Mallard Trevor: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That was a subdued approach from the member for Epsom the Minister for Small Business—the Minister who very rarely comes to the House. When he does come here he is normally a bit more excited. One might think that the animal remedies had been applied to him possibly a dose of horse tranquiliser or something like that to get the Minister to that level of stability. 
These bills are an interesting group of bills. Shall we start with the Statistics Amendment Bill? My question to the Minister in charge of the bill is whether this is of any assistance to lying people who do false returns as a result of their mayoral election campaigns. Can they fix the statistics that are lies in their returns as a result of the Statistics Amendment Bill we are currently considering? There is no answer—no answer whatsoever—from the Hon John Banks. I do not care whether he nods his head or shakes it I just want to see John Banks indicate that this is not a back-door method of getting him to fix the false returns that he so regularly makes on election returns. 
The Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) has amendments around how meetings are held. The question I have is whether this bill still requires people to have records of meetings and whether that would help to solve the amnesia that the Minister in charge of these bills John Banks has about meetings. Clearly he regularly forgets whom he has met with and when he has met with them and I wonder whether the “Methods of holding meetings” clause within this bill would be helpful. There is another clause in here which relates to the service of documents on offshore companies and I just want to ask whether there is any relationship between the documents—that is the cheques that John Banks regularly received from offshore companies including from Mr Kim Dotcom; we will get to Skycity in a second—and whether or not having those documents made public will be helped or hindered by this therefore checking whether there should be a declaration of self-interest on the part of the Hon John Banks in this area. There is a clause that relates to interest payable on outstanding payments. What about the money that John Banks has not paid back to Kim Dotcom the money that he took under false pretences from Kim Dotcom? The question is whether that $50000 will have to be returned in one cheque or two and whether or not there should be interest. That is a question that has to be raised. 
The Friendly Societies and Credit Union Amendment Bill which we are considering has to do with accounts that are held within organisations and the means of distribution. What I want to ask is whether there is any credit union account in the joint name of Skycity and the Hon John Banks. Is there any other method other than the brown paper bag full of money or the envelope with a cheque in it that John Banks has received— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to remind this member who has been around these premises for a very long time— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! If the member has a point of order he should make it clearly and not—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. He should not direct his comments about how long a member has been here or whatever. He should succinctly say what the point of order is about. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If the member has a point of order let us just— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: If you will allow me the point of order is that he is straying away from the subject matter of these bills and he is talking about matters that are totally irrelevant to the bills. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order the Chair is of course the sole judge of relevance but I would refer you to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill new section 117A “Meaning of distribution” inserted by clause 91A. I was talking about the distribution of— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: All right. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Is that enough? Are you happy? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You have brought me into it by asking about my state of mind and that is not appropriate. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. I believe the member was within the parameter of a third reading speech but that does not give him free licence. I will hear the member. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before when the member Sam Lotu-Iiga tried to make a point of order you cut him off rather tersely. I would ask that when— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! It is inappropriate to challenge the ruling in the manner that the member has done. The reason I cautioned Sam Lotu-Iiga was that he started referring to the member. He was using a point of order to cast aspersions on the member. That is the reason. Any member raising a point of order must do so tersely and they will find that quite clearly in the Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I was not challenging your ruling and I am not talking about your first ruling when you said that the member went on too long. It was the second time when you cut him off before he had even finished his point of order. He had not even spoken with respect and I am asking that going forward this side of the House is given a little bit of courtesy. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I hear the member but there is no requirement for the Speaker to hear a point of order in its entirety. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without wishing to relitigate the points that you have made in respect of the substance of the bill I am mindful of Speaker’s ruling 122/7 which states: “Members must confine themselves to the main purposes and contents of the bill;” and also of Speaker’s ruling 123/1(6) which says: “nor may a member go through the bill clause by clause;”. In order to draw the very long bow that the member is attempting to do I am suggesting that he may be straying from those particular rulings. Although you have ruled and I accept that I hope that some cognisance of those particular principles could be had. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not really need the member—let me just say this. Members will be aware that I have only just assumed the Chair. I have not had an opportunity to hear in detail what the member has said. I think the points are well made: we are talking about the principles of the bill. I will hear the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to talk about the distribution to members which is most of the substantive part of the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill which is one of the bills that we are currently debating. I also want to say that I do not regard it as an insult in any way to be described as a member who is experienced in the ways of the House. That is not an aspersion. I regard that—I know I am referring to your ruling and I probably should not— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think he is referring to your ruling. I obviously talked about his experience—or his lack of common sense I suppose. It sort of weighs that up. But he is referring to it and you should bring him into line I think. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will uphold that. The member was referring to the point of order and I invited him to get on with his speech. Please do so. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point that I want to make right now is that John Banks takes money from anyone. John Banks takes money from any route and I want an assurance that he is not using— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is way off beam from the contents and the topics of these bills. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I believe that is outside the main points of a third reading speech as outlined in Speaker’s ruling 122/7. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This bill deals with the distribution of funds. I want an assurance that as well as receiving money in plain envelopes money in brown paper bags and money from Kim Dotcom John Banks is not receiving money through credit unions. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I suggest that in order for this line of debate to be in order it would be necessary for the member to establish that Mr Banks is indeed a member of a New Zealand credit union. I should just seek that assurance that indeed he is in order that the debate may be brought within the scope of a third reading. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will uphold that. I think that we are talking about principles here and I would ask the member to draw those conclusions. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to talk about the security of payments from credit unions which is part of this bill and the authorisation of those and I want an assurance from the Minister in charge of the bill that this bill is not being used to hide yet another payment that he has received. He has history— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I again draw you back to the substance of the debate. In order for the speech in my view to be within the terms of the Standing Orders it would need to be established that the member who is being referred to in the debate is a member of the credit union. I ask again for that assurance lest he trivialise the Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I just want to totally refute that you have to prove that someone is a member of a credit union before asking the House to indicate that he is not receiving money from one. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just invite members to look at this. There is actually a suite of Speakers’ rulings on page 122 on third readings and they do require these sorts of points: “Members must confine themselves to the general principles of the bill as it emerged from the committee.” and “Members must confine themselves to the main purposes and contents of the bill;”. I just ask members that that be their guide when they are speaking. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The main purpose of this bill is to control the distribution of funds from credit unions. That is what this bill is about. I just want an assurance from the Minister in charge of the bill that the distribution systems around this are sufficient to prevent dirty money getting to him the way that dirty money has got to him— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without drawing you towards Speaker’s ruling 79/1 I strongly suggest the member is now trivialising your rulings and termination must be an option. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member was fine in the first part of his assertions about the requirement of the bill. To actually personalise it in the way that he did is a step beyond a third reading speech. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to raise an issue with you which is that in order for you be able to judge these matters you need to be able to hear out the member and it is up to you to interrupt members if you feel they are straying off. There are actually Speakers’ rulings about continually interrupting members during their speech—it is very clearly out of order—which is clearly what is happening here. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I think I am also seeking an assurance that you have actually looked at what is in this bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is almost a step too far. I am familiar with the bill can I assure you of that. I think the points that have been made on both sides are reasonably valid. Points of order could be used for continual interruption but also I would just caution the member that a third reading speech is a little more confined than other speeches. I have directed the member to talk about the principles of the bill. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to prolong this but a direct accusation has been made that I am deliberately interrupting the member’s speech. I want to give the House an assurance that that is not the case and indeed I want him to complete his speech. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I hear the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it would probably be helpful if we moved on to the next bill. This happens to be the Takeovers Amendment Bill and it is a Brash-Banks clause in the Takeovers Amendment Bill. Is this the one they rolled Rodney Hide with? Is this the one that they rolled Rodney with the Takeovers Amendment Bill? Would this prevent the sort of fraud that was involved in that? A combination of this and the Statistics Amendment Bill which we are dealing with—do they between them— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has alleged fraud against a sitting member. That is unparliamentary. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I was just trying to pick up the exact context. I know that the member did reference fraud but I did not actually pick that he tied it to a member. He said that this is the sort of fraud. In that regard he did not tag it to a member. He is skirting very very close to the wind but he is just inside the boundary on that one. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The question I was going to ask is whether a combination of this and the Statistics Amendment Bill could be used to stop the publication of false polls by fraud in the way that Dr Brash and Mr Banks did before the last election when they were rolling Rodney Hide. They said that a Brash-Banks - led ACT Party would in fact get 15 percent. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How did that work out? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think that was fraud. I think that was fraud. Brash was not a member of Parliament and Banks was not a member of Parliament at the time but their activities were certainly a fraud on the ACT Party. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is far too much of a nuance. He is alleging fraud in relation to the member John Banks. That may be in the past before he was a member but it is still unparliamentary to do that given that John Banks is a sitting member. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Are you speaking to this point of order? 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: No I am raising another point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I need to rule on that one. I am listening very carefully and I guess by inference one could claim that the member has done that. But he has actually stopped short of associating it or tagging it directly to the member. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The chief whip of the Government has asked you about whether that member is trivialising your rulings because takeovers as pertaining to what is in this bill have nothing to do with what the member is referring to. I ask you to please ask him to point out where the relevance is to this bill because he is clearly trifling with your rulings. I ask that termination be an option. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order you are the sole judge of relevance and for a member to tell you to take that into account is in itself disorderly. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There is a range of issues that are coming forward here. One is continual interruption and the requirement of the Speaker to make those rulings. The member who is speaking is actually in a way getting close enough to the line that he is baiting members. So there is a bit of to and fro on either side about this matter. The House can choose whether it wants to move forward. I invite the member to direct his comments at the bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Can you just give me an indication of how much longer I have got? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just over 2 minutes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are only two of the bills that I will have time to refer to. One is the Registered Architects Amendment Bill and the question is whether in fact this bill will give recognition to architects and to particular houses and whether that would help some people’s memory. I know of someone who forgot that they went to the Chrisco mansion. The other thing is the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill and this has to do I understand with radio programming and spectrum licences. My question to the Minister in charge of the bill is whether again this will be helpful in the redevelopment of memory. In this particular case when asked about his relationship with Kim Dotcom he said: “I’m not in a relationship with that man. He is married.”