King Colin: General Debate 
King Colin: General Debate 
[Volume:678;Page:1392] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a shame to have to follow the fairy tales of New Zealand First as it seeks to rewrite history and talk from a very uninformed situation. But what I would like to do in this general debate is to talk about addressing an urgent need around pastoral leaseholders—the high country farmers of New Zealand. It gives me great pleasure to see that the legislative programme around addressing this inequity is coming to an end in this House. It is important that we provide these farmers with certainty that we provide them with respect and that we re-establish that sense of partnership that existed previously but was destroyed by the former Labour Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just looking at order of the day No. 5 which is this matter; it is a matter that is coming up later in the day. I think the rules are still that you are not allowed to anticipate the matters coming up that day. I think the member appears to be launching into a speech that is anticipating—in fact welcoming—the legislation we are considering later this sitting day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point is valid that members should not anticipate a future debate but that does not prevent a member from welcoming the fact that it is coming up so long as they do not get into the detail of the legislation. So I just point out to Colin King that he should not get into the detail of that but I see nothing wrong in welcoming the fact that it is coming up. 
COLIN KING 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. It is appropriate to bear in mind that we are very dependent upon our rural hinterland farmers when we consider the significance that Jan Wright the Commissioner for the Environment placed on the fragile hinterland. It is also of significance that this farming has been occurring in the hinterland for some 150 years and on that basis it is very important for those members who are representative of those electorates that they in fact are able to find a solution for these people.  
It is worth bearing in mind that although we have heard a lot from the other side of the House about socialising the costs and yet privatising the gains it is worth bearing in mind that when Labour was in Government it threw money around with gay abandon. I refer to two particular cases. The first was the $43 million that it paid for St James Station and the other was the $10 million that it paid for Birchwood Station. That has contributed to a high level of uncertainty for those farmers. It is worth mentioning at this time that this relationship that needs to exist between the leaseholders and the Crown is very very important. It is very very fragile and they need to be able to front up— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The relevant Standing Order is actually absolutely clear on not anticipating an order of the day. I think you were liberal in your interpretation of introductory comments to a general debate speech on the part of the member. He has actually not debated anything other than the Crown pastoral lease legislation and the background to it in this speech. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: There is the third reading on the Order Paper of the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Bill. This bill which my colleague has been talking about the effects of has been in this House and discussed for quite some time. To assert that no member can talk about any piece of legislation that has gone right through the process prior to it having its third reading seems to me to be taking the Standing Orders to the nth degree.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the solution to this problem—and I accept the points made by both members—is that the important thing is that the member does not get into the detail of the legislation. I think that talking about it in generalities does not anticipate the debate. I have not heard the member talking about any of the clauses of the bill in particular which he must not do but I do not see anything wrong in the generality of the issue.  
COLIN KING 
: We are effectively talking about 220 families that are all positioned in the Southern Alps of the South Island and half of these have actually now gone before the Land Valuation Tribunal. So it becomes very clear that there is an enduring solution. What really does concern this side of the House is the veiled threats of reprisal and suchlike— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have now gone to the 220 families and the issues before the Land Valuation Tribunal relating to the legislation. I invite you to read the Standing Order Mr Speaker. It does not actually talk about the detail of the bill; it actually talks about— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Which Standing Order is the member referring to? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The one that has just been given to you by the Clerk.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Standing Order 110? The member is correct that the Standing Order does not specify the matter of detail but there cannot be anything wrong with in a general debate talking about matters in general. What I do not have in front of me is the bill so I do not know whether the bill talks about a number of families or not.  
I think what the member making his speech must realise though is that there is a Standing Order—Standing Order 110—that states: “(1) A member may not anticipate discussion of any general business or order of the day.” I accept the point made by the Hon Anne Tolley that there is nothing secret about this legislation. This is a general debate. What I will be following up on because this may arise in the future is to see when this Standing Order came in—whether or not it pre-dates the general debate—because the general debate is a relatively recent phenomenon. To me it would be unreasonable to rule out general reference to matters even if they are on the Order Paper and coming up in debate.  
But I ask the member to try to avoid the detail of the bill because it will clearly continue to cause points of order to be raised. The Standing Order—and we must comply with the Standing Orders—makes it very clear that a member may not anticipate discussion of any general business or order of the day. The Speaker in determining whether a matter is out of order has regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time and the matter is on the Order Paper for debate. I am trying to be liberal and not pedantic because I do not see the problem caused by passing reference but the member should not get into the detail. 
COLIN KING 
: The flow-over from this situation can be viewed within the tenure review where once again the Labour Party has totally destroyed that feeling of partnership and in doing so has set back that relationship a very very long way. It is a legacy that boils over often when we hear the other side talk about socialising the cost and privatising the gain when in actual fact it is to the contrary and is totally different. When one looks at it objectively one sees that the best solution for all New Zealanders is that we have those families farming in their situations whether it is a tenure review situation or a pastoral lease situation. So on that basis this side of the House is very very pleased that it is going to address this issue that it is going to provide certainty for those families that it is going to restore confidence within the tenure review situation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you were somewhat distracted but the member has just said that that side of the House is very pleased that the House is going to I think deal with this issue. You cannot get any closer to anticipating a debate than saying that we have an issue of pastoral leases that the House is going to deal with.  
