House but to a statement made by Tau Henare that was absolutely untrue. I took offence to it. In the banter that ensued between us I made a gesture that was unacceptable and for that I apologise to the House. I have apologised three times now. I think that should suffice Mr Henare.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4610] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think I have heard sufficient on this. Of course the gesture that was made by Mr Mark was totally unacceptable. I did not see it and said so but I asked him whether he had done it. He admitted that he had and withdrew and apologised immediately. I thank the member for drawing the matter to my attention. I will of course view the item on television and see whether it was within the rules. 
The other matters were separate and were not connected. I also thank the member for drawing attention to behaviour in the House. I do receive as I have said before an enormous number of queries complaints and comments about the fact that people cannot hear what is happening. It is the barracking that I have been endeavouring for over a month now—with the cooperation of members—to try to get to a sensible level. Of course members should be able to interject—that is part of the robust debate of this House—but not to the extent that other members or members of the public cannot hear what is happening. So I thank the member for his comments.
Mapp Wayne: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Mapp Wayne: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4610] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thank you for what you have said and I appreciate that yesterday you did not actually see the behaviour and that that may have limited the disciplinary action you undertook. But I think this is a very serious matter and members on this side of the House want some sort of indication of the nature of the punishment that such a transgression will receive in the future. 
The reason is that a withdrawal and apology which the Leader of the House apparently thinks is satisfactory effectively invites people to repeat offences knowing that the only punishment they might receive is simply to have to get up and give an apology. We have seen that many times before. People knowingly breach the Standing Orders knowing that that is the likely consequence. This is far more serious however than most of those kinds of oral statements. 
I would like to think that you would give some indication to the House for the future that such behaviour would be dealt with far more seriously—at the least the person would have to be required to leave the Chamber. Frankly perhaps naming might be appropriate. If it is left in the future at withdrawing and apologising you are likely to see more of it. What could be more calculated to bring the House into disrepute than that kind of behaviour?
English Bill: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
English Bill: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4609] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise a serious matter of standards in the House and how Parliament is perceived by the public in the light of your role as the ultimate guardian of those standards. Yesterday an exchange took place in the House regarding the member Mr Ron Mark. A colleague of mine raised a point of order to the effect that Mr Mark had made a rude gesture to which my colleague had taken offence. You told the House that you had not seen the gesture but you asked the member to withdraw if it had caused offence. 
Since then the seriousness of that matter has become more apparent. I have here a photo taken from a TV broadcast last night that makes it quite clear that Mr Mark is to use a colloquialism giving the finger to someone. That has now been broadcast on national television. So the general public have seen a member of Parliament apparently able and allowed to make a gesture in this House that would be unacceptable in most workplaces and unacceptable among any group of adults who saw themselves as conducting themselves with respect for each other. 
This matter is important for the House firstly because the public have seen that conduct and the fact that it had no significant consequence. Secondly by comparison with other decisions you made yesterday this incident was treated very lightly. Two of my colleagues were ejected from the House: one—called by the wrong name—who did not do anything and one who perhaps deserved it because he interjected. I have to say that interjections broadcast on TV are not rated by the public anything like the offensiveness or low standard of behaviour of the gesture made by Mr Mark. 
 Along with other matters I am becoming increasingly concerned—as I think a good number of parliamentarians are—about the growing public perception that behaviour of any kind is now acceptable in this Parliament that members can behave in almost any way and provided there is some mumbled apology about it they get away with it. So I ask you to consider Madam Speaker firstly the seriousness of Mr Mark’s action—granted you did not see it at the time—secondly the seriousness of the fact that it has been broadcast in the mass media for the public to see as the action of a parliamentarian and thirdly some kind of proportionality between the actions taken against my colleagues including one who was wrongly named and the actions that were required of Mr Mark to show some atonement for what he did.
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4609] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday you referred to one of my colleagues as “Phil Connelly” when in fact his name is Brian Connell. He has been a member of this House since 2002. Similarly last week you referred to the former high-profile Mayor of Wellington as “Max Blumsky” when his name is Mark Blumsky. Both members have taken offence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Obviously I apologise to those members.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4610] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yet again the authority of the umpire—that is yourself—is being questioned in this House. It is completely untrue to say that Mr Mark got away with it. Mr Mark was required to withdraw and apologise. The Speaker has to check whether the action occurred if she did not see or in the case of a remark hear it. In the case of Mr Henare he compounded his error by insulting the Speaker as he left the House and was very lucky not to have been named as well as ejected. Far from getting an excessive punishment he had a very minor punishment for the totality of offences that he committed. 
