Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8805] 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill 
Discharge 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 71 I move  
That the order of the day for the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be discharged. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Motion not agreed to. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 13 August. 
Part 1 Preliminary 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 It has been a while since we dealt with this bill but in the intervening period since our last discussion a number of issues relevant to Part 1 have become more apparent and of even greater concern than we may have imagined at the time the bill was last before the Committee. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the clauses that have been struck out and to those that have been inserted which mean in effect that there will be no facilities available on sites for people who wish to smoke. That is in accordance with the Government’s stated intention of banning smoking in bars restaurants and other places of that type. But what has become obvious in recent times is the sheer extent of the change and the ill-considered way in which it has been thought through. 
 I want to give the committee two examples of that and I am sure other members will have other examples to draw to the committee’s attention as this debate proceeds. I have acknowledged the presence of Mr Worth who last time we debated this bill made some very valuable contributions regarding cigar bars. That issue has escalated even in recent weeks. I have been approached over recent weeks by a number of builders and developers who want to know in terms of the provisions of this part of the legislation what the new building standards will be to govern what may be defined as open space under this legislation. Inquiries that have been made of the Ministry of Health—the experts who know everything about what makes people sick and who are now said to be experts on ventilation and other engineering matters—show that its officials have no idea about that. They have not even thought about what the definition of open space may be in the context of this legislation. That work has not been done which means that the promoters of this legislation cannot even give that definition to the people out there who want to develop hospitality premises and who are saying that because this dumb bill will go through Parliament they had better figure out how to configure their premises in relation to it. Here they are trying to rush this legislation through tonight without that work having been done. 
At the same time it was intriguing to listen to the previous debate. The Minister of Tourism—and I take my hat off to him for doing a great job in promoting New Zealand tourism—will be put in a position whereby our capacity to provide good tourism facilities is threatened by a Mickey-Mouse approach to planning which sees us put in place social engineering legislation of this type without any idea of the practical consequences that flow from it. 
Let me give the committee a second example. I came through Auckland International Airport a couple of days ago and observed to my surprise that there is a smoking room down in the bowels of that airport. It was filled with tourists who had just got off long flights. They were visitors to New Zealand who were desperate to have a cigarette. I do not actually agree with that but that is their privilege. Now under this legislation that option will go for them. I did not see any signage up to warn people of the legislation before the New Zealand Parliament that will tell first-time visitors to this country that after a 12-hour flight across the Pacific if they feel like lighting a cigarette in the smoking area they will not be able to do so because there will no longer be a smoking area there. The question that then arises is this: what input has there been from the airports and from the tourism industry about the potential impact of this legislation on tourism? What about the people who will suddenly find themselves in that position with one of the “health Nazis” leaping down on their back and saying they have breached the law and are now subject to the fine procedures? Actually those people will not be subject to the fine procedures because under the Greens’ amendment Auckland International Airport will be subject to the fine procedures for every tourist that gets off a plane goes to what he or she thinks is the smoking area and lights up a cigarette. 
This legislation is an absolute absurdity. We have heard no explanation from the Government. The Associate Minister of Health paraded today as an expert in engineering and ventilation. He did not cite as the authority that says that ventilation systems do not work the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd or another scientific research body but instead cited the officials of the public health directorate of the Ministry of Health—the “health Nazis” themselves. I want him to take a call and say what advice those “health Nazis” have given him about what we should do for the tourists. He should also tell us what we are to do for those builders who ask about how to redesign facilities in order to cope with this legislation that the Government is passing. 
