edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5914] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5913] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment is to clause 2 in the name of Gerry Brownlee. This one has also been ruled out of order as it refers to an indeterminate event not a specified time. The next amendment to clause 2 in the name of the Hon Bill English is also ruled out of order as it refers to an indeterminate event not a specified time. The next amendment to clause 2 in the name of the Hon Murray McCully to omit and substitute words in this clause is out of order as it refers to an indeterminate event not a specified time.
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5913] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Given what we have just undertaken in the House I seek leave of the Committee to have my amendment put to the vote forthwith. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for the amendment to be put. Is there any objection? There is not. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon Power to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “the day after the date on which the Controller and Auditor-General reports to Parliament that he has received confirmation that all political parties have repaid to the Parliamentary Service the amounts listed in Figure 2 and Figure 3 on pages 33 and 34 of the report of the Controller and Auditor-General titled ‘Advertising expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Service in the three months before the 2005 General Election’ as being expenditure outside the scope of the appropriation.”
Robertson H V Ross: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5913] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his consideration and understanding. I am sure that something along those lines will be considered. In the meantime I now declare the House back in Committee.
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5912] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Members will all want to be able to follow the rulings of the Speaker. They often seek guidance from Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders to enable themselves to do so. On this occasion—and I am not questioning your ruling Mr Assistant Speaker—I invite you to provide a written ruling for the House because the ruling you have just given to us orally goes a step further than Speaker’s ruling 106/6. It adds a requirement for a new criterion to be met for an amendment to be within the Standing Orders. If members are to gain anything from this experience I suggest it would be helpful if you were to provide a written ruling that can be added to the Speakers’ rulings to give guidance to members in future.
Brownlee Gerry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5912] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That is an interesting argument from Dr Cullen but quite clearly the situation would be an expectation on the Governor-General and as has been said repeatedly by members on this side no greater or lesser expectation falls upon the Governor-General to give the Royal assent to any legislation. Dr Cullen is saying that the House cannot even consider this prospect because of his particular reading of this situation. He and others who want to back that suggest that leaving the Auditor-General with some obligation in this matter is somehow unacceptable. Well this whole legislation is in front of us because the Auditor-General accepted his obligations. To rule out the opportunity for the House even to consider this type of legislation I think needs to be rethought.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5912] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Again a ruling is being questioned. It is perfectly legitimate to call back the Speaker but now your ruling Mr Assistant Speaker is being questioned which is somewhat ironic in the context of the current debate before the House and the Committee—but it is not for the first time during this process. The point is of course that determinacy is not a matter of a specific date but of the fact that that date must occur. There must be an election and the writs must be returned. That is provided for under statute. There is no requirement for the Auditor-General to report. Therefore if he chose not to the amendment would mean that nothing would ever happen. That certainly is very vague. It cannot be placed in the hands of an individual in that fashion as to whether an Act of this Parliament comes into force. I think that is the point being made. It is not whether it is 7 February or 12 March; it is the fact that there is no certainty about the date occurring at all.
Brownlee Gerry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5912] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your advice gives you I suppose confidence to say—as you just have—that the member’s amendment does not provide certainty and therefore cannot proceed. But where is it stated in our Standing Orders or anywhere else that there must be certainty in the way in which you have prescribed it? There is no doubt that the sequence of events would take place if this amendment were passed by the Committee— remember that we are asking only why the Committee cannot even consider the amendment; it seems extraordinary that it has been ruled out so quickly. There is a clear sequence of events and there would be a determined date. Why does this House apparently not have the capability to produce a law written in such a way?
Robertson H V Ross: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5912] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Having sought some advice on the matter I tell members that an amendment to a commencement date must provide certainty about when the Act is to come into force. An amendment that relies on an indeterminate event is not in order. The proposed amendment relies on the Auditor-General making a report to the House. There is no requirement for the Auditor-General to report nor a time set for the report. The member compares the proposed amendment with his amendment providing for the Act to come into effect after the return of the writs. That is a time set by statutory requirements; there is certainty about such a date. The member’s proposed amendment does not provide sufficient certainty. It is therefore not in order.