In terms of behaviour in the House perhaps some reduction in the level of barracking while questions are being answered would be a good start. Perhaps not continuing to threaten the Speaker with disorder if she does not give the rulings the Opposition wants would be a good second step to take. Finally the fact that that photo exists merely proves that yet again the press gallery have been breaching the rules under which they are supposed to operate within the House because they are not supposed to be taking any pictures other than of the member on his or her feet or of the Speaker. 
But the reality is that it does not matter; what does matter is that Mr Mark withdrew and apologised. That is the end of the matter. It should not then be relitigated in any shape or form.
Brash Don: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
Brash Don: Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move Members’ Names—Incorrect Referral Conduct in the House—Standards 
[Volume:633;Page:4609] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2803] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee 
 and that the Committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c) and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 August 2006. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2803] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a first time. 
Haka
Chadwick Steve: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2799] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou te whanau o Te Arawa. It is wonderful to have Te Arawa here today to share this occasion with us. As the member for Rotorua I say that these are truly memorable moments in our historical journey together. As a contemporary Pakeha player in the unique environment of Rotorua I am proud to follow on from the Hon Paul East who showed an understanding of the Treaty settlement process. This process has moved smoothly and I remember attending a meeting that started the process for me. Bishop Manu Bennett was there helping us understand the historical account with Anaru Rangiheuea former Mayor Grahame Hall Trevor Maxwell Mita Ririnui and Don Stafford telling our wonderful story and putting it right for the record. 
Margaret Wilson was at that historic meeting and that is where we began putting this settlement back on track. I would like to acknowledge Margaret Wilson for the work she did. I also acknowledge the leadership of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. It has been very staunch through this process patient and long-suffering and it has had to put up with some misunderstandings in our own community at home about what this settlement was trying to achieve. I congratulate the leadership of the Rotorua District Council—and Mayor Kevin Winters is with us today. He is also supported by Trevor Maxwell and Mauriora Kingi. It is just fantastic to see these people coming with our waka down here to our Whare today. 
The Pakeha in the Rotorua community only ever sought access to the waters of iconic lakes and if they were confident of the leadership of Rotorua to make sure that that access was enshrined they went away and let the negotiators get on with the process. That mandated leadership of the Rotorua District Council working with the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board gave our people confidence that this process was moving along and that was what was required. I thank Mark Burton for picking this bill up now and I thank this Government for reprioritising the Treaty settlement process because this settlement certainly needed to get on track as a high priority. I say “Well done!” to my colleague Mita Ririnui for holding the negotiation process together holding a candle under the process and keeping it going in the right direction. 
One of the things I enjoyed seeing was our kaumatua of Te Arawa working with our younger negotiators—and David Tapsell is up in the gallery today. He is only one of the negotiators but his father Sir Peter Tapsell would be proud of him to know that he is helping us with his skills to work on this negotiated settlement. We know our lakes are iconic. In the words of Bishop Manu Bennett—and Auntie Kaa is up in the gallery today—he would never bless objects without the people present understanding their responsibility with regard to them and we are all here today. We are two people walking one pathway tatou tatou.
Turner Judy: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2799] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
:  
I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. Today for Te Arawa we start the final legislative journey of work that I believe began in 1987 when the claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal. Ten years later the lakes claim was separated out from other aspects of the claim and 3 years later the terms of the negotiations were signed off. They were signed off again a couple of years later. 
I would like to welcome those who have come from Te Arawa to witness the beginning of this legislative journey. I am from Whakatane and I am someone who has regularly enjoyed the Te Arawa lakes on family holidays particularly Rotoma and Rotorua and I have also enjoyed being part of outdoor education programmes with school children and youth groups on the shores of Okataina. I also understand the importance of some sacred sites that are scattered around the shores of Okataina. I recently enjoyed the opening of an Environment Bay of Plenty initiative at Lake Rerewhakaaitu and I came to appreciate watching what had happened there and realised the importance of guardianship of these wonderful treasures. 
I am taking only a brief call on this bill. United Future does not have a representative on the select committee that will be considering this bill. We will be relying heavily on the commentary from the committee to guide our ongoing support. We do support the Waitangi settlement process; however we believe that resourcing could easily be stepped up to avoid hapu and iwi having to wait unreasonable lengths of time for settlements to be reached. 
 I think it is important—as I finish—that we remember those who have been part of this journey but who have not lived long enough to see this day arrive. We must honour the work they have done and we congratulate those who have continued to carry the baton on this important project. I thank those people for their attendance here today.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand 
[Volume:630;Page:2785] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear that I did not make that allegation— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have accepted that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and my  
Hansard 
 will show that. But I do think that the tension around this may well be alleviated if the Government would recognise the situation we are in and be a bit more flexible and reasonable on this matter. So I seek leave once more for this House to have a debate conducted under the rules of a snap debate led off by the Hon Bill English who put the letter in in the first place—now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.