None of that work is there. Yet if I go back to clause 1A of the bill I see it states that some of the provisions come into effect on 1 January 2004—less than 3 months away—and some come into effect on 1 February 2005. We still have no answers from the Government with regard to the issues I have raised. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of Peter Brown to clause 1A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 1A(3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to insert subclause (5A) in clause 1A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to insert new definitions in clause 2(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Richard Worth to insert the definition of  
cigar bar  
in clause 2(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 19; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 65 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 4; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to insert the definition of  
minimum air quality standard  
in clause 2(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 120 in the name of Steve Chadwick to insert the definition of  
tobacco packages in a visible stack  
in clause 2(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 2(1) be agreed to: 
to insert after the definition of  
taxi 
 the following definition: 
toy tobacco product 
 means an object that— 
(a)looks like a tobacco product or a smoker’s pipe and can be used to simulate smoking; but 
(b)cannot be smoked is not confectionary and has a primary purpose other than to help people stop smoking. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am trying to work out what Part 2 is. What do you believe it to be? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Part 2 is clauses 3 to 7A. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I suggest to you that I have not seen a bill put out in the way that this one is. It appears to me— 
Peter Brown 
: If you haven’t we haven’t. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I have not either. It appears that it is an attempt by the Government to limit debate. If I understand it correctly a part by part motion has been moved. If that is the case when we look at the bill we see we have Part 2 clause 3 and then a Part 1 with clauses 4 to 7A. We then have a Part 3 and a Part 2A. I put it to you that the instruction to the Committee was to take the bill part by part and therefore what we should do is to have a debate now on Part 2 which is clause 3. Then we should go back to something that is headed Part 1. Although the fact is that Part 1 follows Part 2 nothing in the Standing Orders states that there should not be a separate debate on it. We have said we would consider the bill part by part and those are separate parts. The Government cannot just renumber parts and then limit debate. From your point of view Madam Chair you should adopt whatever ruling enables the Committee to debate the bill to the greatest possible extent. So I suggest to you that the proper debate that we should now have is on Part 2 which is clause 3. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I would like to support the views that have been offered to you in connection with the clear understanding of the parties that this would be a part by part debate which has the consequence that Mr Prebble has referred to. In the world of choices where there are choices you should prefer the choice that permits the greatest possible debating time on what are clearly significant issues. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I concur with the point that was raised earlier. This bill is highly confusing in its drafting. We have had a title debate and a Part 1 debate and we now have a Part 2 debate beginning. However if you look at the way in which the bill is physically laid out you will see that “Part 1 Preliminary” and “Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act” are in bold type signalling that they are separating the bill out. “Part 1 Smoke-free workplaces and public areas” is equally in bold type and then we go to “Part 3 Other amendments”. On page 2 of the contents page “Part 2A Powers of enforcement officers” is in bold type. 
Either this is the most extraordinarily inept drafting that we have seen in a long time or it is a case of trying to stifle debate on what is not a particularly lengthy bill. As I look at the totality of the bill I see that if we were to take it clause by clause there are still only something like 12 clauses in the bill. We could be looking at 12 separate debates. According to the way in which the bill is crafted at the moment there will be something like four debates but then there are at least one or two other parts within parts. The issue that needs to be resolved—I think in the interests of good order as much as anything else given that this is a controversial and complex matter—is whether you will allow a separate debate as Mr Prebble has suggested on Part 2 on the new Part 1 and then on Part 3 and so on or whether you will rule that given the way in which the bill is drafted we should allow for the widest possible debate on whatever parts of the bill we are debating and that there will not be an early acceptance of closures. A range of views needs to be expressed. The bill is confusing in its drafting in just its physical layout for a start. Members have a right to debate these contentious issues thoroughly. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I think those issues were acknowledged at the start of the debate on this bill. There was very wide-ranging debate on the first part. Perhaps the member was not here for that debate which went for quite some time on the basis of that agreement. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Committee has been instructed to consider the bill part by part. The bill is drafted in three parts. Part 2 of the bill amongst other things substitutes a Part 1 heading in the principal Act. That Part 1 heading is an amendment to the principal Act not a separate part of the bill. Part 2 encompasses clauses 3 to 7A as I stated and that is what the Committee has been instructed by the House to consider. That gives lots of time for debate. We will debate Part 2 clauses 3 to 7A. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Your previous ruling was about the structure of the part. This point of order is about the scope of the debate. Mr Damien O’Connor alleged that there had been a wide-ranging debate in which everyone had been able to take part. That is simply not correct. I sought a call on Part 1 and had not spoken on the bill previously but the closure was accepted. I ask for the Chair’s assurance that there will be a full debate on this part to the point that everyone who seeks to contribute will have the opportunity to do so at least once anyway. That did not happen with regard to Part 1. I seek your assurance that every person who seeks a call and who has not had a previous call will have that call accepted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point. I note that there were 23 calls on the previous part. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Following the logic that you have just given us I think that your ruling is that only Part 2 and Part 2A are in the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am just telling you that that is what the bill is. Either one accepts that there is Part 1 and Part 3 as you are putting it or the logic is that there is Part 1 which is clause 1A and 2 then Part 2 which is either clause 3 or as I read it goes all the way through from clause 3 to clause 12—which of course would be an outrage—and then Part 2A. The instruction of the House was to take the bill on every part. It did not say we should ignore some parts and it is not for you to decide to ignore some parts. I ask you to reconsider this matter because if you do not I think we should call back the Speaker. This appears to be an attempt by the executive by means of quite extraordinary drafting to prevent the Committee from being able to debate every part that has been put. Unless I have misunderstood the situation—and you can read the motion out to me—it is my understanding that we had a motion that instructed the Committee to take the bill part by part. Those were the words. The parts are there and the fact that they are out of order cannot matter. Perhaps you will not take Part 2A; perhaps you were going to decide that that is not a part. I would really like to know what you think the parts of this bill are. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have already indicated that and it is not up to me to distinguish the parts. The parts are very clearly set out in the bill as I have already ruled. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on this. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am challenging your ruling and I am asking for the Speaker to come back because to have the Chair just sit there and say it is not for her to say what the parts are is unsatisfactory. I am looking at the motion and I see it states that the Committee was to debate the bill “part by part”. Here are some other parts. Why has the Chair decided that some parts count and some do not? We have never had a ruling like that from a Chair before. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have given the ruling very clearly. Would the member like to move for the Speaker to be recalled? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes. If you are not prepared to give us an explanation as to why some parts do not count perhaps we should have the Speaker back to let us know why some parts do not count. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has the right to so move. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Speaker members have recalled you because they are concerned about the ruling that I have given that the Committee has been instructed to consider the bill part by part. I have ruled that the bill is drafted in three parts. Part 2 amongst other things substitutes a new Part 1 heading in the principal Act. That Part 1 heading is an amendment to the principal Act and not a separate part of the bill. Part 2 encompasses clauses 3 to 7A and that is what the Committee has been instructed to consider. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I do not think I have seen a bill drafted as this one is and in that sense I am in no way critical of the Chair because the Chair is in the same dilemma as the House. The position is that the Committee has been given an instruction by the House to consider the bill part by part. It did not say to consider that some parts would be superior to others. If we look at the contents page we see that the bill has a Part 1 which contains clauses 1A and 2. The Committee dealt with that. We then see that there is a Part 2 which appears to be clause 3. Then there is Part 1 which contains clauses 4 to 7A; Part 3 which contains clauses 7B to 12; and then a Part 2A which contains clauses 41A to 41F. 
I put it to you that that is what the House instructed us to do. It is not for us to re-rationalise the parts and decide that some are more important than others. The House cannot know that either because it has not considered that matter. The second point is that the Chair given a choice should always take the choice that enables the Committee to have the maximum ability to debate the issues because otherwise if we did not have the part by part resolution we would be debating the bill clause by clause. 