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5911] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Just following on from my colleague and after listening to the Leader of the House’s view of events I put this point: this is not a trivial amendment. Many amendments have been considered trivial by the Clerk and by the Committee Chairperson and those have been in my opinion rightly ruled out. This amendment was thought through very carefully and I submit that the Committee as the master of this legislation should have the opportunity to consider by way of a vote what is not in itself a vague amendment. That is all I am seeking. I am not asking for the provision to be included; I am simply asking for the Committee to have an opportunity to vote on it.
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5911] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The considerations that have just been outlined to the House by the Leader of the House might be very good reasons why it would be inconvenient indeed for the matter proposed by Mr Power to be put to the Committee and approved by the Committee. But they are not good reasons why a member should be told that his amendment will not be considered by the Committee. I ask that you have a good look at the words in Speaker’s ruling 106/6 which states: “Amendments or parts of amendments which are too vague are out of order.” The purpose of the ruling seems to me to be very clear: it is to make sure that the Committee does not embrace an amendment that is fundamentally meaningless or about which there might be uncertainty. That provision in the Speakers’ rulings is there to ensure we pass good law. 
The proposition that Mr Power has put forward is a very straightforward one. It requires that the provisions of this legislation should not come into force until the date on which the Auditor-General has presented a certificate. That is a perfectly straightforward proposition; there is no dispute or argument about it. It might be that the Committee would not want to adopt Mr Power’s amendment; on the previous voting patterns available it is very likely that the Committee would not want to. But that is no reason why the Committee should not have it within its power to consider the amendment. It is a clear proposal so there would be no uncertainty about what was before the Committee. I put it to you Mr Assistant Speaker that it is quite wrong for the Chair to rule it out—on advice I admit—when it is clear that the member is putting a proposition about which the Committee would have a very clear choice and could vote accordingly.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5911] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker that is a very interesting argument but might I put a couple of contrary arguments to you. The first of course is that the procedure for the giving of the Royal assent is laid down under the Constitution Act so it is an event that must occur. The problem with the member’s amendment is actually quite a fundamental one: there is no requirement upon the Auditor-General to report on this matter and he cannot now achieve that particular amendment. If there is no requirement we would be placed in the extraordinary position where if the Auditor-General declined for whatever reason to report back on these matters then the bill would never come into force. That I think would be a most unfortunate state of affairs and one that should not be able to be placed in the hands of a particular individual in that way. The Governor-General does not have that discretion open to him under our constitution. There is a fundamental difference between those two things.
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5910] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Madam Chairperson has summarised the factual position. She referred me during the course of her ruling to Speaker’s ruling 106/6 which states: “Amendments or parts of amendments which are too vague are out of order.” The difficulty I have with the ruling that has been given is that the vagaries that the Chairperson has referred to do not exist in the amendment I have proposed because a determinate event is outlined in that amendment. That event is the reporting to Parliament—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a point of order on the floor. That means absolute silence. 
SIMON POWER 
: —by the Controller and Auditor-General that all political parties have repaid to the Parliamentary Service those amounts listed in figures 2 and 3 on pages 33 and 34 of his report. When that amendment is compared with my previous amendment which substituted “the day after the date of the return of the writs in the next General Election” one sees that the reason for putting in the reference to the Auditor-General’s report to Parliament was to create the trigger that would actually result in a specific event occurring. It is no different in my submission from the situation that has historically been the case in many pieces of legislation where the commencement date is the day after the Royal assent is given by the Governor-General’s signature. The two events have no specific day date or time; nonetheless they of themselves are actual events that will occur at one point or another. The inclusion of the Auditor-General’s report to Parliament as the event that triggers that provides in my submission the necessary certainty to make that a determinate event. 
We have heard from the Leader of the House that there is no guarantee that the Auditor-General will report. Likewise it is my contention that a similar uncertainty could exist around assent being given by the Governor-General. On that basis if we are having an argument about the level of certainty around either of those events occurring one must be treated much like the other. For the purposes of legislation in this House the assent by the Governor-General as a commencement date has been seen as a definite event and a determinate event. So too in my submission should my amendment be seen in that light—that is the date that the Auditor-General reports to Parliament that all parties have repaid the amounts owing.