COLIN KING 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I point out that notwithstanding the member’s comment the reference I was making was to the tenure review situation in this instance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma I have is that I do not have the particular detail of the bill in front of me as Speaker. The Standing Order should not prevent members from referring to the general situation of Crown pastoral leases but the detail of the bill is not a matter that should be debated in this debate because it is on the Order Paper and is likely to be reached this same sitting day. There are not a lot of Speakers’ rulings to guide the Speaker in the interpretation of this Standing Order. It seems to me unduly restrictive because I do not see the problem being caused to the House. That is why I am being perhaps a little unduly liberal in my interpretation of the Standing Order. But I stress to the member speaking that if he continues to seemingly breach the Standing Order he will tend to be interrupted by points of order. I have tried to guide him to avoid the detail of the bill.  
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder if you would just hear me briefly on the question of prejudice to the House because I do agree that that is the nub of the question. As I understand the Standing Orders Standing Order 110 precludes specific reference to a debate or specific anticipation of a debate that is coming for the very reason that the House is devoting allocated time to it. Of course we all know that the general debate Standing Order was made after that Standing Order. The general debate Standing Order entitles any member to refer to miscellaneous business. As a member who hopes to speak in the debate later I know that it is a useful opportunity for me and other members to raise issues that are not otherwise programmed into the orders of the day. So if we are to allow the general debate to be turned into simply an anticipated discussion of things that are on the Order Paper which we know already are going to come up then it really goes to the heart of destroying the purpose of the general debate which is to allow members to just get up and speak about miscellaneous business not about matters that are on the Order Paper and are going to have the House’s time devoted to them. It is the nub of the purpose of that Standing Order in my view. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I just want to make a point of comparison with the speech made by the Hon Paula Bennett in respect of an issue of Government policy that was introduced into the House by way of a bill yesterday and her articulation of the impact of that on a certain group of people—in this case the unemployed and those on the sickness and invalids benefits. That is a matter that has a legislative impact and will be brought back before this House within a reasonable period of time as the Standing Order requires. I suggest that what Mr King was doing was quite similar. This is an issue affecting people whom he represents. It is on the legislative Order Paper coming up in a reasonable period of time but I do not think it is unreasonable nor outside Standing Order 110 for him to actually refer in the general debate to the impact of that. At the end of the day he represents those people and that is his opportunity to articulate the benefits and risks of Government policy to them.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear from the Hon Trevor Mallard and then I think we will rule on this matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Dealing very briefly with that point Mr Speaker Paula Bennett’s bill is not on the Order Paper for consideration by the House; it is at a select committee. Therefore it will come up but it is not a matter that the House can reasonably be assumed to get to in the near future. Mr Speaker Smith you have referred to that matter around the anticipation of debate yourself and have given us a Speaker’s ruling on that one.  
The other point I would like to make though is that I think it is fair to say that although there is division on Crown pastoral leases there is not an enormous amount of rancour about it. But I would like you to turn your mind to a situation where there might be a highly controversial piece of legislation sitting on the Table of the House something on which urgency might be taken later the same day something where there was massive division. If members started having the debate on that legislation an hour early during the general debate rather than in the time that had been set down and allocated for the debate then our systems would begin to fall apart.  
You might be right. It might be time for a review of the Standing Order. It does leave a little discretion and one might say that you have in a common law way taken a little more discretion than you have been allowed by the statute of the Standing Orders already in your rulings. But for the member to refer to changes—which are part of the bill—around the valuation process in this House is I think a clear breach of the intention of the Standing Orders and although it is leading to only a little bit of disorder now if it was allowed to continue it could lead to a lot of disorder on other legislation.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members for their contribution. In respect of the matter raised by Michael Woodhouse—the interpretation that has been given to Standing Order 110 in respect of how soon a matter may be anticipated to be in front of the House—Speaker’s ruling 25/1 has sort of narrowed that down to “can be reasonably expected that debate on the bill will be reached on the same sitting day.” So it narrows it down somewhat because otherwise it would be ridiculous.  
But I come back to Charles Chauvel’s point of order and this is what troubles me. I do not want to constrain the House if there is no mischief being caused. The general debate is a matter of members’ choice. It is miscellaneous business. The general debate enables members to debate issues that matter to them to their constituents and that is why I do not want to be overly pedantic in applying Standing Order 110. If other members wish to make comment about what the member says about Crown leases in his electorate other members are welcome to do that but they are also welcome to debate the issues they wish to debate. That is the purpose of the general debate. I would be loath to interpret Standing Order 110 in too narrow a way and that is why I have not done that.  
It may well be that the Standing Orders Committee should have a look at it because as the Hon Trevor Mallard says the issue may well arise again in the future. If I ruled in a reasonably liberal way today it might cause a problem in the future; maybe it would be wise for the Standing Orders Committee to look at it before it causes a problem. But I do not want to constrain members in the general debate from discussing issues that matter to them and their constituents and that is why I have not been pedantic in ruling on the points of order raised.  
I have asked the member not to get into the detail of the bill and I think by and large he has not got into the detail of the bill although I accept the points the Hon Trevor Mallard has made that he has occasionally got into some of the issues that are covered by the bill. I am going to rule that way. I am not ruling out the member’s speech at all. He has 50 seconds left and I am not ruling it out because I think it would be contrary to the progress of the House were I to rule on Standing Order 110 in a particularly pedantic way.  
COLIN KING 
: When we talk about tenure review we talk about a process that the Crown enters into in a voluntary manner with the owner of a pastoral lease to be able to freehold and work through that relationship. It is just so very important for that process to work positively so that the holder of the pastoral lease is able to negotiate with the Crown in a positive way. That relationship was destroyed under Labour and on that basis it is just very important that over this side of the House we work up and rebuild that relationship trust and integrity with those wonderful farmers in the South Island high country.