The only rational reason I can think of for deciding that Part 2 counts and Part 3 is that there is some rule about taking parts in numerical order. Well of course that cannot be so because we have Part 2A at the end after we have dealt with Part 3. So on the face of it I believe that you should rule that the Committee must follow the instruction of the House which is to take the bill part by part. The bill has a Part 2 which is clause 3 and then a Part 1 which is clauses 4 to 7A. There is a Part 3 which is clauses 7B to 12 and then Part 2A which is clauses 41A to 41F. Not taking the bill part by part would enable the Government just by an instruction to the law draftsmen to completely defeat the ability of this House to have a proper Committee stage. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I support what Mr Prebble has said. But I would add two further points. The first is that this issue has substantially arisen because of the determination of the Chair in the Committee stage to try to close down this debate. If there had been a free-ranging debate that had perhaps a greater degree of liberality the point would not have arisen. The second point is that there was a clear ruling by the Business Committee which perhaps has now an element of ambiguity with the element of hindsight that the debate be part by part. It is that ruling that has given it seems to me the supporting basis for Mr Prebble’s argument. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the member say “the Business Committee”? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Well I may be wrong on that. It may have been a decision of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was. The Business Committee has no relevance. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Yes it may have been a decision of the House and I am wrong in that regard. But the substantive point remains that this was to be a part by part debate and that is what gives strength to Mr Prebble’s argument. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to make two points in support of the submissions made by both Mr Prebble and Mr Worth. You may be tempted to the conclusion that was offered by the Chair in the Committee but if one looks at the contents pages of the bill under the heading Part 2 “Amendments to Part II of principal Act” is the heading Part 1 “Smoke-free workplaces and public areas and similarly Part 3 “Other amendments” has the subheading Part 2A “Powers of enforcement officers” one concludes that these are the insertions of new parts within the bill. So therefore the principal three parts remain. 
But I would suggest that if you were to come to that conclusion you would not only be seriously in error you would also be in breach of Speakers’ rulings. I want to share with you a ruling I am sure you know well—Speaker’s ruling 77/1 by Mr Speaker Burke which states: “Apart from a few provisions in the Standing Orders no direction is available about the form in which a bill for introduction is to be drafted.” He then makes some comments in respect of amendments. The ruling goes on to state: “In the absence of a precise definition in the Standing Orders of the form of a bill the Chair cannot move to control the drafting of a bill.” 
My submission to you is that Mr Speaker Burke’s ruling suggests that the definition of what constitutes a part of a bill is in fact not clear. So you cannot argue as the Chair of the Committee of the whole House attempted to that Part 1 “Smoke-free workplaces and public areas” and Part 2A “Powers of enforcement officers” are merely subparts of a part of the bill. They are parts in their own right. The Speaker has ruled previously that he is not in a position to determine the nature of the drafting of a bill. 
So my first point to you is that you have no option but to uphold the point of order raised by Mr Prebble which means we would then go back to the Committee of the whole House and have a brief debate—and that is the second point I want to raise—upon what purports to be Part 2 before reporting back on Part 1 then Part 3 and then Part 2A. 
The second point I want to raise is to draw to your attention a comment that was made by the Associate Minister when this matter was raised in the Committee of the whole House. This I think has some quite serious implications. The Associate Minister told the Committee when Mr Prebble first raised the point—and this is a paraphrase of his words—that in effect we have had a wide-ranging debate on Part 1 and the deal was that that debate could take place and we could basically get all the issues out of the way there and then we would proceed. The inference I took from that was a clear direction being offered by the Associate Minister to the Chair as to the way in which the subsequent nature of the debate on Part 2 Part 1 Part 3 and Part 2A was to be conducted. 
That is serious enough in the course of ordinary events. But this is a member’s bill being dealt with by most parties in the House on a conscience basis. And here was a Minister seeking to give direction to the Chair as to how many speakers should be allowed on a bill on which there is contention anyway and there is now contention about the nature of the drafting of the bill. So I think we do have a serious situation and I do not think there is any real alternative but for you to rule in two ways: firstly to uphold Mr Prebble’s point; and secondly to make it clear to the Committee that the widest-ranging debate possible ought to be permitted on this issue given the confusing and bewildering way in which the original bill has been drafted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to refer to the last point the member made. I agree with him that there must be the widest possible debate on this particular area. The Speaker cannot control the way in which a bill is drafted—Speaker’s ruling 77/1. An instruction to take a bill part by part relates to the parts of the bill that are before the committee. The parts of this bill contain within them parts to be inserted in the principal Act. These new parts are not considered to be parts of this bill. It is not uncommon for parts of bills to insert new parts in the principal Act. That can look confusing I agree. I did rule earlier this year that the insertion of new parts in a principal Act is a factor for the Chair to take into account before accepting the closure and the Chair should do that here. Mr Prebble’s principle that the Chair should prefer more debate if given the choice may be correct but here the Chair has no choice. Further to Mr Prebble’s remarks there is a rule that provisions are taken in sequence—Standing Order 296—unless the committee decides otherwise. I come back with my last point and say to the Hon Peter Dunne that there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate. 