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5910] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Assistant Speaker there is a concern from Mr Power that the ruling I have given on one of his amendments to clause 2 is not acceptable. Mr Power’s amendment is: “To omit ‘the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent’ (lines 5 and 6 on page 1) and substitute ‘the day after the date on which the Controller and Auditor-General reports to Parliament that he has received confirmation that all political parties have repaid to the Parliamentary Service the amounts listed in Figure 2 and Figure 3 on pages 33 and 34 of the report of the Controller and Auditor-General titled ‘Advertising expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Service in the three months before the 2005 General Election’ as being expenditure outside the scope of the appropriation.” 
I have ruled that it is out of order because it refers to an indeterminate event not a specified time. Furthermore to enlarge on that my advice is that this amendment of Mr Power’s is distinct from his previous amendment to clause 2 which covered a particular time. With regard to the previous amendment there will be a general election and therefore there will be a fixed date for the return of the writs but no such fixed event can be associated with the member’s second amendment. That is the point. There is no requirement for the Auditor-General to report on these matters and therefore no determinate time. That was why the amendment was ruled out of order Mr Assistant Speaker.
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5910] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5909] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Since 1707. I think I can say it is pretty well established now yes. 
Simon Power 
: Is there a requirement? No it is only a convention. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is a convention that has lasted now for 299 years. I think it would be an extraordinarily brave Governor-General who broke it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: And it is covered in the Constitution Act Mr Power.
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5909] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek your further clarification. Is there a requirement that the Governor-General assents?
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5909] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s previous amendment provided a particular time. There will be a general election and the date will be fixed for the return of the writ—that is clear; there is a date there. But no such fixed event can be associated with this amendment; there is no requirement for the Auditor-General to report on those matters and therefore no determinate time.
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5909] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. As the leave has been denied by the person who suggested that leave be put I now require you to rule on the point relating to the Governor-General’s assent being a similar trigger to that described in my amendment.
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5909] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5909] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that suggestion. On that basis I seek leave for my second amendment the one the Chairperson has just called to be put.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5909] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In respect of that last point of course I tell the member that “when the Royal assent is given” is simply another way of saying “as soon as the formal processes are completed”. The bill has to be checked for consistency and accuracy and it then goes to the Governor-General for approval—that is if the process is not held up; that is as quickly as it can be done. 
I think the Opposition has got itself into a slight problem. It has been arguing all the way through this debate that it has no assurance about when the money will be refunded. Having stated all the way through the debate that there is an uncertainty about when the money will be refunded Opposition members are now trying to argue for some certainty about the date on which the money will be refunded. 
I suggest that the member Simon Power might care to try his luck with the Committee—given that the ruling is quite clear and consistent with the Standing Orders—by seeking leave to have the amendment put in any case.
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5909] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 An example of exactly the same nature immediately leaps to mind. It would negate the view that this particular amendment is vague. How is it that legislation can refer to the date on which Royal assent is given when no specific date relates to that particular action? The requirement in my amendment that the Auditor-General report to the House that moneys have been repaid before validation occurs thereby triggering the validation has the same if not more specificity as the act of the Governor-General giving assent to a bill. There is no difference between those two descriptions in relation to the need to have a specific action or date occur. Thousands of pieces of legislation run through this House with the commencement date of each being “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent”. This clause was designed specifically with that level of trigger in mind.
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5908] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I urge you to read Speaker’s ruling 106/6 carefully. It provides a good example of a vague amendment which proposes that local authorities should have “such resources as would enable them to engage adequate services and to operate adequate technical facilities” etc. I can understand why that would be ruled out of order for the reason you have outlined in this case. Mr Power though has made it very clear that a very precise process is laid out in his amendment. It has been established in that way for a particular reason. I put it to you that it would be quite wrong in relation to the Speaker’s ruling for you to rule it out of order for that reason.
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5908] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Speaker’s ruling 106/6 refers to amendments or parts of amendments that are too vague. I would have thought that if the amendment required the moneys to be repaid prior to validation then indeed in my submission it would be a vague amendment. This amendment requires the moneys to have been repaid and for the Controller and Auditor-General to have reported to Parliament that those moneys have been repaid prior to validation occurring. There is nothing vague about the requirement of that amendment. In fact it was drafted very carefully to ensure that a specific act triggered a point at which validation could occur for the very reason of avoiding any difficulties of the vagaries that would otherwise have been the case had the inclusion of the reference to the date on which the Auditor-General reported not been included. I ask respectfully that you take advice and reconsider that ruling.
