Henare Tau: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Henare Tau: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1933] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will not speak for long. I thank Mr Brown for his gracious remarks. That is the most gracious he has ever been towards myself since 1993. I thank him for that—and it was only half gracious but never mind. I want to ask a question maybe not of the Minister—he is one of the few Ministers I have a bit of faith in—but of Mr Peter Brown. When he talks about murder and wanting to get the threshold right and moving it this way and that way the question for New Zealand First really is: are they going to support David Bennett’s Supplementary Order Paper? 
Peter Brown 
: No. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I see—they are having it both ways. If they flipped over the Supplementary Order Paper they would see that “specified serious offence” means “(a) murder;” and that is what he was talking about. Nowhere in what they did last year in 2005 when they got it wrong and waited for the newbies to come along and fix it— 
Peter Brown 
: Murder’s in there. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh no. The member said and everybody heard him that murder was not in there. The member said—and I might be going deaf— 
Peter Brown 
: You’re getting old. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I might have a bit of dementia at the age of 44 or 45 or whatever it was but the fact of the matter is that that member said that there was no mention of murder. That is what his words were and I would love to see the  
Hansard. 
 I apologise if I am wrong—it is highly unlikely but I do. The only way we will make a line in the sand is by supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of David Bennett. It sets it out quite clearly—new and old. The new ones cannot apply. Am I right? 
David Bennett 
: Yes. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely and that is what we are trying to do. But the member from New Zealand First does not want a bar of it. He wants to support the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. He wants to support the Labour Government because I suppose it is part of the baubles of power. I do not know. 
David Bennett 
: He won’t support them on the new ones though. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well he will not support them on the new one either. I am trying to find out what Mr Brown’s position is. 
David Bennett 
: It depends on the case in front of him. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: So who decides whether it should be in or out? 
David Bennett 
: It depends on whether someone has come to him and said he or she is voting for New Zealand First 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: OK. So it all depends on whether someone comes before New Zealand First. So New Zealand First is now not only the judge and the jury but also the head of some sort of committee of moralistic people—they will decide. That is what they want to do rather than fixing up a piece of legislation—and it would be easy to fix it with the Supplementary Order Paper and then vote for it. There is nothing in the Supplementary Order Paper from David Bennett that is going to make this law any worse—in fact it will make it better—than it is now. So I cannot understand— 
Peter Brown 
: Read it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I have read it. I have read both pages of it. It is a great little Supplementary Order Paper. But the fact of the matter is that the Supplementary Order Paper allows people who have been in the industry for a long long time and who have a minor infraction to carry on so that we do not take their livelihood away. But it says to all the new people and the existing people that they cannot apply for it if they have done one of these things. That is all it says. So how can people be against it? That is all I ask. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of David Bennett to insert new subclause (1AA) in clause 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just caution members about the taking of votes. No other comment at all is allowed. I ask members to look at Speaker’s ruling 63/2 made by Speaker Hunt and also at Speaker’s ruling 63/5. It is highly disorderly to interject because it can be taken as intimidation and could lead to a breach of privilege. So I am just cautioning members.