In Committee 
Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I came down to the House only when this debate started as I had listened to the earlier debate in my office where I was tied up. I listened to the closing speech made by the Hon Peter Dunne in the previous part. I have to say that I have a regard for the Hon Peter Dunne’s ability in this Parliament. On this bill I share many of his sentiments and support his amendments and I know that New Zealand First does also. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: What is the point of order? 
PETER BROWN 
: The point of order is that either deliberately or inadvertently Mr Dunne referred to people as “health Nazis”. Where I come from anybody who referred to anybody as a “Nazi” would be likely to get the thrashing of his or her life. I am asking the Chair whether that is an acceptable parliamentary term. I am not asking for an apology because there is no one to apologise to. I am asking the Chair whether that is an acceptable term to refer to anybody by. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It has not been deemed unparliamentary previously. Often these things are in the context of how they are said. The issue was not raised at the time but I shall certainly consider what the member has said. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take the point raised by the member. I feel strongly as I am sure he does about people who think they know best about the way in which other people should behave in this situation. As a subject of Her Majesty I know that the member will be familiar with the cartoons of Carl Giles the famous British cartoonist. Giles was well known for caricaturing people in that guise yet he was also known for his virulent anti-fascist views. If the member has taken offence I take his point and will not make that reference again. However I think it was more in the context of what is common parlance anyway in describing that particular group of beady-eyed zealots who think they know best. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I strongly support Mr Peter Dunne’s right of free speech. While the Chair has said that as a general rule people should be careful when addressing people outside this House the Chair has always upheld the rights of members of Parliament to have total free speech here. The answer to Mr Brown’s question is that for Peter Dunne it is a matter of taste. If Peter Dunne wants to refer to someone as a “Nazi” provided he is not referring to an honourable member of this House that is his absolute right and that should be your ruling. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is distinctly possible that this bill will go through in the fullness of time. As a result of that it is not impossible that the officials charged with policing the rules in the bill will be referred to as “health Nazis”. I do not think that we should give a lead with that sort of example. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Rightly so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
PETER BROWN 
: I suggest that that term could be used by the public if we are using it freely in Parliament. It is a dreadful term and as I said earlier on if somebody called certain people by that term he or she could well be up for the thrashing of their life. If that is an example of what we want to give a lead on then you rule accordingly. I am prepared to call the Speaker back on this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: First it was after the time. I had allowed people to speak on that. As I said it was in the context of how it was said. Mr Prebble made some good points and I am prepared to leave the matter there. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Do I now understand that what you have said now constitutes a ruling that it is now proper parliamentary language to refer to people in general—although obviously not honourable members—as “health Nazis”? If that is perfectly appropriate language I guess members will do that. The only limitation is that we cannot for instance refer to the mover of the bill as a “health Nazi” even if one thinks that privately. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No that has not been ruled. I call the next speaker. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We have covered this point of order. 
PETER BROWN 
: I must insist that we recall the Speaker. I take this matter very seriously and I ask that the Speaker be recalled. I move accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has moved that the Speaker be recalled. The ayes have it. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We have had a point of order from Mr Brown regarding the use of the words “health Nazis”. Mr Brown did not raise the point at the time but I have taken speakers on the point of order and have ruled that the words were in context at the time and that it was not necessary for me to rule them out. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I apologise for calling you back so quickly after you were last in the House. I did raise this issue as promptly as I could. I was not in the House when I heard the Hon Peter Dunne speak but listening on my speaker. When I got here the House was tied up on the previous point of order. I raised my concern as promptly and as quickly as I could. 
My concern is that the Hon Peter Dunne used the unfortunate term “health Nazis”. To many people in this world—certainly British people and I would think many many New Zealanders—the term “Nazis” is exceedingly unacceptable. If referred to as a “Nazi” many people I am aware of would deal to the person who delivered that statement physically and very severely although that would not be my attitude. I am asking whether that is an acceptable parliamentary term. I point out that this afternoon you tossed out my leader for referring to someone— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No in the House; not outside the House. 