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5908] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: If the member refers to Speaker’s ruling 106/6 he will see that it talks quite clearly about amendments or parts of amendments that are too vague and therefore out of order. This amendment has been ruled out of order.
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5908] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a sincere point of order—not that there is any other sort of point of order. How is the date on which the Auditor-General reports to the House that all parties have paid back the moneys they owe before the validating legislation takes effect an indeterminate point in time? That is a very determinate point in time. The point in time is when the Auditor-General reports back to the House.
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5908] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment to clause 2 in the name of Simon Power is out of order. It refers to an indeterminate event not to a specified time.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5908] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5908] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will read the first amendment. This clause 2 amendment is to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “the day after the date of the return of the writs in the next general election after the date on which this Bill receives the Royal assent” in the name of Simon Power. That is the first one. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon Power to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “the day after the date of the return of the writs in the next General Election after the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent”.
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5907] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment is in the name of Simon Power. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have two amendments to clause 2 in my name. Just as a point of clarification is the Committee to vote on the amendment that would require confirmation from the Auditor-General that moneys have been repaid before validation? Is that this clause?
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5907] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5907] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Colin King to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “30 October 2006”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5907] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nathan Guy to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “29 October 2006”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5907] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Craig Foss to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “28 October 2006.”
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5906] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacqui Dean to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “27 October 2006”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5906] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Jonathan Coleman to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “26 October 2006”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5906] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Chester Borrows to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “25 October 2006”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5905] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Jackie Blue to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “24 October 2006”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5905] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of David Bennett to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “23 October 2006”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5905] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Chris Auchinvole to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “22 October 2006”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5904] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicky Wagner to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “20 October 2006”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Kate Wilkinson to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “20 October 2006”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5904] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind members there should be silence when votes are being taken. It is very hard on the Clerk if we cannot hear because of chatter. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Chris Tremain to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “19 October 2006”.
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5904] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: If the member refers to the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 he will see the rulings that have been given on the title clause. 
The amendment in the name of Chris Auchinvole to clause 1 is ruled out of order because it is not a serious amendment.
Hayes John: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hayes John: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5904] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could you please explain why my amendment has been ruled out of order.
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5904] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The following amendments in the names of Dr Jackie Blue and Paula Bennett to clause 1 are ruled out of order because they are not serious amendments. The next two amendments in the name of Jo Goodhew are also ruled out of order because they are not serious amendments. The following amendments in the names of Jacqui Dean Nathan Guy Craig Foss and John Hayes are all ruled out of order because they are not serious amendments.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5904] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5903] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of David Bennett to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation)” and substitute the words “Appropriation (Validation of unlawful expenditure of Parliamentary monies for the purposes of electioneering)”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5903] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Chester Borrows to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation)” and substitute the words “Appropriation (Validation of illegal election campaign spending)”.
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5903] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Jonathan Coleman to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation)” and substitute the words “Appropriation (Validation of expenditure under Vote Parliamentary Service that may have been outside the scope or purpose of an appropriation or other enactment)”.
Pettis Jill: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5902] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Henare Tau: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Henare Tau: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5901] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I will not dispute your ruling. Am I right in saying you have allowed the Hon Dover Samuels back into the Chamber after he was kicked out? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member can check with his whip about this matter. That is the correct procedure to find out when as decided by the Speaker a member who has been sent out of the Chamber can come back. Obviously all circumstances differ. Yesterday the members stayed out for only half an hour because of the circumstances and the point that Mr Brownlee raised.
Henare Tau: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Henare Tau: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5901] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I refer you to Standing Order 85(1) “Disorderly conduct”. It states: “The Speaker may order any member whose conduct is highly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the period (up to the remainder of that day’s sitting) that the Speaker decides.” On a number of occasions I have been booted out of the Chamber and not allowed back in until the following day—it was most probably my own fault. Having said that I point out that one of the members of this House was asked to leave the Chamber earlier on today and that member is now back in the Chamber. I ask you for some direction Madam Chairperson. Did you allow that member to come back into the Chamber or is there a new Standing Order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No there is not a new Standing Order. The member is quite incorrect. The Chairperson makes a decision about when a member will come back. That decision is communicated to the Serjeant-at-Arms and the whips ask when that will be. So the member can ask his whip at any time when a member who has been sent from the Chamber can come back.
Barnett Tim: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5900] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.