PETER BROWN 
: In the terminology today the word “dwarf” was used. People call me a giant and I take no offence at that whatsoever but I would take personal offence if I were referred to as a “Nazi”. It is unfortunate that we are describing somebody we cannot identify as a “health Nazi”. I believe the term “Nazi” should be regarded as unparliamentary and I have sought your recall and advice. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Mr Speaker while it is unfortunate in some ways that you have been called back in other ways it would help the House if you were to give a proper ruling on this matter. If we look at Speakers’ rulings on the question we see they create an impression that might have made the member think that the Speaker could rule out the phrase “health Nazi” but I put it to you very strongly that the Speaker cannot. Speaker’s ruling 44/2 states: “There is nothing which prevents a member from commenting if necessary in severe terms on the conduct of people outside Parliament but the member should do so only if it is necessary for the argument being put forward.” I will come back to that. We have a further statement in Speaker’s ruling 44/3: “Members have absolute privilege in the House and cannot be held liable outside the House in relation to statements they have made in the House.” 
It is a question of free speech. I believe that even if members find the phrases “Nazi” or “health Nazi” to be objectionable that is a question of taste. If the Hon Peter Dunne wishes to use the phrase he is entitled to do so and the Speaker should uphold it. I point that out because it appears to be contradicted by at least some rulings—which go all the way back to 1900—stating that temperate and decorous language should be used with regard to persons outside Parliament. I suggest that such rulings are in contradiction to our right of free speech. Although I think it is reasonable for the Speaker to tell members that how they refer to people outside is a matter of careful judgment either we have free speech or we do not. I think it is time we had a further ruling from Speaker Hunt saying that members have the absolute right of free speech provided they are not referring to a member of the House—and the honourable member was not. He is entitled to call anyone outside the House—who is not a member of the judiciary—a Nazi. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say I do not need any further assistance. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Mr Speaker I am the subject of the comments so surely I should be able to make some comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member to make a comment very briefly because I am ready to rule. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will be brief Mr Speaker. I want to give you an absolute assurance as I gave Mr Brown when he raised the matter in the Committee that my comments were not directed to any member of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right. I heard that. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In relation to the comment I picked up from him I say that that group of people was contemptible despicable and the lowest form of low life imaginable and I think that the beady-eyed zealotry of the officials behind this bill fits that behaviour. The term “health Nazi” has been in common public parlance for a long time. I have heard reference to “femi-Nazis” and other forms of Nazis—the terms for all of which are out there in the popular domain. Those terms are not being used in reference to any member of this House; they are being used to categorise a form of behaviour and approach to things at the heart of this legislation and at the heart of this debate. I just wanted to make that point and to reassure you Mr Speaker that my comments were not about members of the House but about forms of behaviours causing the debate we are having this evening. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s argument on that last point. The use of terms about people outside the House is a question of taste for each member. I do not like that but it is the ruling. Anyway a point must be raised at the time; if a member is not present that is just too bad. The House cannot go back just because a member was absent so I rule that it is a question of taste as far as this is not related to members of the House. I declare the House in Committee again. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: In relation to the vote on Steve Chadwick’s amendment to clause 2 and on the question that Part 1 as amended be agreed to the results were announced incorrectly as Ayes 64 Noes 51. The correct result in both cases was Ayes 64 Noes 52. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance. You will recall that some little while ago Mr Speaker was recalled to rule on the issue of the form of this bill. In the context of that discussion Mr Speaker offered a view about this bill being of such significance and moment that it required the widest possible debate by the Committee. He made that point two or three times during his comments to the House. Madam Chair you will recall that in the period immediately before the Speaker was recalled the Associate Minister expressed some views—ostensibly to the Committee but I assume they were directed at you—about the breadth of the debate that had just gone on and it was certainly interpreted in this part of the Chamber as being some covert hint to you about limiting the debate on Part 2. 
Before we commence that debate I want your assurance that you will be guided by the Speaker’s injunction and not the political advice of the Minister and given the number of members—there is a very high number of members here for this time of the evening—who are keen to take part in this debate that you will ensure that every single member who wishes to speak in this debate will have the opportunity to do so and that you will not be looking to closures for some weeks yet on this particular part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point. I certainly heard what the Speaker had to say. I did not actually hear what the Associate Minister said before because I was concentrating on getting the part sorted out. I take the member’s point. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am taking the first opportunity to do this. I appreciate that a comment I made earlier probably went too far and I do seek to withdraw and apologise to the member in the chair—the member promoting the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Two points of order ago you said that the House was resumed and I assume that that was just a slip. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member; I did mean to say that the Committee is resumed. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 In view of the lateness of the evening and rather than disturb the flow of going on to the next part I seek the leave for the Committee to rise early. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I raised a point of order a moment ago and you acknowledged that it was a fair point of order. I got a response from the senior Government whip across the way thrown across to this side of the Chamber. The line was: “What a waste of space.” That was what he said to me—that is what he said to the Committee. That is surely unacceptable. I am seeking that that member withdraw and apologise. We are burdened by his constant interjections and foolish comments and it is time someone took a stand on his throw-away remarks which do nothing for the order of the House or the Committee. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 This is actually a very serious issue. We have just had the Speaker recalled on matters that related to comments made by persons outside the House. The Speaker was very quick to remind us that they come down to matters of taste. Here we have a direct case where comments are made I assume about a member in the Chamber. Madam Chair you have to act very strongly on this point. Mr Brown made some telling points in the earlier exchange with the Speaker about the taste if one likes of comments made about persons made outside the House. If you now do not uphold the point of order raised by the member you create a very serious imbalance it seems to me which would not be conducive to the good order of this Committee for the remainder of its time this evening. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you Mr Dunne. I call on Part 2. All those— 
Richard Worth 
: My point of order is not resolved. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There have been a lot of comments across the Chamber. I do not think there is any need for me to rule on that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I believe you have an obligation to rule on it because my colleague Richard Worth has taken offence. When a member has taken offence the proper procedure for you is to request in this instance the chief Government whip to withdraw and apologise. The reason my colleague Mr Richard Worth took exception is that it fits a pattern of behaviour by the chief whip and frankly this side of the House has become rather sick and tired of it. When it is personally directed to a member—a specific member—that specific member is entitled to take exception to it and your proper course then is to ask the offender to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I uphold your ruling— 
Hon Member 
: She hasn’t done it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: As I understand it the Chair has made a ruling with respect. The Chair has said there were a lot of comments and does not intend to take any action and as I understand it the point of order was over. If the point of order were under way then any comment would be out of order but it is over. The comment “waste of space” does not seem to me to be the worst insult I have heard thrown across the Chmber. I know there are only 2 minutes left but I would quite like to get on to the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I did not regard the comment on the face of it as needing to be ruled on. I will call the next speaker on Part 2. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill. This is an important bill and I know that we have had a fair amount of argy-bargy across the House tonight. I suppose that if we cannot have that kind of debate across the Chamber in this Parliament where can we have it? I want to say at what is almost the close of play tonight that this is an important bill about the health of New Zealanders. It would be really good if we as responsible adult members of the public could debate this bill in the manner in which the bill is presented. It is a well-considered bill. A great deal of time and effort has been spent on it and I would like to recommend to members that when we resume debate on this bill we should debate it in a mature and considered way. We should leave the name-calling aside and get on with— 
Richard Worth 
: Look to your own party. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I am including all members in that comment. We should put personality issues aside and get on with debating an important bill. In the end this bill is about protecting the health of all New Zealanders including some people whom we might be related to ourselves. Let us think about that. It is nearly the end of the sitting for the day and I implore members to debate the bill rather than personality issues when we resume debate on this. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
I take a call to say to the member who has just resumed her seat that what she does not realise is that what the Parliament has been through this evening is a measure of the Committee’s frustration with this bill. This is a deliberate parliamentary tactic to delay the passage of this stupid legislation and in the time that remains the Government should listen— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported.