Volume 611 Week 37 - Wednesday 17 September 2003 
Volume 611 Week 37 - Wednesday 17 September 2003 
[Volume:611;Page:8735] 
Wednesday 17 September 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I promised the House yesterday that I would respond to points of order raised following my statement that I had initiated discussions with the Commissioner of Police on police access to the parliamentary precincts. 
It has been suggested that there may be some advantage in having the Privileges Committee examine any proposed rules or protocol. While I emphasise that as Speaker and the statutory occupier of the precincts I will make the final decision on the procedures I think that there is merit in this suggestion. I intend therefore to present draft procedures to the House when it resumes after the adjournment. The House can then if it wishes refer the draft to the Privileges Committee for its consideration. 
I was asked to elaborate on my office’s contact with the police prior to the police’s decision to lay charges against Mr Ardern. The police did speak to my office on the day after the incident occurred seeking to meet with me to discuss possible action. In accordance with my previous direction which I had communicated to Mr Ardern when I met him immediately after the incident the police were informed that the Speaker did not wish to be involved in discussions about police action. That was a matter for them. The police accepted that and indicated that in those circumstances they would probably seek to interview Mr Ardern and another person who had ridden a scooter on the steps. 
I was informed at the time that the police had sought to meet with me but not of the details of the conversation. However as I indicated to the House yesterday I became aware of the police’s announced intention to interview Mr Ardern shortly before delivering the ruling on Thursday when the staff member involved specifically drew my attention to it. That this aspect of the conversation was not emphasised to me earlier was consistent with my express wish not to be involved with the police’s decision on the matter and I do not see it as at all significant. It is clear however that members the police and Parliamentary Service staff need clearer guidance as to police conduct in Parliament Buildings. It is such guidance that I intend to give my attention to as a result of the devising of the procedures that I have already mentioned. 
Mr Peters made a number of allegations about my involvement in decisions resulting from an incident that occurred in the grounds in May. When he raised the matter I was at first unable to recall it at all until reminded of the details by Mr Franks who had rung me about it at the time. I have since met with Mr Franks to refresh my recollection of the incident. 
I have to say that I think that it is most unfortunate that this matter has been brought up at all. It concerned an individual whose close relative was the victim of an appalling crime and who was acting under intense personal strain as a consequence. The individual who caused some damage to the lawns presented himself to the police. The police contacted the Parliamentary Service security staff and asked if they could meet with me to explain the background to the incident. This they subsequently did with me along with Parliamentary Service management. At that meeting the police indicated that they preferred to take no action in the case. I agreed that this was an appropriate and a humane decision while emphasising that the matter was entirely at their discretion. 
Mr Franks who also knew the history of the matter rang me before the police called on me to ask that the matter be treated sympathetically. After the meeting with the police I called him back to tell him that I thought that matters had been resolved satisfactorily. 
In response to Mr Peters I did not direct that the person not be charged. Indeed I have no power to do so. I did indicate that for the reasons given I agreed with the police’s preference not to prosecute. What the police conveyed to the person concerned I have of course no way of knowing. 
There is one further thing I want to say to the House. Last week I acknowledged that I had been in error in speaking to the news media about Mr Ardern especially when inquiries into his conduct by the police were still under way. I apologised to the member for that and do so again. But that does not mean that as Speaker I intend to submit myself to allegations and wholesale cross-questioning of my actions. If members wish to express criticism of the Speaker as is their right the appropriate way to do so is to put down a notice of motion not to do so by way of a point of order or in the course of debate. My door is always open to members who wish to express their opinions to me frankly and freely. Indeed if there is one charge that I do plead guilty to it is that I have operated an open-door policy. I do not intend to change that. I do intend however to uphold the dignity of the Speakership of the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for your rulings and your comments. That leaves at least one matter outstanding in respect of Mr Ardern. A notice of motion has been lodged around the issue of the evidence that the police took from Mr Ardern potentially in breach of the privileges of this House. Mr Ardern is now scheduled to appear in court I think on Friday week and the question of privilege of course raises the issue of whether the police obtained that evidence in a proper way. The matter is now left just hanging loose and we are keen to see it clarified. I note that that may involve some degree of retrospectivity if you are to institute procedures from a date in the future that clarify or restate what has long been the tradition of the House. I would not want that suggestion of retrospectivity to cut across the need for a determination of the circumstances around Shane Ardern’s case and the role of the police in collecting that evidence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. As far as that is concerned I am advised that that is a matter for the courts to decide. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have had a chance to examine your ruling briefly and I have to say with the greatest respect that I do not appreciate being told it is unfortunate that I have raised a serious issue with this Parliament. That is the first thing I want to say. Secondly the proper course is not always to put down a notice of motion because frankly members are seeking information before deciding whether such a decision may be the correct course of action. I say that with the greatest of gravity because we in this Parliament needed to know the facts. For example— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. I will not have debate on my ruling entered into in this way. If the member wants to put down a motion he can do so and that is proper. He is invited to do so. As far as I am concerned I have made a ruling and at this time I do not want to have that ruling challenged. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I asked you yesterday whether you thought it was appropriate proper and fitting that you judge the situation you said: “No I will not. The House will judge it and that is where it should be.” That is precisely my argument—that is that this House will judge it. One cannot determine at this point in time that a notice of motion is the appropriate course of action. For example I asked for the police report. I want to know why it does not square with your explanation today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 14/7 which goes back to 1891 and there have been numerous similar rulings since then. It states: “The Speaker’s ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice.” That is where that matter ends. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You might go back centuries to a ruling but I say to you that that would be a very unfortunate position for you to take because you now leave me with no option whatsoever but to seek such a motion. I have simply asked for information to ensure that the matter sits on all fours with what we have been told and you have said—contrary to what you said yesterday when you said this matter would be judged by the House—that that is not to happen. 
I am not bringing the case of Mr Ardern as an example. I am raising the issue in respect of an incident on 21 May. How many trail bikes could have been vandalising the lawns of Parliament? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. Of course he has a perfect right to move that motion and that is provided for in that Speaker’s ruling. I am bound by the Speakers’ rulings of this House and when they go back over 112 years then I think that that indicates that there was good reason for them then and good reason for them to be continued now. That is where the matter must rest. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is an important issue and I would like you to take a minute to be a bit clearer about the answer you gave to the Hon Bill English when he raised the point of order relating to essentially the status that may now be placed upon the evidence collected by the police from Mr Ardern when they did visit these premises. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will do that now. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If I can I will just ask a simple question. Have you said that the matter of privilege in this case is to be at least in part determined by the court? It would seem that in normal cases evidence that is illegally gathered is not admissible. In this case if the evidence was gathered by illegal means surely that does have a material effect on Mr Ardern’s case. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two issues here. I think the second issue is whether an issue of privilege is involved and that is the one that should concern the House. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise that as a matter of privilege then the way to do so is not by way of a point of order. He should have raised it as an issue of privilege with you in the appropriate fashion and if it is your determination that an issue of privilege is not involved that is the end of the matter. Again that is not a matter to be raised by way of point of order in the House. That is dealing with a Speaker’s ruling and again such a ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice. Clearly you have either made a decision that an issue of privilege is not involved which is the end of the matter in the House or you have yet to make a decision on that matter in which case when you have made a decision you will report it to the House and the Privileges Committee will deal with it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say to members and I make this point because a member asked me to clarify it that I think that is a fair question. The member is assuming that the evidence was illegally gathered— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No if he is assuming that it is not the same as a breach of privilege. Illegality is a matter for the court. The admissibility of evidence in court is a matter for the court and I have no discretion to rule evidence admissible or inadmissible. I have no discretion to do that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I may be able to help Mr Peters. I am not quite sure what his questions are but I think it is helpful for you to remind the House that under Standing Order 364(2) questions can be put to the Speaker but they have to be put in writing. If the member has some questions that is the procedure by which to raise them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely right. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Office of the Clerk returned four questions submitted by me for written answer with the notation that the questions were out of order because the matter was sub judice. Two of those questions were addressed to you as Speaker and two to the Minister of Police. The question as to whether matters are sub judice is under Standing Order 112 a matter for the Speaker. I want to raise two questions not to criticise a ruling you have made but to seek your further consideration on both counts. 
Firstly I want to raise the question of whether Standing Order 112 should have been applied in the case of those four questions. The Standing Order as you know refers to matters awaiting judicial decision. I lodged four questions that related to details of communications between yourself and your office the Minister of Police and his office and officers of the New Zealand police force. Those communications I submit to you are not matters before the court. The matter before the court relates to some allegations about the member for Taranaki - King Country in relation to disorderly behaviour not whether the Speaker or the Minister of Police have discharged their obligations to the House in an appropriate manner. So I first ask whether in fact that was a matter in respect of which you should properly have considered the exercise of a discretion under Standing Order 112. 
Secondly I ask that you give consideration to whether such discretion was exercised appropriately even if there were grounds to exercise it. The Standing Order makes it clear that the purpose of that discretion is to enable the Speaker to rule out of order a matter where in his judgment that course is necessary to avoid—and I quote from the Standing Order—“a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” In this case the purpose of the Standing Order is to ensure that Mr Ardern gets a fair hearing. But that with respect is not the effect of your ruling. The effect of your ruling is to shield the Minister of Police and Mr Speaker from questions that I suggest members are perfectly entitled to ask of you. That is not the purpose for which I understand the discretion to exist in the Standing Orders. 
Accordingly I ask you to reconsider firstly whether Standing Order 112 should have been applied here and secondly whether the discretion was exercised appropriately. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will do that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Having just said to Mr Peters that he should use the procedure of written questions and then been told that an honourable member has done so but has had the questions rejected I feel obliged to rise to make two comments to you. 
The first is that Standing Order 112 is not a ban on asking questions. It is a ban only if the Speaker believes that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of a case. My understanding from the media is that Mr Ardern is facing a disorderly conduct offence which is a minor matter. It will not be heard in front of a jury. It will be heard by a District Court judge and it stretches credibility to believe that a District Court judge would be influenced by—I do not want to be insulting to the member—a written question put down by a member of Parliament. I find that very hard to believe. 
My second point—and I completely accept the statements you made to this House—is that if you have not directed the police in any way it would seem to me that it is extremely difficult to see how an answer you gave could in any way influence or prejudice the case. If the question was put down to the Minister of Police the Minister of Police in New Zealand is statutorily barred from giving directions to the police in a prosecution. If he has given directions then our Standing Orders should not be used to protect him from that matter. I am not saying that he has; I am assuming that he has not. In that case it is very hard to see how those questions—and I know that I am speaking hypothetically because I have not seen them—could be ruled out under Standing Order 112 especially when members look at  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 on the matter. For example I remind you of Speaker’s ruling 25/3 from Speaker Wall who said that the only reason for that ruling was that the discussion could prejudice the case. I would be incredulous if a member of Parliament could think up a question that would influence a District Court judge. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comments and also the member who raised the matter. I appreciate the way he raised it. I shall give some thought to the matter and I will have a ruling by the end of the afternoon. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to return to the matter that was raised by the Deputy Prime Minister who stated that issues around Mr Ardern and whether the police evidence was gathered correctly could well be matters of privilege and should have been raised accordingly. Mr Speaker you know that a letter has been sent to you as a matter of privilege on this issue and I am wondering whether we can expect a ruling from you before the adjournment. We have a problem in that tomorrow is the last sitting day of the House before the adjournment and Mr Ardern is due to appear in court during the adjournment. You dealt with the matter relating to Mr Duynhoven very swiftly. We do not want this decision to take a long time. We would ask that you act with the same haste with this letter as you obviously did with the matter relating to Mr Duynhoven. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can give the member an assurance that this matter will be replied to. Of course I do not mention to anybody that I have received a letter. In fact I am sure that nobody else knows of this apart from the person who wrote the letter whom I will not identify. However I will have an answer for the member before the House rises. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The inference from the last sentence of the member’s point of order was that he was implying that in some way you might be treating Mr Ardern differently from Mr Duynhoven. I understand from the little I have managed to listen to from the House over the last 2 or 3 weeks that the main complaint from Opposition members was that you did not deal with Mr Duynhoven’s case quickly enough at the time. Now they seem to be claiming that you dealt with it extremely expeditiously. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order under Standing Order 364(2) which states: “Questions for written answer may be put to the Speaker relating to any matter of administration for which the Speaker is responsible.” The operative words here are “is responsible”. My complaint Mr Speaker is that you are not responsible for the matter that I raised and that there should be no implication that any exercise of your powers was carried out in an irresponsible way. I want to know where that leaves me in the sense that I cannot put a question to you on this issue because it is ruled out by that very significant Standing Order. If you have no responsibility then how can you possibly reply to me? I have asked for the police report. I want to see it. With the greatest of respect it is at variance with what you told the House today and until I see it I will not rest on this matter. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 To take the member’s last point first he states that he wants to see the police report because he claims it is at variance with what you were saying Mr Speaker. If he has seen the police report then I am not quite clear why he is asking to see it. If he has not seen it then I am not quite clear how he can claim it is at variance with things that you have said. I come back to what you are responsible for Mr Speaker. Standing Order 33 states: “The control and administration of the whole of the parliamentary grounds and buildings is vested in the Speaker on behalf of the House whether Parliament is in session or otherwise.” I understand that that relates also to the steps of the Parliament Buildings. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have not seen the police report but my witness claims that the phone call was made whilst he was being processed which is at variance with the statement that you saw the police at a later date. One is an example of something happening coeval with the event and the other is your claim to the House that you saw the police at a later date. Both statements cannot be true. I am not doubting your word but I would like to see the police report nevertheless. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Asking for a police report is not a matter of order. It has nothing to do with my chairing of this House. 
Business of Select Committees 
Membership 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Sue Kedgley to be a member of the Government Administration Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Building Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee must finally report the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill to be extended to 13 October 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Motions 
Privileges Committee Proceedings—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to move as a non-debatable motion members’ motion No. 3 in my name “That this House instruct the Privileges Committee to monitor the proceedings against Hon Dr Nick Smith in respect of alleged contempt of the Family Court so as to ensure that the freedom of speech of members of this House is fully protected …”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to move that motion without debate. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No leave is either granted or not granted. Is there any objection? There is. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I support the motion proposed by Stephen Franks because it is the view of United Future that it is a matter of importance. I seek leave for the matter to be debated by the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the matter to be debated by the House. Is there any objection? There is. 
Questions to Ministers 
National Bank—Sale 
1. MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on his powers in relation to the potential sale of the National Bank? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have very very little by way of effective powers of intervention in this case and I am amazed that anyone would suggest differently especially someone with a background in commercial law as Mr Stephen Franks has. 
Mark Peck 
: What tests will the Minister apply to any sale? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Reserve Bank will be required to give written consent and it can impose conditions—for example local incorporation—to protect the financial system in the event of bank failure. The Commerce Commission will determine whether any purchase is anti-competitive. The Overseas Investment Commission will decide whether the potential purchasers meet the prudential requirements of the Overseas Investment Act. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Minister taken any steps at all to assist the Reserve Bank to protect the interests of the New Zealand banking sector against the adverse effects of Australian banking law which of course gives a preference to Australian depositors vis-à-vis the depositors of other countries? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have raised that issue with the Australian Treasurer. The Australian Government has indicated it is not likely to be making any changes in that regard. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can he confirm that after Dr Rod Carr former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank publicly described Australian’s banking laws as “predatory regulation” the Reserve Bank asked him to support at Government to Government level our bank’s efforts to protect New Zealand depositors with Australian banks; and until there is more than zero movement from Australia why should Aussies who want the National Bank not be told “transaction declined”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member has not listened to what I said. The Minister of Finance does not make those decisions. Those decisions are made by the Reserve Bank and when the member asks me in public to tell the Reserve Bank what to do in this regard I assume we would apply the same criteria to the operation of monetary policy. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that the response of the Australian Government runs counter to the spirit of closer economic relations since he was simply exercising I think his responsibility to ensure that New Zealand depositors do get equal treatment in the event that an Australian-owned bank purchases the National Bank? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly my preference would be to see that issue dealt with directly and indeed by means of a combined Australia - New Zealand approach on those matters. In the absence of that of course the Reserve Bank thinks the legislation passed quite quickly through this House recently now has greater substantial powers to deal with the issue by other means. 
Mark Peck 
: What powers if any does the Minister have under the Overseas Investment Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have the right to refuse approval if the purchase involves sensitive land. I am advised that the National Bank owns no such land. I could call in a delegation from the Overseas Investment Commission in relation to prudential criteria. These other purchasers must have business experience demonstrated financial commitment and be of good character. Without prejudicing what the Overseas Investment Commission may decide I think any New Zealand Minister of Finance who declared the ANZ Bank did not have business experience and demonstrated financial commitment and was not of good character would be risking some form of reputational response. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Government Proposals 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Do any of the four fundamental principles for proposed foreshore and seabed legislation as expressed in the Government proposals for consultation published by her department include any references to co-management kaitiakitanga and guardianship; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Government proposal on the principle of protection outlines the current protection of customary rights including reference to kaitiakitanga and guardianship as provided for in the Resource Management Act passed by National in 1991. This is a useful precedent as are other Acts and the customary-fishing regulations passed under National Governments. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that in the Government’s popular publication there is no reference to these concepts and why is it that when she talks on mainstream media she talks about absolute non-negotiable bottom lines but when she goes to the marae she talks about compromise and negotiation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The first point to make is that one does not get 36 pages of a discussion document into a pamphlet. The second point is I have not of course been at the hui. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister why she has changed her view as expressed by three different and one assumes independent journalists of the press gallery on 24 June—in the  
New Zealand Herald  
in the first instance in the  
Dominion Post  
in the second instance and in the  
Nelson Mail 
 in a New Zealand Press Association report in the third instance—all of which have the following statements: “But Prime Minister Helen Clark said ownership of the seabed and foreshore had long been considered to lie with the Crown and legislation would clarify that.”? That is the import of three independent journalists’ view of what she said on 23 June; why is she ducking and diving and changing her mind now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I have consistently said is that clarifying legislation would be required and it will be. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Where is the Government’s moral mandate for so-called clarifying legislation to have 15 percent of the population co-managing and having guardianship of our beaches; and how does she know that when she not only has not fronted up—as she has just told us—to any of the hui but has not been prepared to front up at any public meeting with any New Zealander on this issue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Presumably the same mandate that led a previous Government to put such concepts into various pieces of legislation and regulations. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to warn people again. I have called Metiria Turei and she alone has the floor. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given Michael Cullen’s statement at Omahu Marae that the Government’s bottom line is no further private exclusive title and that no Maori at the hui has sought private exclusive title will the Government now engage with Maori in a negotiation based on this common ground? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised by the Deputy Prime Minister that the assertion about what Maori have not asserted is simply not true. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister in the light of her response to my supplementary question yesterday that she agreed with the assertion that all New Zealanders of whatever origin indivisibly and equally owned a share of the foreshore and seabed whether at the hui that Ministers have been able to get into without having their security compromised or threatened or being otherwise abused there have been concepts of ownership advanced that would be consistent with that position? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand there have been some submissions that have indeed supported the Government proposal that these areas should in effect be a commons. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Crown will exercise the principle of regulation on its own or in partnership with iwi? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said there are rather interesting precedents for co-management. I could for example cite the precedent of the mataitai reserves which provide under 1998 fisheries regulations for hands-on management by kaitiaki of all non-commercial fishing activity in traditional fishing grounds. That was in 1998 under a previous Government—maybe it was all right then and is not now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister denying that on 23 June she and Margaret Wilson told a press conference the following as reported by David McLoughlin of the  
Dominion Post  
the next day: “Ms Wilson and Prime Minister Helen Clark said the planned law change would clarify that the Crown and thus the public in general owned beach foreshores and the seabed.” or as reported by none other than Audrey Young on the same day: “But Prime Minister Helen Clark said ownership of the seabed and foreshore had long been considered to lie with the Crown and legislation would clarify that.”? Why is she now trying to do a doublespeak on that and say she did not say it in the first place—that ownership belonged to the Crown? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am very aware of what I said on 23 June at a press conference which was that clarifying legislation would be required. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Prime Minister is willing to confirm the second part of the statement which is that clarifying legislation would be introduced why can she not confirm the first part of the statement that ownership had long been considered to lie with the Crown—or is she being selective? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That statement was made some days earlier and it is not correct to link the two as being made on one day. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I take it from the Prime Minister that every journalist there—all of whom repeated the words that the foreshore and seabed issue would be clarified to the extent that ownership would lie with the Crown—got it wrong that they are all telling a tissue of lies and that she alone is telling the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I can say is that on 23 June I was very clear that clarifying legislation would be required. I did not say what it would be. I look forward to that member clarifying his party’s position that there should be Crown ownership so that he does not con Maori again like he did in 1996. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Apparently we have a most interesting circumstance here. The Prime Minister has no idea of what her policy is or of what she said but she has certainty about ours. Well I can understand that: ours makes sense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the House to understand that the moral authority for this Government’s legislation on the beaches is that in 1998 the National Government introduced legislation into the House; if so why is the Prime Minister not prepared to front up at hui and public meetings and tell us all that the reason the Labour Government is passing something is that National did it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That would never be a good reason. The basis for concepts like this being put into law and regulations under both the present and previous Governments is that Governments in this day and age endeavour to see how the treaty can be made relevant. That is why these concepts are adopted. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that on 23 June the view of herself and her Government was that legislation clarifying that foreshore and seabed ownership would lie with the Crown—that that was a statement she made—but then she got hit with a revolt from the seven dwarfs and she changed her mind in the next few months? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not having that comment made. If that is a reference to any member of Parliament the member will withdraw and apologise for it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How could you assume that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want the member’s assurance that he was not referring to a member of Parliament. Will he give that assurance now? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will tell you what I will do. I will repeat the words “seven dwarfs” for as long as I like but until I give a name to them you will not make an imputation about it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to know whether that is a reference to any member of Parliament. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will give me that answer or he will be leaving the Chamber. I want to know whether that was a reference to any member of Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You are not going to tell me what I am thinking—all right? I will use that phrase and so will I expect any self-respecting member of Parliament— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to have an answer. The member will be seated or he will be leaving. I want an assurance that that was not a reference to any member of Parliament. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You are not going to get it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member leaves the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Here we go again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member leaves the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Prime Minister’s answer before that the two parts of the published statement were made on different days can she confirm to the House whether she ever said—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr English. You are perfectly entitled to have your question asked in silence and I now ask you to start again. 
Hon Bill English 
: It is not another one of their walk-ins is it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know. The member will just ask the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm whether she ever made her reported comments that ownership of the seabed and foreshore had long been assumed to lie with the Crown? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On the Friday before that press conference I did indeed make that statement and I believe I was justified in making it given one’s recollection that they were deemed to be vested in the Crown. That was another matter from what was said on 23 June at the press conference which was when I said that clarifying legislation would be required and I was non-specific about what. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is set down to ask question No. 4 and I ask that he be allowed to return to the House to ask that question and a number of supplementary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No because the member has been asked to leave. It is bad luck on this occasion. He cannot do that. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I draw your attention to the fact that it was not too long ago that another member—I think it was the Hon Dr Nick Smith—was asked to leave by your good self and you saw fit to allow the member back in to ask his questions then leave again afterwards. I ask you to show the same consideration to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: My recollection is that the incident with Dr Smith did not involve a direct challenge to the authority of the Chair as Mr Peters’ behaviour did and I am sure that was a factor you have taken into account. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is exactly the point I would make. In fact I wanted to be generous on that occasion because Dr Smith did not challenge the Chair. Mr Peters did and he stays out for this question time. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you tell me where in the Standing Orders is categorised the degree to which a member has to leave for this type of punishment or that type of punishment? Consistency should be shown to all members of Parliament asked to leave the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. Any disorderly behaviour as I see it and when the member refused to accede to my request that was disorderly. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is probably valuable for the House to get a better steer on exactly what your rulings are surrounding Mr Peters’ removal from the House. It seems to me that the issue that Mr Peters was advancing was a reasonable one. The Speaker should not assume to know the thoughts of a member by putting some imputation upon the words that member has spoken. I am now a little unclear as to what the ruling that will obviously now appear in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 will say on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Quite simply it is this. I asked whether the member was referring to a member of the House. I am perfectly entitled to do that. It has been done on occasion by every Speaker who has ever sat in this Chair because comments can be ironic or epithetical. If I had had an assurance that it was not a reference to a member of the House then that would have been the end of the matter. The member refused to give that assurance. He disobeyed an instruction and he was asked to leave. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to have it clear that a member has to be very careful how he or she refers to another member that one cannot use the word “dwarf” to refer to another member and that somehow the word “dwarf” is now out of order and you are ruling on our freedom of speech in that regard. I believe that the use of the word “dwarf” is quite appropriate in a parliamentary sense. Some of us might be giants and some of us might be dwarfs. It all varies. Some of us might be bald and some of us might not be. Are you now ruling that the word “dwarf” is not acceptable in the New Zealand Parliament to describe another member? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I ruled that out because the member—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] If that member continues to interject he should be removed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He will be if I find out who it was. 
Hon Members 
: It was David Cunliffe! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to ask the member whether he was interjecting when the point of order was being discussed. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Yes I was Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right leave the Chamber. 
Hon David Cunliffe withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: My point of order is that under Standing Order 365(1)(b) questions should not contain arguments inferences imputations epithets ironical expressions and the like so the question was actually out of order under that matter. I think it might assist Mr Peters to know that all he needed to do was actually withdraw that statement. You have not actually ruled that the colourful expression “the seven dwarfs” is unparliamentary. That is another matter for general debate. All you have said is that it is not appropriate in a question—and it most certainly is not. We all know that it actually is a reference to members because in previous statements that we have heard he has said so. I suggest that if Mr Peters and his whips want to talk to you what they ought to do is to arrange for Mr Peters to come back and withdraw and apologise for those remarks—if they want him to participate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very good thought but I gave the member a number of chances to do that. I think he defied the Chair and that is the reason he was asked to leave. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you have not ruled on the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I have. 
Dail Jones 
: Is “dwarf” now out of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it refers in an ironic or an epithetical way to any member of this House of course it is. There are a large number of words that are out of order as far as describing members is concerned. If the member reads the Standing Orders he will see that members are to be described as members as honourable members or by their rank or office. 
Road Transport—Funding 
3.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the Minister of Transport’s statement to the Road Transport Forum yesterday that “The car … is behind unprecedented demand for funding which has not kept pace with vehicle use.”; if so does he have any plans for addressing this transport funding shortfall in next year’s budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
:  
Yes as so often I agree with my colleague the Minister of Transport. A range of work is proceeding on how to fund future roading demands particularly in the Auckland region. 
Larry Baldock 
: Noting widespread public concern that the diversion of petrol excise tax revenue into the consolidated account is a key contributor to the transport funding shortfall has the Government completed its economic analysis into how this diversion can be justified as mentioned in reply to an oral question earlier this year; and when will the results of this analysis be released to the public? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member may recall that before the last election the Automobile Association and other organisations released documentation that showed that if the Government was to recover the full cost of roading from excise duty then excise duty would have to be increased substantially. The so-called diversion into the Crown account I am afraid is a well-worn myth but a myth none the less. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Does the Minister support the use of network tolling and congestion pricing as methods to gain extra capital for new roading projects; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those issues are under consideration at the moment. It would be premature of me at this instance to give an indication of the likely outcome of that. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the answer to the last question from Larry Baldock is the Minister telling this House that Government policy is framed around what the Automobile Association suggests or thinks or submits or do they do their independent assessments of various situations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No although the Government obviously takes considerable notice of what the Automobile Association says. The Automobile Association’s claims were based on Government documents. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does he accept that the lack of investment in roading is a major constraint to economic development in this country; if so why will he not rapidly expedite legislation that would allow Auckland to urgently complete its motorways and stop squandering public money on railways and rail corridors? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Part of the answer to roading demand is also total demand management and reasonable alternatives to roading including rail. Were we to pass legislation right now if what I assume the member is referring to is public-private partnerships firstly it is far from clear how many of the Auckland roads would qualify in a commercial sense especially as the costs continue to escalate—[ 
Interruption 
] None? Well the member says so; I shall take her word on it. Secondly of course none of those roads are ready for construction immediately as far as I understand it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister recall the British attempt to match traffic growth and funding dollar for kilometre known as “Maggie Thatcher’s Great Car Economy” which failed spectacularly to deliver anything other than traffic jams and does he agree that current balanced transport policy that looks at infrastructure needs alternatives to roading and demand management is a far more sensible approach? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I do although I do confess that I do not anticipate seeing all Aucklanders cycling or walking to work within the foreseeable future. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm in relation to a question asked earlier this year that the Government was undertaking some economic analysis as to the justification for money coming from the petrol excise tax and into the consolidated account? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is the Crown account. We have not had a consolidated account for many years although people continue to use that term. Yes work has been done and all the conclusions from the work that I am aware of are that there is no case to be made that substantial diversion is in fact occurring. The Government does not recover the full economic costs of the roading system—a point of course that Tranz Rail has made in a different context. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister let us know when that information and analysis may be made available to the public so they can also have the benefit of the work that has been done? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will consult my colleague the Minister of Transport and come back to the member. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask the Minister to say that he will come back not only to the member. As other members are interested in this issue I ask the Minister to come back to everybody. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not really a point of order but the Minister might like to comment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would be happy to try to make the information available to all members. 
Refugees—Ministerial Confidence 
4. DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 on behalf of  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: With regard to the refugee situation does she have confidence in the Minister of Immigration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dail Jones 
: In what way does she believe the Minister of Immigration has assisted for example the five women two of whom are confirmed as having HIV—the other three are not confirmed—through the deliberate actions of Shingirayi Nyarirangwe the refugee from Zimbabwe facing multiple counts of rape male assaults and infecting another person with HIV and why has this individual not had deportation actions commenced against him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This matter is presently before the courts. These are very serious charges and if the person concerned is found guilty the Minister would normally seek his removal from New Zealand such is the seriousness of the charges. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports of damage being done to New Zealand’s reputation in other countries of importance to New Zealand’s economic future by questions such as this targeting immigrants in the Parliament of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I was very concerned to see a report today about a growing backlash against our country from reports that appear in Asian media about anti-Asian sentiment here. We are advised in this report in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that it specifically refers to coverage of Mr Peters’ attacks on immigration. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The points the Prime Minister made may well be valid and might well be a valid answer to some other question but the question being asked today was about a refugee from Zimbabwe. Unless my geography has gone hopelessly astray I cannot imagine Asians being in any way sympathetic to this bloke being here. In fact they must wonder why we have not thrown him out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a long way away from the principal question and I agree with the member to that extent. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Prime Minister now telling the House that she does not support condemnation of people such as Shingirayi Nyarirangwe who has inflicted HIV on at least two other people and that she is concerned what the Chinese people might say about reports that New Zealanders want to deport people from Zimbabwe who are infecting New Zealand women? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in response to the member’s earlier supplementary question these are very serious charges and if the man is convicted then the Minister would in the normal course of events seek to deport. I then referred in a further supplementary answer to the constant cheap politics in this House by an anti-immigration party. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Prime Minister support New Zealand First’s condemnation of African immigrants who are inflicting AIDS and HIV on New Zealand women—yes or no? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Unlike New Zealand First I unreservedly condemn any person who does that. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It took two questions to get that answer from the Prime Minister. You are rationing the supplementary questions in this House and I want to voice my concern that we are absolutely wasting questions when it takes two questions to get from the Prime Minister an answer where she actually condemns something and agrees with New Zealand First. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as the question was concerned there was a question that was wide of the mark but that was asked by another member. I will have a look at that particular issue. 
Ethnic Communities—Conservation 
5.  
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What progress if any has been made in engaging ethnic communities in conservation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Excellent progress! For example my department is working closely with the Chinese Conservation Education Trust. It now has over 600 members and is making a huge practical contribution to conservation. In addition the Department of Conservation is in partnership with the Pacific Island community’s Tapa Trust which targets conservation work in New Zealand and in the Pacific Islands. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What have been some of the outcomes of this engagement? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: A much greater awareness among Asian and Pacific communities about the reasons for restrictions on trade in endangered species and the importance of border biosecurity financial contributions towards pest control and hands-on involvement in nature restoration projects such as that on Motutapu Island. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What efforts have been undertaken to protect the rare and endangered nocturnal green parrot? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not sure whether the Green Parrott is under threat from new ethnic minorities although I could mention that there is at least one member of this House who seems to spend a great deal of time there in the early hours of the morning. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is being facetious. [ 
Interruption 
] There are a number of people who sometimes enjoy that place. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given your concern for we people of short stature and the derogatory epithets that may be cast upon us I ask whether you are going to seek the same assurance that aspersions will not be cast upon people whose faces appear in photographs down at the Green Parrott such as your good self former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Mike Moore and the Hon Annette King and whether those disparaging comments were not in some way intended. I ask whether you will seek the same assurance from this member that he is not casting dispersions—aspersions or even dispersions—dispersing aspersions on honourable members and if he refuses to respond whether you will chuck him out of the House just like you did previously with Mr Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have dealt with that issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect I do not think that issue has been dealt with. Notwithstanding the difficulties that Mr Mark might have got into over the enunciation of his point— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not worry about that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Good. Well the real point is whether this Minister set out to cast aspersions on other members of this House. I do not think it is unreasonable that he be asked whether that was his intention and if it was he should be treated the same as Mr Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did rule his reply out of order but I now suggest that he withdraw and apologise to the number of members concerned. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Document Disclosure 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statements: “I believe in total disclosure on this.” “I’m not putting any restrictions on anyone talking about it.” and “I am very happy for officials to speak completely openly because there’s nothing to hide.” in respect to “corngate”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As I advised the member last week those statements were made on 11 July the day after the Nicky Hager book appeared when I said that officials should come forward to brief the media on what had happened and they did that very day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does she reconcile her statement to the House that she could not explain why key documents to her were kept secret and that the select committee should recall Dr Prebble the head of her department to answer those questions with her Labour members on the committee voting against my very motion in that regard? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is entirely a matter for the committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the Prime Minister’s commitment to total disclosure and that key scientists notably Dr Geoff Ricketts from the Victoria University biological sciences department and Professor Charles Hurburgh of Iowa State University and their grain quality initiative have reviewed the test results of the corn concerned and expressed a view that they very probably showed contamination why is it that Labour members have voted against those scientists being able to give evidence to the select committee noting that that is against the Prime Minister’s previous commitment to total disclosure? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the actions of a select committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not suggesting the Prime Minister is responsible for Labour members of the select committee. She is responsible for her statements on behalf of her Government and my question was how those actions were consistent with her statements of open disclosure and previous commitments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second part of the question is in order but not the first part. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I advised those statements were made on 11 July and the officials briefed the media that very same day. What the committee does is entirely a matter for the committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Prime Minister has castigated the select committee as “a circus” will she and her Government support members’ notice of motion No. 1 in my name on today’s Order Paper that requires that all sessions of the committee in respect of the “corngate” inquiry be held in open public session so the public and media can judge for themselves who is making an honest endeavour to find the truth with regard to the “corngate” affair? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I draw the House’s attention to Standing Order 237 “Confidentiality of proceedings and reports” which states: “(1) The proceedings of a select committee or a subcommittee other than during the hearing of evidence are not open to the public and remain strictly confidential to the committee until it reports to the House.” My office has been advised by the Clerk’s Office that there is absolutely no precedent for what the member is asking. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is an unacceptable answer from the Prime Minister. She has been in this House since 1981 and would know that if there were a notice of motion on the Order Paper to be considered by this House and voted in favour of by this House that becomes the precedent. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: We have a very interesting situation here. We have a Prime Minister who has publicly said that we are in favour of a select committee that she wants it all to be open and now stands up in the House with a straight face and says that this is a matter for the committee. Every member of Parliament knows including the member interjecting that at the Labour Party caucus an argument that it is up to the committee would get nowhere at all. Of course that committee is acting under an instruction from the Prime Minister and she ought to front up and answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister did directly address the question. Whether the answer satisfies members is another matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is another interesting aspect of the statement that has just been made. The notice of motion is on the Order Paper and therefore we take it to be a notice of motion that is in order. At the same time the Prime Minister is quoting advice from the Clerk’s Office as if the notice of motion is out of order. That leaves us confused. Either it is in order or it is out of order. Whether it is a precedent would be a matter for debate and we debated that in the case of Harry Duynhoven where there was no precedent for retrospectively qualifying him for Parliament. The question I want clarity on from you is whether that notice of motion is in order. If it is in order it is open to this House to seek leave to debate the motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct in both things he said. It is in order and it is in order for anybody to seek leave to have it debated otherwise it would not be on the Order Paper. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to have missed the previous call because I want to raise a point of order about what Mr Prebble said at the end of his statement that the Prime Minister had instructed the Labour members of the committee to do certain things. 
 I suggest that the member is raising an issue of privilege. To instruct members of a committee on how they are going to behave in that sense is in itself a breach of privilege because members must be free to act. Therefore if the member wants to raise that matter he should raise it by way of a letter to you not by way of speaking in the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is a novel and interesting argument. If the Minister of Finance went to a select committee he would discover that prior to voting members would say that they are going back to their caucus for consultation. They would then come back and say that this is the Government line. That is going on in every committee. If the member wants to put me up in front of the Privileges Committee for saying what we all know then make my day. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This is an important point. I do note that I am already on two select committees plus the Business Committee. But apart from that there is a question of consultation in seeking the views of one’s colleagues and one’s colleagues vote on those views. Even members of the ACT party—which apparently is supposed to be a bastion of liberalism and individualism—seem to vote on these matters. It is quite a different matter to say that members are being instructed by the Prime Minister on how they are to vote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Rules about instruction relate to instruction from outside the House. However that point has been made during the course of the point of order. The last part of the member’s point of order was not a point of order. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have considerable sympathy for Dr Smith. As a member of that select committee I point out that the Government used its majority to block key witnesses coming to that select committee hearing. We then learn that it is only through an instruction in the House that the committee can be made open to the public—an objective that the Prime Minister publicly claimed she wants but in private the Government blocks it. Dr Smith has a notice of motion on the Order Paper and again the Government has used its majority to block that action. It places the Opposition in a very difficult position when all we are trying to get is an inquiry that is open and transparent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Any member can seek leave to debate that motion and can. [ 
Interruption 
] Just one moment. Leave has not yet been sought but if it is sought and denied that is the end of the matter. But that is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Given her public repeated statements of favouring complete openness and disclosure on this issue what reasons would the Government have for not supporting my notice of motion that all of the select committee’s deliberations on the inquiry into “corngate” be held in open session? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In response to the previous question on this issue I cited the Standing Orders. Of course it is always open to the member to go to the Standing Orders Committee. Apart from that I do not wish to intervene in the affairs of the committee. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On reflection does the Prime Minister believe that her public comments criticising the select committee’s inquiry chaired by Green leader Jeanette Fitzsimons calling it a “circus” and a “farce” are compatible with her stated public intention of having an open and transparent inquiry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a circus and a farce. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the minutes of the select committee so that the public might judge who is responsible— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the minutes. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave for notice of motion No. 1 on the Order Paper in my name to be put to the vote without debate immediately following question time today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to take that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have had an intriguing answer from the Prime Minister and I wonder whether she wants to review it. She told us that the committee is independent and that she has nothing to do with it. Indeed she has given the impression that she does not know what is going on with the committee yet she is prepared to tell the whole House that it is a circus and a farce. Is she the circus master or is she not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Genetically Modified Foods—Labelling 
7.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What progress has she made in implementing the recommendation 8.3 of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification “that as a matter of priority the Food Administration Authority disseminate information on the labelling regime for genetically modified foods and consumer rights in relation to foods made available for consumption at restaurants and takeaway bars.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 An exemption under standard 1.5.2 of the Food Standards Code exists for restaurants and takeaway outlets because obviously it is unworkable to label composite meals. However the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has undertaken a public and trade information programme that describes the labelling system and consumer rights. Restaurants and takeaway outlets are also required to comply with New Zealand law in relation to the use of GM food—that is they can use only foods that have been investigated assessed and approved. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can she confirm that despite the priority given by the royal commission to that recommendation the Food Safety Authority has done absolutely nothing to require takeaway outlet owners to disclose the GE content of their foods or to protect consumer rights to avoid eating GE takeaway foods if they so wish? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I will not confirm that because the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has provided information for the public in the form of pamphlets postcards and a large poster that tells the public of New Zealand that the labelling requirement applies to all packaged foods but not to foods prepared in restaurants and cafes. It is the same as most other labelling requirements. If people are concerned they can ask whether the food contains any GM ingredients before they choose to buy. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What was the royal commission’s view of the approach taken in the GM labelling standard? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In paragraph 197 on page 233 of the report the commission noted that it supported the labelling system provided under the standard and when discussing point of sale issues it noted in paragraph 202 on page 234: “We have confidence in the ANZFA safety assessment process.” 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the conclusion drawn by the royal commission—that there is no evidence either empirical or theoretical that demonstrates that GE food is dangerous to human health—is still valid today more than 2 years later? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I can. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What is the logic behind the fact that when food containing some GE ingredients is bought in a supermarket it needs to be declared on a label but when identical food is bought in a takeaway store it does not have to be declared; and how does this protect the right of New Zealand consumers to know what is in the food they eat? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It was considered unworkable to go to a restaurant and have labelling on part of the food on sauces used on food or on any processed parts of food. It would not work. It would be a nonsense and as it is not required for safety reasons it has not been implemented. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware that in places like the UK labelling is required in takeaway stores if not restaurants for GE ingredients; and further to the Food Safety Authority’s comments this morning that our labelling laws are framed to inform people of the GE content of the foods they eat why are consumers given absolutely no information about whether food they buy in takeaway bars—such as these potato chips I have before me—has been cooked in genetically engineered oil and whether it contains GE ingredients? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I answered the last part of that question. In relation to the first part what people do in the UK is their business. However I have not heard the member protesting the fact that the European Union has decided to exempt wines and cheese that have GMOs in them. Obviously each country will make its own decision as to what will be part of its labelling regime. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table these takeaway chips so that the Minister for Food Safety can let me know whether they contain genetically engineered ingredients. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before members get over-eager is there any objection to that course? There is. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Maori Land Court 
8.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Were there any Maori Land Court decisions about seabed and foreshore away from the Marlborough Sounds awaiting the outcome of the Marlborough Sounds appeal; if so will the Crown now stop the claimants getting titles to such areas? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 There are no Maori Land Court decisions awaiting the outcome of the Marlborough Sounds appeal. There are applications about the seabed and foreshore in addition to the Marlborough Sounds application that are awaiting a hearing. With regard to the last question the Crown will not prevent any applications from being filed. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Associate Minister confirm that a large part of the bed of Ohiwa Harbour in the Bay of Plenty was made into Maori freehold land by order of the Maori Land Court on 21 September 1999; and although that order was partly reversed 7 months later will the Crown now try to stop the Maori Land Court from going ahead when it is asked to do so to turn into freehold land a huge area of Ohiwa Harbour and its foreshore—as the court plainly intended in September 1999? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I wish the member had been more specific in his original question so that I could have been better briefed on the matter. I say to the member that I have no specific advice on the matter and I would be very reluctant to give an answer without a considerable amount of research which I will undertake to do and to give the member an answer later. 
Tim Barnett 
: Is it the Government’s policy that the Maori Land Court when deciding applications about seabed and foreshore currently before it will be able to grant only interests and rights that fall short of a fee simple title and do ensure continued public access? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes. As set out in the Government’s proposal for consultation the Government intends that all applications about the foreshore and seabed regardless of when they are made will be subject to the regime the Government is putting in place for the Maori Land Court. The cornerstone of that regime is that there will be no fee simple title and continuation of public access will be guaranteed. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why is the Government planning for the Maori Land Court to have the role of deciding on claims in the future including to reject unjustified claims when that court has already made its view plain at Ohiwa; when the lawyers for the Ohiwa claimants who resisted the correction of the first order were Joe Williams and Layne Harvey who are now both judges of the court; when all judges of that court are also members of the Waitangi Tribunal— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is very long. I ask the member to please come to the question. 
Stephen Franks 
: —which is openly partisan on this issue; and when that court does not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is far too long. Is the member just about finished? 
Stephen Franks 
: Just about yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right. He is to come to an end quickly. 
Stephen Franks 
: —when that court does not usually take evidence on oath or pursue perjury and accepts tales and documents that would not be acceptable in any other court? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Firstly it is lamentable that the member has made such assertions about members of the judiciary. Secondly the member obviously has not been listening in the previous few weeks. The Government has said over and over again that it will be passing legislation to clarify these matters. In the light of that clarification the role of the Maori Land Court will be very very clear. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On a number of occasions you have reminded the House about the problems involved when members who sit on cross benches directly opposite each other choose to interject on each other. You have asked and requested members to respect those problems and to be silent. My second point is that you have consistently reminded the House in general that questions will be left free to be asked in silence. Throughout the entire asking of that question by Mr Stephen Franks Mr Mark Peck consistently interjected—not once not twice but three times. Everybody sat here and heard him yet he remains in the Chamber. I ask for your consistency Mr Speaker. 
Mark Peck 
: I think there comes a point when attacking the judiciary in this House has to be challenged and I make no apologies for doing that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately the member will now have to leave the Chamber however. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not appropriate for a member of Parliament who has been asked to leave to put out a threat saying: “I haven’t finished with you.” as he is leaving. That comment in the first person is a clear a reference to you Mr Speaker and I think the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise for that statement. 
Mark Peck 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is also not appropriate for members of the ACT party to chip the member as he is leaving the Chamber at your instruction so perhaps there should be some apologies from them as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Mr Peck please leave. 
Mark Peck withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just a minute; I am dealing with one matter first. Regarding the matter raised by Mr Gosche I declare that we now move on to the next question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While Mr Gosche was raising that point of order Mr Heatley interjected extremely loudly from the back bench opposite. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did and he will leave too. 
Phil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you the issue about where you are going to draw the line on this. Mr Peck left the Chamber as you requested then turned and walked straight back in. So Mr Peck who had been asked to leave made a comment as he was leaving which he should not have done went and sat somewhere else withdrew and apologised walked out then walked back in. Then a member said to another member that he should get out and the punishment for saying that—he had to leave the Chamber too—is quite frankly ridiculous. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any assistance on this matter at all. I judge when people are going to be allowed back in and that is the severity of the punishment I dictate. I have observed what happened. I observed that Mr Peck was asked to withdraw and apologise which he did but I also observed that he then did do something that was excessive and he of course will have longer out than other people will have out. 
Gambling Bill—Interactive Gambling 
9.  
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Who suggested that interactive gambling should be included in the Gambling Bill and what were the reasons for its inclusion? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I am advised that the inclusion of remote interactive gambling was suggested by the Lotteries Commission in its submission to the select committee. I imagine it made that decision because it thought it was a sound idea. 
Judith Collins 
: Did United Future members communicate to him or his representatives their reasons for being pleased as they recently said with the changes allowing the Lotteries Commission to move into Internet-based gaming; if so what influence did their reasons have on the inclusion of the interactive gambling provision in the bill? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Many people had input to that provision. I remind that member that her party’s minority report in the Government Administration Committee’s report on the Gambling Bill stated that: “The Lotteries Commission which has lost market share over the years is penalised as it cannot use modern technology such as the online telephone account to sell their products. Unless the Lotteries Commission has flexibility its long-term future is limited.” 
Dianne Yates 
: What has been the reaction to the passage of the Gambling Bill? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have had very little correspondence about the bill since it passed. However I note that Dave Macpherson of the Waikato group GamblingWatch praised the reduction in the number of pokie machines in Hamilton as a result of the bill. 
Sue Bradford 
: On what grounds did the Minister overturn the considered decision of the select committee which had heard the submissions of the Lotteries Commission and other bodies in terms of putting up the last-minute Supplementary Order Paper that introduced interactive Internet gaming through the Lotteries Commission? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: After visiting Europe and Scandinavia and seeing it in operation I thought it was a good idea. 
Judith Collins 
: Has he received advice from United Future that the Australian Productivity Commission inquiry found that interactive gambling was “a quantum leap” in accessibility for problem gamblers and that there were undue risks associated with problem gambling by minors and people under the influence of alcohol or drugs? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: We had a good look at everything. The Productivity Commission report of 1999 states: “Without harm-minimisation measures and appropriate regulation online gambling will pose significant new risks for problem gambling.” We have put in safeguards. 
Unemployment Benefit—Administration 
10.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent operational changes have been made to the process for people applying for the unemployment benefit? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 There is a new seminar process being rolled out across the country. This seminar process has two main focuses. It provides clients with information about their full and correct entitlements and obligations prior to a benefit application. The second active focus for the seminar is for the client to identify what steps he or she will take to find work. Work and Income provides the necessary support and training advice identifying opportunities and encourages clients to go out and do it for themselves as there has not been a better time to find a job. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What effect has this had on the number of people registering for the unemployment benefit? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: “Work for You” seminars have been piloted in the Avondale Onehunga and Manukau Work and Income sites since March 2003. Interim analysis suggests that the number of people requiring an unemployment benefit in those sites is 19 percent lower than it would have been without the “Work for You” seminars. The 97822 registered on the unemployment benefit represents a 16-year low in unemployment. This Labour-Progressive Government has the unemployed out looking for jobs that are there—in contrast to what Don Brash and National have. They would have the unemployed looking for a post office. 
Judith Collins 
: What reports has the Minister received about the level of problem gambling experienced by people currently applying for the unemployment sickness and invalids benefits? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I do not have any specific figures on those who are applying for sickness and invalids benefits. However I make the point which the member has alluded to that we do have a small rise in invalids and sickness beneficiaries but that is more than offset by a decline of 53000 people on the unemployment benefit compared with 1999—a 34 percent reduction. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister advise under what legal powers people applying for the unemployment benefit have been required for some months already to attend “Work for You” seminars prior to receiving the benefit or have applicants been conned into thinking that that is a legal requirement when it is not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Applicants have been more than happy to attend the seminars and they have received very good advice. I bring to the member’s attention a case that recently came to my attention while I was in Greymouth. Someone was so inspired by attending the seminar and taking personal responsibility for finding a job that he walked 9 miles to Strongman Mine found there was no job there walked somewhere else and came back to Work and Income and said: “I’ve got a job.” I think that is the sort of positive attitude this Government is trying to encourage and that member should support it. 
Biotechnology Strategy—Research and Business 
11.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Does he agree with the “key actions” of the New Zealand Biotechnology Strategy to recruit and retain scientists and to encourage collaboration between research providers and businesses; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Yes I do because recruitment retention and collaboration are good things. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: With the new knowledge that the AgResearch plans to close the Wallaceville Animal Research Centre will have far greater impact than originally thought including significant loss of scientists overseas huge loss of morale and the disintegration of the research business clusters in the Hutt Valley what role will he play to prevent this critical loss of science capacity in New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member appears to be misinformed. The truth of the matter is that the immunology group which is due to leave for Palmerston North in something like early 2005 has chosen to do so. The animal health group has chosen to leave and set up with Massey University and the AgResearch campus across the road around about January 2006. The only group of scientists who have yet to make their decision are the reproductive scientists. They are likely but not yet certain to move to the Invermay Agricultural Centre in I think January 2007. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister provide any examples of where the Government is facilitating collaboration between research providers and business? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I can. The Government’s new Research Consortia programme is proving very popular with New Zealand industry. Already six consortia have been contracted and four more are under negotiation. Together these consortia have a total private and public budget in excess of $30 million a year each year for the next 4 to 6 years. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: If the New Zealand Biotechnology Strategy does not have sufficient funding—as in the case for instance of the Lincoln University Soil Programme—what other avenues are available to recruit and retain their scientists and how do the business partners act when the Government research body is unable to operate? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret the member is a little misinformed about the soil science issues. There have been reports that soil science research has been cut. This is not true. It has been cut a little—from $7.4 million I think to $7.2 million—but not the $6 million to $3 million cut that the  
New Zealand Herald  
would have us believe. The underlying fact is that the sustainability round just completed was oversubscribed by nearly 300 percent. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How does he reconcile his earlier reply with the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report on the closure of Wallaceville which shows an annual loss of $24 million to the regional economy and the loss of 240 full-time jobs around the Hutt Valley; and does he accept that the AgResearch closure plan needs an urgent review with a view to retaining and building on the strengths of Wallaceville? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret to advise that I have seen a pattern with New Zealand Institute of Economic Research reports in that they tend to have some bearing on those who pay for them. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two articles. The first is entitled: “The economic impact of closing the Wallaceville research facility” which shows a loss of $24 million a year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second is from the  
Independent 
 July 2003: “Government punishes research while promising to promote it”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three orders of the Maori Land Court: two on 21 September 1999 and one on 14 April 2000. 
Document not tabled. 
Home Detention and Parole—Accountability 
12.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Is he satisfied that home detention and parole are fulfilling the purpose for which they were intended and does he have confidence in them? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Generally yes. Both schemes are designed to reduce the incidence of reoffending. Statistics show that both schemes do achieve that purpose and in the case of home detention dramatically so. 
Ron Mark 
: What was the purpose and intent behind the decisions made by his department that saw a man who had been sentenced to 6 years’ jail for six robberies paroled after serving only 2 years of that sentence—a man who despite being in total breach of his parole conditions was never hunted down and recalled to prison but was instead left at large so allowing him to carry out another eight armed robberies for which he is now awaiting sentencing? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is very hard to comment on a specific case without the full details. I would be happy to look into that if the member were to provide them. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen evidence that others share his confidence in home detention? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. The benefits of home detention have been broadly recognised for many years since its introduction by the then National Government in 1993 its expansion by the National - New Zealand First coalition and through to the New Zealand First 1999 law and order policy which called for greater use of home detention instead of as Mr Winston Peters said “giving those louts taxpayer-funded accommodation that costs $60000 a year each.” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister explain why Chubb Security guards were required to monitor an inmate on home detention by making a 1-hour round trip every 3 hours 24 hours a day for 57 days; what sort of electronic monitoring is that? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is often acknowledged that in some parts of New Zealand it is difficult to get the electronic monitoring in place. [ 
Interruption 
] Well partly it is true because the previous National Government did nothing about telecommunications reform for 9 years. We are doing something about that. Eventually there will be 100 percent coverage but that member must recognise that it will take some time. 
Heather Roy 
: Does he have any concerns about the case in today’s  
Dominion Post  
where an under-15-year-old rapist does not have to even ask for home detention because under current sentencing laws he cannot be sent to prison; and if the Minister is concerned about that by what date will that bizarre law be changed? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is obviously a matter to do with sentencing and the Minister of Justice. The whole issue of home detention which was the subject of the initial question has been a success. Some changes need to be made and I am considering some of them at the moment. But there is no doubt about it—home detention has reduced the recidivism rate in New Zealand quite substantially. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister give this House a categorical assurance that each and every breach of the provisions of home detention no matter how trivial it may seem is reflected in the figures provided by the Department of Corrections; if not what confidence can we have that the detentions can be said to be effective when the veracity of the figures is found to be wanting? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Breaches of conditions are obviously monitored and recorded by the probation service and I say to the member that the service does an extraordinarily good job in difficult circumstances. I hope that the member will provide some support for that group which is doing a very good service for the rest of the community. 
Marc Alexander 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance because I asked a question as to what assurance the Minister could give about the veracity of the figures. I did not get an answer to that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may care to comment. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I indicated to the member that breaches around things like home detention are recorded and monitored by the probation service and if there is a case where a breach is significant then recall is an option. In many many cases the probation service applies to the Parole Board for recall to prison. 
Ron Mark 
: What was the purpose and intent of allowing a senior Mongrel Mob member—whose previous multiple convictions included aggravated robbery times three kidnapping times one escaping custody times two and aggravated assault—to have front-end home detention which has since resulted in his being busted for manufacturing methamphetamine and being in possession of a pistol with ammunition; what is that all about? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Once again it is hard to comment on an individual case because I do not have the information before me. But I will say that decisions on those kinds of matters are appropriately made by the Parole Board and that is the way it should be. 
Ron Mark 
: Why does the Minister not just admit that his statistics on breaches of home detention are shonky and that he has not got a clue as to what is going on in his department; if he rejects that assertion could he please explain to the House how it is that people are committing offences whilst on home detention and are being given community service rather than being recalled to prison? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The statistics on breaches are pretty good. The question is really about the relationship between breaches and offences and I have already indicated to that member that that is something I am looking into because I think we need tighter statistics on that. 
General Debates 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to the general debate— 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I take it that it is in order for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to come back? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. The member can come to the Chair to discuss that at his convenience. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is interesting that you are making New Zealand First come to the Chair to discuss that when Mr Cunliffe who was removed during question time has freely come back into the Chamber and sat down. I presume that we have the same rules for everybody. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is a slight difference in that case Mr Sowry. The respective whips did come to discuss the matter with the Chair as Mr Brown is doing now. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Too many Opposition politicians in this place are blinded by their own self-assessed brilliance. We see their verbal acrobatics daily—not to mention their verbal diarrhoea. We see the antics of Opposition politicians as they elbow-jolt each other off the television screens. We see grandstanding bullying and a lot of time-wasting and puffed-up importance signifying nothing. Any performance in pursuit of a positive poll goes and one has to ask whether Bill English Roger Sowry Murray McCully Nick Smith and Winston Peters—who are all regular offenders—have ever stopped to think about what decent hard-working New Zealanders think of their antics in this House. Have those members ever run the test of what their mothers would think of their behaviour? I think it is time that they did. This time they have gone too far. There is nothing wrong with robust debate and strongly held views but to attack the people and institutions that this country relies on for cheap political gain is about as low as a desperate Opposition politician can go. 
Let us look at the list of the victims of those members today—and the victims are piling up day after day. There are the judges who cannot defend themselves against criticism and self-serving attacks and public servants who have been accused of collusion with the Government—Department of Labour officials Immigration Service officials the State Services Commissioner the Race Relations Commissioner the human rights commissioner the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and now the New Zealand Police. 
This country has the best police force in the world. It is corruption-free fearless and impartial. It decides whom it will prosecute and whom it will not. Its officers are trained to assess situations and make judgment calls. We rely on their integrity and judgment to uphold the law to deal fairly with people and to protect the people of New Zealand. Now the police have become the target for the Opposition’s political games. The attack on Marty Grenfell the Wellington area controller by Winston Peters and Murray McCully is nothing short of gutter politics. Mr Grenfell leads a team of men and women here in Wellington who are doing a great job. He is highly respected and a man of integrity and for him to be smeared by innuendo by a couple of our most seamy politicians is sickening. 
Why have Winston Peters and Murray McCully attacked Mr Grenfell? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek through you an assurance from the Hon Mark Burton Minister of Defence that he did not call me a “scumbag” in the tirade he threw across the Chamber. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I can assure the member that I did not call him a “scumbag” in the exchange that neither of us should have been having while my colleague was speaking. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Why are those Opposition politicians attacking Marty Grenfell? It is because he worked on secondment in the Minister of Police’s office for a period of time. If we extrapolate that argument does it mean that outstanding men like Dick Macdonald who went on to become a commissioner Paul Fitzharris who was an assistant commissioner or Ted Cox a district commander in Auckland were all biased because they worked with National or New Zealand First Ministers of Police? Of course it does not mean that. The arguments have been pathetic and they are not based on facts. 
The second reason those members have attacked Mr Grenfell is that they say he is influenced by the Government and that he was told by the Government to prosecute Shane Ardern. That is not correct. Mr Grenfell does not take instructions from this Government. It is the police who made the decision to prosecute Mr Ardern. They weighed up the situation; they decided to prosecute Shane Ardern. The police decided not to take any action against Winston Peters when he walked away without paying for a taxi fare. Most people in New Zealand would consider that to be theft. I have no doubt that the police decided to look at the circumstances. They realised Mr Peters was tired and emotional and when they made their decision they took that into account. It is the police who decide whom they will prosecute; that is certainly not decided by this Parliament. 
Now the same people in the House have decided to attack the Speaker of this Parliament. They are accusing him of bias and of influencing the police as well. Those are all actions of desperate men and they are all aimed at undermining the integrity of the institutions of this country. Why do those members do that? They do it for the sake of one or two tawdry votes. They do not do it because they believe in it or because there is any integrity in it but because they think by doing so they may sit on the Government benches one day. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 The Minister of Health in her speech—which I am sure she would not want to be called a tirade; as my colleague says it was much more of a rant—was right in one thing. The police do decide who they will prosecute just as the police decided that they would not prosecute the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark over her forgery. That was deemed not necessary to prosecute. Maybe that was because the Prime Minister of New Zealand refused to answer the police’s questions—Mr Ardern however did answer the questions put to him. Maybe that is why they stopped before prosecuting her. Maybe it was because the Prime Minister’s very good friend and witness Mr Chris Carter would not sign his own statement. Maybe that was why they decided not to prosecute the Prime Minister. We know that when the Prime Minister committed forgery—and we were told by her first of all that it was just one painting—the first lot of blame the Prime Minister put on was on the charity that asked her for the painting. She said that it put her under pressure and that that was why she did the painting. Then it came to light that in fact there was more than one painting. There were several paintings that the Prime Minister forged. There were several paintings that she did not paint and to which she put her own name. The police decided to turn a blind eye to that and the Opposition judges that standard against the standard that is being used now. It is just like the standard that the Prime Minister is using now when she goes— 
David Benson-Pope 
: The long arm of the law reaching out from the grave. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask whether you are going to allow a consistent line of interjections from Mr Benson-Pope. It happens every week in this debate. The Speaker sits there every week and lets it occur and I ask you whether you will at some point stop him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the honourable member. It is a point well raised and I was considering it. I have to say that it is a robust debate and the level of interjection on the previous speaker was just as great but I will ask the members on my right to take it easy. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Prime Minister of course has different rules for herself as distinct from everybody else. No one else is allowed to question officials but the Prime Minister blamed the officials when she said first of all that she did not say that this country would get into the top half of the OECD. Then when it was proved that she did she blamed the officials. She blamed the officials when she said that she had no idea how “ancestral landscapes” got into the amendment to the Resource Management Act. Then of course when it became clear that it was by her own fair hand that the documentation was signed she blamed officials. She blamed officials when all the documents were not released for the “corngate” inquiry. When that became an issue it was nothing to do with her. There was just one document left out and all of a sudden the officials were blamed. 
This Prime Minister blames officials whenever it suits her but as soon as anyone else dares to raise anything to do with the public service they are deemed to be great big bullies. I say to the Prime Minister that we want the same standard for the Prime Minister as the rest of New Zealand has to face. The rest of New Zealand would have to front up to the police on an art forgery charge. The rest of New Zealand would have to front up if one of their staff members had his or her hand in the till as the Prime Minister has had on her staff recently with no prosecution being carried out. The rest of New Zealand would have to front up for that but this Prime Minister who is such a credit to herself and just a victim of her own success cannot understand how someone who is so successful and popular can even be criticised or questioned. She sees herself as being totally above the law. Any Government that is led by a Prime Minister who sees herself as being above the law is in its dying stages. That is why people like Mr Benson-Pope lie when they tell reporters as he did yesterday that they are not going to give an apology—yet he was giving an apology. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member will withdraw and apologise for that. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not say that he lied in the House but that outside the House he certainly did. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Those words are not acceptable in this Chamber. Whether they refer to some incident outside the House is totally irrelevant. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I withdraw. We know what Mr Benson-Pope does. We know the double-dealing he does. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I asked for a withdrawal and an apology. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I am sorry. I withdraw and apologise. We know what Mr Benson-Pope does. He says one thing to our whips but it is a different story to the media. Members can make their own judgments on what that is but we know what that is called. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The Opposition has sunk to new depths over the past couple of weeks. Opposition members have gone even lower than I thought would be possible from that lot. They are now wallowing in the murky territory of gutter politics bringing into question the integrity of the public service the police the judiciary and now the office of the Speaker. Why are Opposition members doing that? It is simply because they have failed to get traction on any issues that they have sought to debate. They cannot attack the Government so they turn their sights on people who cannot fight back. That is utterly gutless. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have seldom had laid at me the accusation that I am gutless but the general blanketing of the Opposition in that way is unacceptable and I think a withdrawal and apology is appropriate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is quite right. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Lianne Dalziel may well be making a personal observation and reflecting upon herself. If that is the case I have no objection. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. I will ask the honourable member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I withdraw and apologise. I have been in Parliament for 13 years and I have never seen anything like this before. It is unprecedented and it cannot go unchallenged. I refer to a letter that Bill English sent to the State Services Commissioner last week. I read it with increasing incredulity at the gall of a so-called honourable member of this House in allowing his signature to accompany such an outrageous attack on the public service. The more I read it the more I felt as though I was reading an old-style vicious  
Dominion 
 editorial. Then I figured it must be in “Longhand” because it was written by Richard Long not by Bill English. Bill English has put his signature on someone else’s piece of writing. Talk about pathetic! No wonder the Leader of the Opposition is at 7 percent in the polls and falling—he has to get his chief of staff to write an editorial then he passes it off as a letter to one of New Zealand’s top public servants. That explains why it is factually wrong in just about every material respect and drags the public service into the gutter with the Opposition. That letter was written because the State Services Commissioner dared to speak in defence of people who by convention cannot defend themselves. The reason they cannot defend themselves is set out in the article— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want clarification as to whether the member is talking about recent cases or Christine Rankin and Roger Estall—cases that she used to talk about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Clearly that was not a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No—I agree. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I must also if I may ask that your attention be drawn to the constant ceaseless barrage from four members of the Opposition. I do not mind that because I know our member can cope more than adequately with that sort of objection interjection and cant but I observe that it is not consistent with the way the Opposition members themselves cannot take being interjected on. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is it on the same issue? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Yes it is. This is a time-limited debate and we have had statements by members that speeches should not be broken up by interjections. The point of order raised was not in fact a point of order. I think that you should rule not only that it was not a point of order but also that the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise for doing so. This is a robust debate so let us just get on with it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for that. It is quite right that the point raised by Hon Roger Sowry was not a point of order. I will not have members breaking up a speech with matters that are not points of order. I take note of what Mr Benson-Pope said although I do not give it much weight. I thank Hon Richard Prebble for clarifying some matters. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a practical matter. I think we are having some difficulty with some of the speakers in the Chamber—there is not much volume. It would be good to hear the speakers amid the amount of noise that is going backwards and forwards. The debate is robust and we really cannot hear very well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a matter of control with the microphones because of the volume coming from the speakers. If the speakers drop down those volumes will come up. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The reason the public service cannot defend itself is that it would put it head to head with Opposition politicians jeopardising its ability to work constructively with those politicians—should they become the Government in the future. Well that party has no chance of being a Government in the future. What really got Mr English’s chief of staff upset was that it says that they—that is the chief executives of our public service—should not be used as proxies for ministers in political debate let alone be subjected to unfounded allegations of grossly improper behaviour. That is what has got them upset. Opposition spokespersons cannot take on Government ministers so they attack the leaders of the public service instead. They create conspiracy theories and they attack the public service. It is the refuge of their incompetence; it is the refuge of those who have got no credibility; it is the refuge of a once-proud National Party now run by the brat pack which is an embarrassment to all the good decent people who used to be in the National Party. 
Bill English’s own reputation as a decent bloke cannot survive the willingness to allow this to go on in his name. Even when National gets a small lift in the polls Bill English goes down another two points—down to 7 percent and falling. It is no wonder he reacted badly. He does not care about having to work constructively with public servants because he will never lead a National Party to Government in this country. Now the attack is on the office of the Speaker. What gutter politics from Roger Sowry Bill English and from Winston Peters! They behaved appallingly in this Chamber yesterday. That was the worst thing I have ever seen in this House—an attack on the Speaker in that way. How dare Winston Peters use the tragic circumstances faced by that young man—and our hearts go out to him—to suggest that the Speaker had behaved inappropriately. I fully support the police decision not to prosecute that man. It was their decision. There was no influence from the Speaker and that was right and proper. The police showed humanity in their decision making. They should be congratulated not rubbished by the Opposition. The points of order raised by Bill English and Roger Sowry yesterday show that they are willing to drag the constitutional position of the Speaker of this House into their pathetic little attempts to get traction. It is a constitutional outrage. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This afternoon we had a pious contribution from Roger Sowry about interjecting when he was speaking. I watched him throughout that speech yelling and screaming across the Chamber. I know he could not take it when was speaking and he took a point of order on it but if he wants to say that there should not be two standards in here why does he not practise what he preaches? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Over a number weeks I have raised the fact that members opposite change seats and yell and scream right through speeches. Several times the Speaker has ruled that he will clamp down on this but that appears not to be happening. In fact you yourself ruled that this was a robust debate and interjections could carry on so I intend to carry on. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Quiet during a point of order; otherwise members will be out. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 On reflection I also want to raise in this discussion the point that my colleague Annette King has just raised. Despite the fact that you asked for a withdrawal and apology from Mr Sowry for accusing me of being a liar he immediately repeated that outrageous statement at the end of his speech. That is totally unacceptable behaviour—clearly from a member who is not in control of himself. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members. I did not hear that statement but any complaint against it should have been made at the time. I think both sides need to look in the mirror. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I respect the courts; I respect our constitution. I believe the separation of powers is a vital part of it. I believe that the Law Society and the Bar Association in expressing concern about the points I have been raising have been upholding their part in our constitution. But I believe our constitution is being eroded without people recognising it. It started a decade and a half ago when with no guidance the courts were left to decide what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi meant. There was no room for the court to duck that—they have to make the law mean something and so they had to invent something called the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
But we have now got to a stage where leaving to the courts things that are too hot to handle politically is a routine strategy. If our courts are deeply embroiled in unresolved political matters our conventions have to be recast. Politicians—elected representatives—cannot be snookered out of leading political debate. The people must be able to elect and sack someone who takes responsibility for deeply political decisions. Our constitution will not continue to work if the people cannot look and say that there is someone making those decisions that they have a right to get rid of. In a country where there is sovereignty of Parliament for the people the people should have the right to get rid of those who are making decisions that are politically contentious. The consensus that enabled Labour and National to do that for two decades is going but the heritage is still there. 
I am finding that more people around New Zealand are blaming the courts and Maori for their current unease and worry about the seabed the foreshore and other issues than are blaming this Parliament and the Government. That is not fair to Maori or to the courts. But for as long as a Government can send those issues to the courts and then hide behind the convention that elected representatives cannot examine the pressures the influences the politics the factions the beliefs and the biases that might be brought to bear then the constitution is being suborned. 
 For the last 2 weeks we have been trying to find out exactly what task this Government proposes to give the Maori Land Court. The Maori Land Court we have been told will be able to do what it will with customary property claims—anything other than grant fee simple title. That is nearly no restriction. That is nearly no prescription. How will New Zealanders trust the Maori Land Court to deal with these matters impartially when it has been set up as an inquisitorial body primarily to decide disputes between or among Maori? When it is turned into a constitutional body to decide claims between the Crown—for all New Zealanders—and perhaps 15 percent of the population that is an entirely different matter. 
Despite the soothing words of the Court of Appeal about few cases succeeding the Maori Land Court has already made its views known on this issue at Ohiwa. The counsel in that case who are now both influential Maori Land Court judges made their views clear. In the Wellington Tenths Trust decision the Waitangi Tribunal made its view clear about what should happen with seabed and foreshore claims. At the moment a division of the Waitangi Tribunal is drumming up opposition to the Government and urging claimants to hurry and get their piece in so as to influence the issue here. It is acting as a participant in the political game. 
When the Maori Land Court does not insist on evidence on oath does not generally pursue perjury does not usually allow cross-examination and accepts as evidence tales that the rest of us—indeed any other court—would never accept it is not an appropriate body to be deciding constitutional and property issues. Maori Land Court judges are appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs who sees his role as being an advocate for Maori pumping Maori—in some cases at the expense of the rest of New Zealand. In comparison with others Maori Land Court judges are generally young and inexperienced and are often appointed to give regional tribal or even gender balance and not for their knowledge of property rights. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 That is a somewhat different Stephen Franks from the one we heard even last week. That is the closest thing I have seen to a letter saying: “Dear Parliament I’m sorry for what I said last week. Signed Stephen Franks.” 
There he was talking about constitutional issues but last week and the week before he has been personally attacking judges. There is no future in that. I think Margaret Wilson is right to say that there is nothing wrong with a politician advocating a change to the law—which is what he did just then—but attacking a judge personally either directly or by implication risks bringing the judiciary into disrepute. Unfounded attacks on judges are unfair and not in anyone’s best interests. I say to that member play the ball not the person. In my view even Mr Prebble who upholds and respects constitutional issues in this Parliament would have been embarrassed by what that member did last week. Such attacks on individuals in the judiciary will not stop his party languishing around 4 or 5 percent in the polls. There is no future in that. 
When I was a young fellow I used to play rugby and we always whinged about the ref at half-time when we were losing. We never never whinged about the ref at half-time when we were winning. The coach used to say: “Stop whingeing about the ref and concentrate on winning the game!” That is exactly my advice to the National Party. Its members’ recent attacks on the Speaker were shameful. They try to hide the fact that there is no leadership no policy and no principle in that party. There is nothing in that party so what do its members try to do? All they try to do is shift attention away from their pathetic performance and on to other people. I say that is outrageous. There was a great painter once—I think her name was Barbara Kruger—who said: “Do nothing blame everyone be bitter.” That sums up the National Party in a nutshell. Its members are attacking Parliament attacking public servants attacking the police and attacking the judiciary. Everybody knows that is a smokescreen a cover-up for the fact that they have no leadership no policies and no principles. 
Let me also come to New Zealand First. New Zealand First has been most concerned about who has been prosecuted and who has not. We should probably feel a little sorry for Mr Peters because he earns so little that he cannot afford his own taxi fare. What a shame! I can tell that member that we will fix that little problem. As Minister of Transport I will be introducing legislation—certainly surely and not too far away—to deal with the offence of taxi-running. Maybe these people are tired and emotional who knows? Maybe it is late at night and they hop into a taxi and the hard-working taxi-driver trying to make a living to bring up the family asks for the fare and the tired emotional person says he or she is not going to pay. Well there will be an opportunity for the police to prosecute that person. I know that New Zealand First which supports hard-working New Zealanders will support that legislation. New Zealand First is a law and order party and it will support the offence of taxi-running. I am absolutely certain about that. 
Everybody knows what the National Party is up to. Everybody knows that its members are attempting to try to hide the fact that they are making absolutely no headway. “Flat-lining” I think was the word used in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article just recently. Then of course there are a whole lot of other editorials talking about the National Party’s performance which is absolutely hopeless. It is dog tucker. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 If there are any students of the general debate in this country they will have noticed today a very significant change in the Labour Party’s usual attack. Normally Labour members engage themselves in a petty attack on the Opposition and run off with all sorts of spurious arguments about why they will be in Government for ever. Today though we have seen those same speakers often turning the argument back into a defence of the indefensible Helen Clark—turning this whole debate into a defence of the Prime Minister Helen Clark. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: What’s your point? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The honourable member John Tamihere concedes that that is exactly what they are about. 
The events of the last few days have started to show what will become the hallmarks of this Government—no accountability and double standards. That will be the mark of the Helen Clark Government when historians look back at it in years to come. Is it not fascinating that my friend Shane Ardern can commit the same act as Bob Tizard did some years ago in driving a tractor up the steps and towards the doors of Parliament House and at the will of the Prime Minister has a police prosecution brought against him for reckless behaviour? Yet the Prime Minister herself when faced with “paintergate” and the art fraud imposed upon the community of New Zealand simply refused to cooperate with the police. Even though the police were able to say that there was a prima facie case for her to be prosecuted she was able to avoid such a prosecution. 
I ask Labour speakers to start considering whether the line in the police’s own comments on that case should apply to Shane Ardern. While the police said that there was a prima facie case for the Prime Minister to be prosecuted and that the ingredients of the offence had been met it might have an impact disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct issue or the personal culpability of the parties involved. Why is it that the police can apply that opinion to the Prime Minister but not to Shane Ardern? 
Government members should not start getting sanctimonious about whether the police are being attacked for exercising double standards when by their own standards that is clearly at play in this case. In this instance the police are acting only because the Prime Minister instructed them to do so. It was the Prime Minister who came out and said that Shane Ardern had committed an offence of disorderly behaviour. That was her prosecution not that of the police. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know why but the senior Government whip Mr Benson-Pope has made statements that are clearly out of order and he should be asked to withdraw and apologise now. He said: “Produce some facts before you start telling lies.” He knows that he said it and we need an apology from him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Could the member repeat what he said Mr Benson-Pope said. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The senior Government whip said: “Produce some facts before you start telling lies”. That is out of order and unparliamentary. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask the senior Government whip whether— 
David Benson-Pope 
: My words were: “Produce some evidence before you start telling lies like that.” I withdraw and apologise. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is a fact that on nationwide television the Prime Minister said that in her opinion Mr Ardern had committed an offence of disorderly behaviour. The police then came trumping into Parliament and bailed up Mr Ardern—without the permission of the Speaker it would seem. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting Mr Brownlee’s speech but you have just reprimanded Mr Benson-Pope the senior Government whip asked him to withdraw and apologise and he immediately starts a continuous barrage of interruptions and interjections across the Chamber. It is totally unacceptable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. Members should have regard for those who want to listen to the speeches being made in the House. I have no problem hearing Mr Brownlee but clearly those at the back have a problem. I ask that continual barrage types of interjections not go on. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Government members are sensitive to the points I am making simply because they know that in this case the double standard of Helen Clark the Prime Minister of New Zealand is exposed in the rawest way possible. She got off a charge in respect of which the police said there was prima facie evidence for her being convicted of forgery. She then goes around pointing the finger at Shane Ardern declaring that he has behaved in a disorderly way and the police came jackbooting into this Parliament stamping all over the rights of privilege that members of this House have and what do we get? We have the Speaker saying: “Well I didn’t know and I might deal with it some time after Mr Ardern has faced the music at the court.” That is setting up a double standard and New Zealanders are not stupid. Interestingly it is on the simple act of driving a tractor up a few steps to Parliament that people will see that the Government has just gone way over the top. 
The issue of double standards of course also applies to the “corngate” affair where the Prime Minister goes round saying: “I want this exposed to the public” but sits in the House today and blocks this House from debating that very issue. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have been in this House for nearly 10 years and during that time and in the past I have seen policy and legislation introduced that has made me and other members of the House pretty angry. But I have never ever seen such disgraceful behaviour as was exhibited in the House yesterday by Stephen Franks Winston Peters and Bill English. I am not alone in feeling such disgust at their behaviour. 
New Zealanders know that when a team is playing badly its members should look to themselves and not blame the ref. New Zealanders know that a fair trial has to have the accused person being able to defend himself or herself. New Zealanders also know that when a member of their family is killed they deserve support because they will understandably be distraught. I think we should debate policy and not attack people. I particularly believe that we should not attack people whose job means they cannot defend themselves or whose job means they are not able to defend themselves. That is a very basic request that I propose to this House. 
My next point is about the family members of someone who has been killed. I will never forget the smirk on the face of Mr English as that young man’s response to his family member’s murder was used in this House. I will never forget the smirk on Mr English’s face as that man’s name was brought into this House. It is not something that has happened in the past and I certainly hope we can learn from it. A young man who was overcome by grief— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are some things that you cannot allow to go past. That Minister’s coming down to the Chamber and making up someone else’s facial expressions in that way is outrageous it is wrong and she knows it. She is making it up. It is like saying that the Prime Minister was sitting there giggling at the same time. That was not the way that either the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister were behaving. The Minister does herself a disservice by that sort of game. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was here yesterday and I certainly share the Minister’s observations of what happened and the disgust at that behaviour. I have to ask myself though as members of the House would ask themselves how Mr Sowry who sits alongside Mr English would notice the expression on his face. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not raised this point of order today because this is the Wednesday afternoon debate but all of the honourable Minister’s speech was out of order. In fact it was grossly out of order. Members cannot debate a point of order. If members want to raise a matter about a point of order it has to be done at the time. The Minister’s whole debate is about a point of order. I object to it because she referred to one of my members who made a purely factual statement. She is now making up things that did not happen with regard to Stephen Franks’ contribution to the debate. In no way could it be said to be an attack on the Speaker. 
I also want to say that if what the Minister is saying is correct then there was a breach of the Standing Orders. Members cannot attack the Speaker. That has not been so ruled. Her whole speech is out of order and it is creating disorder. Why does she not do something revolutionary and debate the Government’s policies? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for raising that issue and for explaining it. Mr Prebble is absolutely right. Members may not refer in their speeches to points of order or discussions during points of order. I was remiss in allowing that to continue. Members may not do that and I ask the speaker not to do that. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I remember the lessons the nuns taught us at school—about standards values principles respect for people and telling the truth. I am around the same age as the current Leader of the Opposition and we share the same religious upbringing. I am sure he heard those same lessons. It is obvious that he has let down his party. However in my view he has now gone a lot further than that. He has let down the very basic values that our community believes in—the values that in obviously more politically convenient times he espouses as his own. 
With Winston Peters frankly not a lot surprises me. He is totally lacking in principle. He thrives on insinuation and innuendo and has no regard at all for the damage he does to people outside this House. Stephen Franks is pretty similar. But for the so-called Leader of the Opposition Bill English not just to condone but to agree deliberately to be a key part in attacking public servants and attacking people who are unable to defend themselves and to use the tragedy of a woman’s murder to drag themselves out of the political mire is something that I find very difficult to accept. 
I guess when one has no policy no leadership and no principles one does resort to this sort of behaviour. At 7 percent in the polls and clearly falling it is no wonder that Mr English is in the state he is in. He is a coup waiting to happen. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It has to be market day because all the fishwives are in town—and they are all in the debate. I want to express my great concern at events in this House this afternoon and yesterday. I want to express disappointment that we are no wiser now than we were yesterday about a non-prosecution for vandalism in the grounds of Parliament. The facts given to me by Danny Alkema the person Labour members purport to defend are as follows: firstly he committed vandalism with his trail bike on 21 May on Parliament’s lawns; secondly he gave himself up to the police confessed and was being processed; thirdly there was— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With reference to your earlier ruling—as raised in the point of order by the Hon Roger Sowry—that I was not able to refer to the issues raised in the point of order yesterday I wonder whether there is any relationship between that ruling and the fact that Winston Peters is quite clearly talking about exactly the same issue? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No he is not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Peters has not once made reference to a point of order; he has said that he wants to know answers to some questions. Having heard from Government members all afternoon on this matter I have to say that it is really very unparliamentary for them not to allow Mr Peters to be able at least to reply to the points that the Minister and her colleagues have made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for raising that issue. It is a very difficult area but I agree that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was not in any way referring to points of order in the same way— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It is exactly the same! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it was not. It was quite distinct and I ask Mr Peters to continue. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Danny Alkema—the person Ruth Dyson purported to defend as did the other female members of the Labour Party—told me that he committed vandalism on 21 May that he gave himself up to the police and confessed that he was being processed by the police and that there was right then and there contact between the police and the Speaker. Danny Alkema was told exactly that there and then by the police and he was then told to be on his way with a warning. That all happened on the same day and within a space of 2 hours. 
Today we have been given a different version of events. This different version is as follows: firstly there was no contact between the police and the Speaker’s office; secondly it can be inferred that the police misadvised Mr Alkema about the Speaker’s views; and thirdly the Speaker was involved not by phone but at a meeting later on. So we have two different versions of events and it puts me in mind of that old saying: “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to deceive.” 
I ask Mr Speaker whether he can tell me why Danny Alkema’s police file was pulled from the Lower Hutt Police Station last night and brought back to the Wellington office? Can he tell me that? Why was that man’s file pulled last night after question time in the House from the Lower Hutt Police Station and brought back to the Wellington station? Is that a case of political interference in matters of the police or what? Who authorised it? I say that it is time to come clean. What role did the Minister of Police have in that occurrence last night? 
Was Inspector Marty Grenfell involved—yes or no? He was at the meeting on 21 May and he was there at all relevant points of time when Danny Alkema was told that the Speaker’s office had been in contact. After question time yesterday and through last night who spent the hours working on damage control to be ready for today’s question time? The two versions just do not agree. The difference should be cleared up now. 
We want the police records on this matter tabled in this House. The Speaker gave us an assurance yesterday that this matter would be decided by the House. Instead we were swamped by procedural issues generalised facts and a veneer of humanitarian behaviour duplicated in Labour members’ speeches today. They claim their actions—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes they originate from their desire to be humanitarian. Danny Alkema is my informant. He wants this action. He wants to know what happened. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am listening with interest to the member’s speech but I need your assistance. It seems to me that he is indeed referring to a matter that was the subject of earlier points of order both yesterday and today and is seeking to prosecute the matter of the Speaker’s judgment—the judgment of the Chair—in a way that calls into disrepute in my view the statements made by the Speaker earlier today and he even outlined a process that any member of this House can take should they wish to question the judgment of the Speaker’s Chair. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The reality is that I am talking about Danny Alkema’s files. I am talking about them being pulled last night. None of that has been a matter of a point of order today or yesterday. That member knows that full well and then he says that he wants your help. Well frankly he is incapable of using it. Can I get back to the debate? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Members know that they must not challenge any Speaker’s explanation or ruling. There is a proper course by which they can do that and members are all aware of it. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was in no way referring to points of order in my view. He was simply expanding on an issue that he has raised before. He was getting close perhaps to criticising or objecting to Speaker’s decisions but I do not think he quite got there. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Is it not a coincidence? Labour members came to the House today with every speaker pleading the correctness of the Speaker’s decision where humanitarian actions and Danny Alkema were concerned. Now can that be a coincidence? Is this pure serendipity? Is this sort of accidental or what? After the Speaker’s statement I think that it is all there. He claims a different time and different events and makes no acknowledgment of a direct phone call. We want the police log of the telephone accounts in respect of that day. We want the telephone account log. We want the police log of that interview with Danny Alkema. That is what we want. We do not want it somewhere else—some other place in the country—we want it on the floor of this Parliament. Let me tell that member who claims to be the Minister of Defence that we will not rest until we get it—because the facts do not support one thing I have heard today. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 There is an underlying attribute that bonds most Kiwis—the principle of fairness of giving a bloke a fair go. Out in the heartland of New Zealand if someone rorts this attribute Kiwis can sense it smell it and taste it. Well over the last 3 weeks it has been rorted all right. Opposition members led by Messrs English Sowry Smith Peters and Franks have rorted it. They have breached the sacred bond with all New Zealanders—and this is how it works. The Government has no problem with scrutiny no problem with debate and no problem with criticism but the Speaker Jonathan Hunt day in and day out has had not only his rulings challenged but his essence and mana—and that is a fact. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member must not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: There is one other point that I wanted to make about that. When one challenges and questions people’s integrity and credibility when one challenges their essence and their mana that is not fair because those people have their hands tied behind their back and they are sitting on the ground. But people like the member for Tauranga jump in off the fence. That member waited for 2 weeks had his finger in the air listened to Radio Pacific had a think about it then jumped off the fence and put the boot in. That is what he did. That is how low and crass the leader of New Zealand First is. Those party members in the House with him right now are a bunch of bunnies. 
I grew up in west Auckland under the shadow of that great bloke—the list MP for my area Jonathan Hunt. He might not be perfect but one thing he has always exhibited day in and day out and when I was a young kid growing up is that he has always been straight always been honest always had integrity and always had credibility. Then chumps come into this House and question that. It is a disgrace. It is outrageous! For 2 weeks Winston Peters sat on the fence and waited for a bloke to be down and then he jumped in. That is the measure of it. That is the crass low measure of the member for Tauranga. 
Enough of the member for Tauranga anyway and the Maori boys he has with him because no one knows who they are. They never go out to the constituencies and they never do anything. They just sit on the fence. They will not contest the Maori seats but all of a sudden they have some Maori seats. They do not have any policy or anything else. 
I will conclude by speaking of one other matter and that is the political career of the legend—in his own mind—from the ACT party Stephen Franks. I had cause to look at his website. He often describes himself as a “former top lawyer”. We know all about the “former” but I do not know about the “top”. Where are his fingerprints on any legal treatise? Where are his fingerprints on any commercial case of any substance in this country? Where are they? [ 
Interruption 
] They are not. I will tell members where they are though. This is what he says: “It hasn’t been thought yet”—[ 
Interruption 
] Unlike the people on the other side of the House we do not take pecuniary gain like Richard Prebble. I am not paid by external agents to be here as Richard Prebble is. I am here— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think I can anticipate the point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a grossly disorderly accusation to put across the House that a member is being paid by external agents to be in the House. I demand that the matter be withdrawn and apologised for. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you Mr Prebble. Mr Tamihere— 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I withdraw and apologise especially to the honourable Richard Prebble. 
I have a statement from Mr Franks’ latest speech in which he says: “A chummy little political elite has controlled our justice system for 20 years. I know because I was one.” His record makes it clear that he was at the centre of it. He goes on to say: “They have given much of the dirty work to the judges.” 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a completely false accusation. I did not make those statement. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a matter for debate. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He is misleading the House and deliberately so. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a debate where the ACT party has had its contribution. For a Minister to claim to the House that he is quoting from a member when he is not is pretty close to a breach of privilege. He should be warned he should not be saying to the House that a member made a statement if he cannot authenticate it. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seems to be a recurring theme. If the member believes there has been a breach of privilege proper procedures are laid down and they are not by way of point of order. The member concerned should lay a breach of privilege claim. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a matter of concern during the last two points of orders taken by Stephen Franks and Richard Prebble John Tamihere remained on his feet. Normally the Speaker calls a person recognises him or her on a point of order and the person who may have had his or her speech interrupted sits down. It is very disorderly when the Speaker does not rise giving the point of order and when the person who has the call stays on his or her feet and keeps interrupting the point of order. That has just happened twice in a row and it will be very disorderly if you permit that to continue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising those issues. I hope the Minister will take note of the concerns those members have. During points of order there is to be no talk no interjections and no one standing up except the person talking to the point of order. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Between 1991 and 1995 Mr Stephen Franks was lucky enough through political patronage to achieve a number of appointments to Government committees. By his own acknowledgment he oversaw the legal restructuring of a number of matters from Crown health enterprises through to the Electricity Industry Reform Act. If I were worth my salt there would have to be an action in negligence for the type of advice that organisations got from that bloke. Under no circumstances would anyone in his or her right mind acknowledge that advice. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next member some concern was raised during the last member’s speech about references to the Speaker. I did not take them as references in the context of what we had been talking about. I see no harm in members’ saying something good about the Speaker and praising him and that is what the member was doing. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Everywhere I go in New Zealand these days I am asked the same question: “Why is the Labour Government pigheadedly ignoring public opinion on such a significant issue as the lifting of the moratorium—an issue that will shape the destiny of New Zealand for the next few decades and perhaps for ever—and dismissing the risks that lifting it will pose to the future of our nation in such a cavalier way?”. Why is the party that ushered in a nuclear-free New Zealand and helped us forge an independent identity in the world taking us down a path where we will lose for ever our GE-free status and reputation as a source of clean pure products? 
That was the theme of the rally held outside Parliament yesterday. One speaker Jim Kebble a former New Zealand Labour Council member puzzled out loud about why the Government was ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of people by lifting the moratorium. Clearly it was not doing so for trade reasons because there are no market or trading opportunities for any GE crops. Nor is it doing so to preserve our environment. If cross-contamination in the vast prairies of Canada cannot be avoided there is no way we will avoid it here. He said that if the Government was going to go against the wishes of the vast majority of New Zealanders on such a significant issue and risk our trade our environment and our future in the process there would need to be some clearly articulated principle for doing so. However the question is: what is the principle? And if there is a principle here why have the people of New Zealand never been told what it is? If the Government is not making a stand on a matter of principle what is the reason for its stand? 
Most people who puzzle over the Government’s motives in lifting the moratorium eventually conclude that there can be only one explanation and that is pressure from the American Government and various multinational corporations. If we cast our mind back to the highly publicised time when Helen Clark met George Bush in the White House we can speculate that George Bush said to Helen Clark something to the effect: “If you want a free-trade deal with us you must lift the moratorium or you can kiss goodbye to a free-trade deal.” If that is the explanation and there seems to be no other one the Government is risking our export markets our environment and our independence to appease a foreign power. I believe that this underlying threat to our sovereignty is the reason I suspect that the disquiet and concern about lifting the moratorium has spread to the Labour Party rank and file. 
I issue a plea to the Labour Government not to repeat the mistakes of the past not to ignore the views of the people it was elected to represent or indeed its own members and not to put the interests of a foreign power and a handful of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of New Zealanders. 
Finally it is extraordinary that in the face of nationwide concern and disquiet about the lifting of the moratorium all our Prime Minister has done is attack Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons. Today three Ministers in this debate went on and on about how we should not attack people their mana or their credibility—the previous speaker said that—and that we should play the ball and not the person. Why then does their Prime Minister not heed her advice? Why has she “played the ball” as the previous speaker said rather than the game? 
Personality attacks like this are always the resort of those who have no arguments to muster to defend their stance. It is curious that we have had a cowering silence from Labour Party members about the moratorium and have heard no arguments why they are in favour of it. We have heard none. Instead we have heard personal attacks from the Prime Minister with no attempt to debate the issues or answer the questions that New Zealanders around the country are asking. Far from cowering in the face of these attacks I can assure the House that the Green Party sees them as an admission of defeat by the Government. We challenge the Labour Party rank and file the Labour members here today and the Labour Ministers to come up with some argument some explanation some reason or some matter of principle as to why they are defying public opinion in this way. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 In reply to my friend from the Green Party as to why there has been no discussion on policy recently about the lifting of the GM moratorium I say that she should read the royal commission report on genetic modification. When members ask why the Government is ignoring the wishes of so many people I say let them read the royal commission report. When a political party becomes a pressure group it loses its credibility. The more it becomes a pressure group the more sidelined it becomes in the process. 
What is scandalous about what we have heard in Parliament in the last 7 days is the diatribe delivered in the House last Wednesday by ACT member Stephen Franks. What is scandalous is that he was either deliberately misquoting the law to score a shabby political point against a sitting-duck target or the ACT party’s so-called justice spokesman is unable to read the law. For example there is no comparison between the judgment of the Chief Justice in the foreshore case and the position of Lord Hoffman 10 years ago in the House of Lords in the Pinochet case. The Chief Justice was one of five unanimous judges and you have not given one reason as to why her judgment was faulty. In denigrating the Chief Justice you denigrate the President of the Court of Appeal Justice Gault and you denigrate senior justices of the Court of Appeal without a skerrick of argument. However in the Pinochet case Lord Hoffman was one of three in a majority out of five. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are being called into this debate more often than is usually attributable just to inexperience. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I may be inexperienced but I am not incompetent in law. 
The point of the Pinochet case is that Lord Hoffman had connections that were obscure and not known to the other side. The Chief Justice in this country is well known for advocacy. The lawyers acting for the Marlborough Sounds parties in the foreshore case know of her history and not one of them took objection to her sitting on the case. The Crown lawyers know of the Chief Justice’s advocacy and not one of them took objection to the case. The ACT spokesman Stephen Franks has known for years of the Chief Justice’s advocacy and it took him 14 months to consider that there may be bias. One must ask why that is. 
There is a legal term called “champerty”. Champerty is when a party tries to influence court proceedings for some purpose beneficial to themselves. What a coincidence. When this great arguer of legal principle in the select committee loses arguments about the Supreme Court Bill he goes public with an attack on the Chief Justice on the same day the bill is released. He does not address the issues by attacking her judgment or by recognising that the principles behind her judgment were a recognition of the international law of indigenous people when they are subject to settlement by consent—nothing radical like that. No instead he comes out and links it to the Supreme Court. 
What is his motive? It is surely to encourage the lawyers for the Marlborough Sounds case and put public pressure on them to take the case to the Privy Council thereby raising for the first time the question of bias which in the public mind has now been set at large. The only purpose for that can be to slow down the Supreme Court Bill and achieve by a side wind what that brilliant legal mind could not achieve by his advocacy at the select committee. Stephen Franks ignored the experience of senior judges who explained matters in detail to him in response to his I must say rather timid questioning of the leaders of the bar—the leaders of the judiciary. Not once did he confront Lord Cooke. Not once did he tackle Sir Thomas Eichelbaum. Instead we had timid questions and reminders of when he used to work at Chapman Tripp as they may have also. We had no lion’s roaring at the select committee we had meek and mild “count me in too sir” questioning. But of course his arguments failed because of lack of logic force and support which is reflected in the 5 percent support that his party has. It is a nice coincidence with the support given to the Leader of the Opposition which is about 7 percent. He has personally attacked the judiciary. 
That tells us not just about the lack of ability of that self-described legal leader to read case law but it also tells us another thing. It tells us that the Leader of the Opposition has forsaken his responsibility to stand up as a Queen’s representative. Mr Bill English by his silence in this House has condoned the attack on the Chief Justice and the attack on our Court of Appeal and he has undermined in the public mind confidence in our judiciary. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 We see in the general debate today a significant shift in the Government’s position and scatological speeches from Government members. We also see a sea change in public attitudes towards the Government and the opinion polls are responding with diminished support for the Government. That is little wonder because pragmatism has yielded to principled decision-making and spin is triumphing over substance. I am reminded of the comments made by the Rt Hon Helen Clark at an election campaign rally in November 1999. She said: “If we elect Labour to Government then my commitment is that we will deliver a Government people can trust. It will be open; it will be accountable.” 
So let us look at the record of this Government in year 4 at the outset. It was a time when new partnerships were to be forged so let us look at those so-called partnerships. The partnership with local government is in tatters. The Local Government Act with its much-vaunted claims of the power of general competence was said to promise increased powers for local government. In fact those powers have been stripped away by consultation and accountability obligations that more closely circumscribe local government action. 
The partnership with business has collapsed. It was a partnership built on rhetoric by the Government and no substance. It has been unmasked by the failure of the Government to commit to the outcomes of the Knowledge Wave conferences; of broken promises not to raise taxes; by abandonment of the economic growth goals. The partnership with Maori is in serious trouble. Let us leave aside the conundrum as to who is a Maori and how it is possible to have partnerships with a particular ethnic group. The Government continues to dither on the resolution of the problem of the foreshore and the seabed. We see in vivid action do we not the consultation hui that flounder with point-blank rejection of the Government’s proposals. 
I would also say that our relationships around the world are under significant stress. The collapse of the discussions at Cancun has seen the United States move away from world trade solutions to bilateral agreements and New Zealand is very poorly placed as a result of foolish attacks by the Prime Minister on the United States to stand any real chance in the queue for preference. 
 So what about our relationships with Asia and particularly China? They have been damaged by failed marketing attempts by the Government in respect of English language teaching. That is small wonder really when we have Chinese teachers teaching Chinese students English and we also have in Auckland Indian teachers teaching Chinese students English. It is a very significant event in Auckland because 20 percent of the tenancy in the Auckland central business district is occupied by language schools. In China there is media coverage on New Zealand that is wholly adverse to our interests. 
So the Government fiddles in the tradition I would suggest of the Roman emperor Nero while New Zealand burns. But we also see a display of sickening double standards. We see for the first time a direct challenge to the independence of the police authorities in recent events that have occurred in this House. It is wholly unacceptable for the police to enter Parliament to interrogate an MP. We have an expectation—we in National we in Opposition—that the Government will take a strong stand in respect of those issues that touch the Speaker’s office and the integrity of that office. They are issues that are not going to go away. We see an inconstancy in police position-taking which is truly worrying. It is simply an incomprehensible outcome that there should be one standard for Mr Tizard and another standard for Mr Ardern. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill 
Procedure 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill to proceed directly to its third reading following its being read a second time and for there to be no debate on the third reading. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Our understanding is that there will be a 2-hour debate. If we look on the Order Paper today we see that the bill is set down for twelve 10-minute speeches which is 2 hours. We are comfortable to have— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Oh no! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I suggest that the senior Government whip should not interrupt when I am speaking. I am making a point here; I am trying to help the House. We are quite comfortable about having a second reading not having a Committee stage then going straight to a third reading without any debate if we can ensure that we actually get more than the three speeches that we would normally be allocated. Of course if we skip the Committee stage and the third reading then we will have only three 10-minute speeches. We would like the opportunity to have at least the six 10-minute speeches that we would have if there were a second reading and a third reading. We are looking to help the House. I am asking for your consideration on that matter. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The problem we have here is that we had a discussion at the Business Committee yesterday—I cannot remember whether the member was there but certainly Mr Brownlee was—and we had an agreement for twelve 10-minute speeches with no variation. One party United Future had some uncertainty about its position and its members were going to let it be known at this point if they opposed this particular leave being taken. We had a clear understanding. There were no fish hooks and no “yes but maybes”. I simply ask members to reflect that we need the Business Committee process to be a good-faith process and to work and we need people to stick to what they say there for this House to run for all our sakes. I ask members not to try now to relitigate something about which the Business Committee reached a clear understanding yesterday. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I was at the Business Committee and I am not sure that the minutes would indicate that the situation was as clear as the Acting Leader of the House is proposing was the case. Certainly our taking the bill through all stages today was agreed to. There was discussion about whether we needed to have the Committee stage given that most of us at the Business Committee understood that no amendments would be moved because quite a bit of work has been done by Tim Barnett myself and other members in the Canterbury district to ensure that various people who had concerns about aspects of the bill have had those concerns allayed at least to the point where they are comfortable for it to rest with the resource management process as opposed to the bill itself. The United Future representative on the Business Committee Mr Copeland raised the possibility that his party might not be able to agree to that arrangement. Mr Speaker then said that very well we will leave it at that that the person moving the motion or responsible for the bill can seek leave at the start of the proceedings and if leave is granted then so be it. 
I suggest to the Labour Party members that a lot of work has been done by a lot of people behind the scenes on this particular bill. The Robert McDougall Art Gallery the Canterbury Museum the boulevard and indeed the whole arts precinct are things that most of us from Christchurch are very very proud of. To be restricted to simply three speeches of 10 minutes does limit the opportunity that local members have to comment about something that is important in their local area. I do not think it is unreasonable given that the House is going to save a considerable amount of members’ day time by not having the Committee stage—it is a four-part bill; it could have gone on for some 4 hours perhaps—that we simply ask for some indication that if we want to put up six speakers the Government will not oppose that idea. Government members themselves of course can take as much or as little of the time allocated to them as they wish. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am unable to assist either side or any parties on this matter. The leave is sought simply to have a second reading full stop. Members are all aware of that. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point that my colleague Mr Brownlee has just made is that our Christchurch members are actually in the House and they all want to speak on this bill. It is significant for that region. Also if we were to have the normal procedure for debates and the normal schedule for the calling of the parties National would be entitled to only three speeches of 10 minutes. Because we are in one debate covering the Committee stage and the third reading I am seeking that our members from Christchurch be given that opportunity to take the allotted times of those parties whose members do not speak. We would still get through the bill within 2 hours which is actually what is on the Order Paper—twelve 10-minute speeches which is 2 hours. It is our view that we would be well within that time. What I am seeking is that our Christchurch speakers be allowed to have a 10-minute speech each. I seek leave on that matter. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I point out to the member again that there is a process called the Business Committee. It has to work. People have to act in good faith in that process. There are mechanisms that have been used many times. We would have no objection if members on that side of the House wanted to split their speaking slots for instance by arrangement with the Chair. We would have no objection to that. The member says his party has three 10-minute speeches; splitting them would allow six 5-minute slots and we would have no objection to that at all. But we had a clear set of discussions yesterday. It is important that we actually do stick to what we arrange. Mr Brownlee has as good as acknowledged that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have not acknowledged that. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Well I would have hoped the member would. I think Mr Assistant Speaker that you should put the leave that we should get on with the debate and that you should give the call—which is your responsibility—as you will. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Business Committee decisions are upheld only if leave is not opposed when the decisions are put in the House. I want to make clear again that the minutes of the meeting will show that no clear position was reached on this. We are saying quite simply that if we can get six 10-minute speeches which is not unreasonable the House will save itself a 4-hour Committee stage. If we do not get that then clearly we will have perhaps an hour and a half or so for the second reading today we will have the Committee stage next Wednesday and maybe by Christmas this bill will get past its third reading. We would like to facilitate it being passed through all stages today. Given that we are giving up a considerable amount of time by not having the Committee stage and are disclaiming our third reading time that is not unreasonable. For the House to make progress on this it would not be unreasonable for other parties to agree to what we want. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sure everyone is aware of what is at stake here. There is only one decision the Speaker can make and that is to deal with the leave that has been sought. I am sure both sides know what will happen if it goes one way or the other. Leave has been sought by Tim Barnett. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. National is happy to facilitate our getting the bill through within 2 hours but before Mr Tim Barnett’s leave is put to the House—and both Gerry Brownlee and I have made this point—I ask whether there will be an opportunity for the National members from Christchurch who are here in the House to speak. If we were to have only one debate the second reading we would be entitled to only three speeches. What we ask is that we have six speeches within the time frame. That is what we are asking for—it is very simple very clear—and we are happy to facilitate getting this bill through within 2 hours. I seek leave— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The Chair will be in charge of taking the calls and I am sure the Chair will take all views into account. Leave has been sought by Tim Barnett. Is there any objection to that course being followed? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think members want to be clear about what is being sought. Could Mr Tim Barnett make it clear; we have been debating it for so long that we are unsure now. 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill to proceed directly to its third reading following it being read a second time and for there to be no debate on the third reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. If there is no objection there will be a second reading only of up to 2 hours with the various procedural motions. [ 
Interruption 
] There is no third reading. [ 
Interruption 
] Well there is a third reading but there is no debate on it. The only speaking opportunities will be during the possibly 2-hour second reading. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to be very clear that because there will be only one debate according to the schedule of speakers National will be entitled to only three speakers. We are sacrificing speeches on the Committee stage—we are taking that out of the equation—and we are sacrificing speeches on the third reading where in normal circumstances we would be entitled to another three speakers. I am asking that if we have just one debate the National members from Christchurch who are here in the House—and there are more than three—each be entitled to speak. If that were the case and we work within the 2-hour period then we would be happy to reconsider but at the moment we will have to vote against the leave. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will have one more go. What has been put on the Table is consistent with all the discussion we had yesterday. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No it’s not. That’s a misrepresentation. Let’s put the minutes on the Table. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member should not speak unless he has the call. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is consistent with the discussions we had yesterday which resolved that in the end unless United Future came back there would be a motion that delivered up a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. Whether it was a second or third reading— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: 2 hours. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It was twelve 10-minute speeches. Come on Mr Brownlee! What I am saying to members is that was what we discussed and that is what is being put. If members want to discuss some other things after the leave has been put they may do so but that agreement was reached because the members who care about the bill wanted to facilitate it. If those members no longer want to do that they will probably not allow Mr Tim Barnett’s request to proceed. It is not of any consequence one way or the other to the Government per se—it is not a Government bill. It was simply an arrangement that the House Business Committee tried to facilitate to assist members who wanted to progress the bill. That is what Mr Tim Barnett is trying to do. I suggest that we now simply allow members to decide whether the debate takes place now or over 2 or 3 weeks. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I shall attempt to be of some assistance. It seems to me that we are negotiating through points of order the terms of what was or was not agreed and thereby are consuming valuable time on members’ day. It would be my hope that the Government could progress to the next item of business on the Order Paper whilst the whips retired to a convenient place to discuss what they might or might not wish to do. They would then come back to seek leave of the House. I will be guided by the Chair but if it were helpful I would be prepared to move that the Government proceed to the next item on the agenda while the whips retire to discuss this issue. At the end of the day a member’s bill in the name of Steve Chadwick is still waiting to be debated and we get these opportunities only every second week as we know. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are on a matter of leave Mr Ron Mark and in any case you are free to seek leave for any proposition you might have. We have had a seeking of leave. Everyone is clear on what will happen. I think it is a matter of goodwill. There is no reason for instance that one side cannot have 12 speeches in a row—none at all. It is a matter of goodwill—though it may not happen. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 There is a desire to see this bill passed through all stages today. The bill is holding up a certain amount of development of facilities and one or two other things associated with it. I am aware that people in Christchurch want the bill passed fairly quickly. Accordingly I seek leave for the debate on this matter to be a single debate with the third reading being at the end of it—with no debate and going straight to a vote—and with the debate ending either after 2 hours or after the National Party has had six speaking opportunities of 10 minutes each. It is not unreasonable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think what is being asked for is fairly clear. Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. 
Second Reading 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill be now read a second time 
. This is a local bill sponsored by my local city council. Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Committee has consulted on and considered this bill. It has produced amendments that may be detailed but also I believe are important in creating a smooth way forward for what I regard as a necessary but finely balanced piece of legislation. 
First for the House I would like to set the scene. The former Robert McDougall Art Gallery sits adjacent to the Canterbury Museum and opens on to the Botanic Gardens. Its core structure was funded by Robert E McDougall and it is located on land freed by the Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1925. It opened in 1932 and served the people of Christchurch for 70 years until it was replaced by the city’s shining new art gallery. That move to new premises was to the advantage of the people of the city and the promotion of the arts and gave Christchurch a very pleasant problem: what to do with a superbly sited category I historic building? Clearly the answer has to be something sustainable. 
Fate has intervened favourably. There is a fully planned and largely funded renovation and expansion of the Canterbury Museum. That superb collection enjoys massive public support; indeed its visitor figures are the highest for any museum in New Zealand apart from Te Papa. Space there is at a premium. Options for expansion within the profile of that category I historic building—the museum—are very limited. Expansion into the old art gallery space is a natural development and in the public interest. The Christchurch City Council conducted lengthy consultation on the appropriate use of the old art gallery building including 2 days of public hearings in May 2002. The bill that went through its first reading in this House was a result of that. 
I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work it did on this bill. It visited my electorate to consult on it and I regard that as a superb expression of the accessibility of this Parliament. During its visit it went to the site and also heard 10 submissions. I want to credit the energy and determination of the submitters on this bill notably Janet Begg and Anne Dingwall who are motivated by a passionate love for their city and for the former art gallery. They have monitored this development at every stage. Their interventions have improved the bill and their continued close interest in the project will ensure a high level of accountability. I also want to thank the Christchurch City Council particularly its solicitor Peter Mitchell for the energy and resources it has put into interacting with the public and their concerns. The issues raised in submissions were not simple ones and discussions have continued involving both Gerry Brownlee—who has been helpful in this matter—and myself since the select committee reported back. 
There are six core concerns relating to the bill. The first concern is that the gallery should properly be described as a public gallery. That is relevant; it fits the values and intent of the proposed lessees and it has my strong support. 
Second clause 6(1) of the bill allowed the gallery building to be used for purposes ancillary to the display of arts and crafts. The select committee replaced the word “purposes” with “activities” which I believe is clearer. The fear of some local submitters was that the gallery building might be used for unsuitable commercial operations but I think that fear is not well placed. Contemporary successful museums and galleries attract people through their range of services. The removal of the phrase “ancillary purposes”—or “ancillary activities”—would place such mainstream uses of space as storage or cafes under threat which would clearly be ludicrous. Specific concerns about detailed plans are best left to the local resource management process. 
Third clause 8 concerned the fact that the land and property are not subject to tax and it has properly been deleted as it was unnecessary. Fourth the word “Vesting” has been deleted from the title of the bill as being unnecessary and indeed misleading. 
Fifth there has been extensive debate concerning future use of the building and the land. Many submitters are fearful that the land on which the gallery stands will one day be subsumed into the museum or that the building will cease to be used for arts and crafts. I am convinced that if that were to happen Parliament would need to approve it using just such a process as we have today. That is an appropriate guarantee and protection. 
Finally some people have argued that the lease to the museum should be for less than 50 years. I do not believe that such a change is necessary. The best way to ensure public use and appreciation of this treasure of Christchurch is to give it security and sustainability. A close relationship with the museum is the best guarantee of that. 
I recommend this bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I am sure that the motion will be agreed to. I want to speak about the background to the bill because in many ways this could best be described as a bill that deals with the transition from the way that things were done some 78 years ago to the way that things are done in today’s world. I would like to say to the many people who have expressed concerns about the future of the Robert McDougall Gallery that this bill most certainly does move to protect the gallery’s longer-term interests. In his speech Tim Barnett mentioned Janet Begg and Anne Dingwall. Those two people have put a great deal of time into this matter ably assisted by Hamish Douche and as Tim Barnett has said their contribution has made the bill even more resolute. It has also given us a lot of opportunities to consider just what various clauses in the bill effectively mean. 
The first point I make is that this gallery is a very grand building. As Tim Barnett said it was built in 1925. It sits right at the back end of the museum and faces out on to the beautiful botanic gardens in Christchurch. The land was annexed from the botanic gardens in order for the Robert McDougall Gallery to be built in the first place. When the gallery was gifted to the city its purpose was to be a place of display for the arts and crafts that Christchurch City owned at that time. Over the years that collection has grown to be a very substantial one and it is now housed further down the road in the new Christchurch Art Gallery. 
I ask people to picture this. The botanic gardens are to the south-east of the city the Robert McDougall Gallery is on the adjacent land and the museum is immediately behind that. It is then about a kilometre up the boulevard to the city cathedral in Cathedral Square and along the way on the right there is the Arts Centre of Christchurch—formerly the Canterbury University site—and on the left just a bit further down the road there is the brand new art gallery which is a splendid building. Of course one can also ride the tram all the way across the Avon River to Otautahi the former provincial library which has now been converted into a meeting place for people in the city and then into the square itself. What is slowly happening in that area is that most of the arts per se are relocating and one can see an arts precinct developing there which I think will be good not only for Christchurch but for the Southern Hemisphere. So in many ways protecting this building by making it part of the museum and giving the Canterbury Museum a very long lease over it is very positive for the city. 
One of the concerns that the group initially raised with the Local Government and Environment Committee and subsequently with other members was the issue of the encroachment of food service arrangements into the footprint of the old McDougall building itself. That is an issue that cannot really be dealt with in the bill and as the previous speaker said it is best left to the resource management process. But because the people who are involved do have sensitivities about the use of the building a revised resource consent plan will be in front of the city council as soon as this bill is passed. It will see a very small amount of the McDougall building used only for seating and not for the servicing or food preparation associated with cafeteria-type operations. 
There was also worry about the provision in the bill that states that the purpose of the gallery is for the public display of art decorative arts and crafts and ancillary activities. The basement of the McDougall building is set up as an area in which artworks can be conserved and repaired allowing for programmes for the restoration of pieces of some merit. That would be defined as an ancillary purpose. If the bill were to exclude ancillary purposes that could not progress. More than that the McDougall building is also occasionally used by the Symphony Orchestra for very exclusive concerts. I know chamber music concerts are held there and it is very appropriate for that to occur. Her Majesty the Queen used the building briefly to freshen up in 1990 before a reception on the Archery Lawn which is immediately below the McDougall building in the botanic gardens. All those activities would have been prevented as well had ancillary activities not been allowed. The group understood eventually that it is the resource management process that will manage the activity that goes on in that building. The legislation very strongly links the ancillary activities to the display of art decorative arts and crafts. 
The other issue was a suggestion that should the building no longer be used for those purposes it would revert to the botanic gardens. The difficulty with that of course is that the building itself is registered as a category I building by the Historic Places Trust and cannot be pulled down. Secondly if the museum were to relinquish the lease the Christchurch City Council would become the owner and the council would be vesting the land back in itself because obviously it owns the botanic gardens. There is very strong protection there for the land and for any future use. My own confident view is that the building will continue to be a significant gallery for the display of artworks. The Canterbury Museum has a collection of some 8000 artworks. Many of those are early pencil sketches of Canterbury landscapes and they will be on display. Many of those sketches were done by famous people from the Canterbury district and they will be on display. 
I dare say that there will be the opportunity in this gallery to have a Helen Clark wing in which some of the Prime Minister’s artwork could be on display. I say “the Prime Minister’s artwork” but perhaps some of the artwork arranged by the Prime Minister could be put there. It would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to have artwork that she has purchased displayed in the gallery. It would be entirely consistent with this bill for the Prime Minister to have a gallery full of her art. She would not need to sign it because the wing itself would be named the Helen Clark wing of the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. I suspect some of the things we would see in it would be some of the plates that are being prepared for the new currency notes that we will soon have in circulation with Helen Clark’s photograph—and no doubt her signature—on them. Some of the stamps that will bear Helen Clark’s head could be in there. Those are all things that are entirely consistent with the display of art and decorative arts. 
I would not be at all surprised if the McDougall gallery makes a request to the Hon Judith Tizard the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage for some of her knitting for display there. That would be OK. Perhaps it could be a bit of knitting that has been done in the House—a bit of a Madame LaFarge effort knitting as the guillotine comes down on the Government. 
But in general we can say that all those people who worried that that building might not be used for its original purpose should be content that the bill protects it as much as possible. The original gift from the McDougall family—from Mr McDougall himself—was a generous one. His intentions were clear and they are maintained in this event. It is my understanding that Robert McDougall’s descendants are very happy that the gallery will continue to carry his name and that it will be a significant part of the museum’s redevelopment. It is interesting to note that in an airspace between the old museum and the McDougall gallery itself a marae will be built and a full meeting house will be put in place so that the earliest descendants of Otautahi can also be recognised in that cultural precinct. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to commend this bill to the House. I was greatly enamoured of the speech by Gerry Brownlee. He has obviously been brushing up on a number of skills—his encyclopedic memory of what goes on in the Robert McDougall Gallery—in order to get ready for the new job that he will need come 2005. On behalf of the Auckland MPs I congratulate the Christchurch MPs on promoting this legislation. As they will appreciate Auckland has several of these wonderful edifices and we are grateful that the Cantabrians are now on the catch-up. I commend the bill to the House. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and to indicate that we will of course support this bill passing through the House. I was not the New Zealand First person who sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee and took part in the deliberations on the legislation. In fact it is with some regret that whilst I am a Canterbury man—a Christchurch resident and a Waimakariri ratepayer—and as I now understand it I am contributing towards some of the costs that have been incurred here I say it was Jim Peters who saw this bill through the select committee stage. It is just a little sad that he is not here to speak to it but I will make some passing comments. 
First I would like to acknowledge the generosity of some people long since passed away who were responsible in the first place for Christchurch’s art gallery. In fact that is pretty well laid out in the submission from the Christchurch City Council. In 1928 the managing director of Aulsebrooks Ltd Robert McDougall donated £25000 for the construction of the art gallery. I also find that in 1982-83 the administrative wing was made possible by a generous donation of $250000 from the Molly Morpeth Canaday Fund. Is it not ironic that the very people who are often accused of being horrible nasty mean Tory people with too much money and who are often the subject of political envy by socialist parties and members of socialist parties who want to give all the money to the poor and the impoverished are actually the very people who contribute freely of their own time? We can look at the Todds and at so many of the families out there who on the one hand— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: This is the man who abused me yesterday about luxury— 
RON MARK 
: Yes because the member gives away money as though it is going out of fashion. That Minister who is prattling on and interjecting Mr Mark Burton is known for one thing: throwing around other people’s money like an 8-armed octopus. He has never ever had to go out and mortgage his home raise capital create a business and employ people himself. He is a man who has lived off the taxpayer’s teat all his life. It is a great irony that this great art gallery in Christchurch would not even exist but for the very types of people whom he and his ilk continually criticise on the election hustings as being greedy capitalists—rich and horrible people. Those very people fund some of our institutions out of their own pockets and we are grateful that they exist. 
Here is one of the great ironies. Normally it is the reserve of the rich and the wealthy to be seen at symphonies the ballet the art gallery and walking the catwalk at the Montana New Zealand Wearable Arts Awards. But in this day and age the Labour Party which reflects academic socialism no longer has a truck driver a freezing worker a mechanic or a tradesperson in its ranks. Its members are always to be seen funding art turning up to open art shows poncing themselves around as the new socialist elite of the new society and holding themselves up as the protectors of the art world. That really strikes a chord with the men from the freezing works at Belfast. They know precisely— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: The member’s never been there. 
RON MARK 
: I say to Mr Cosgrove that I was there when he was there during my campaign at the 1993 election. I have been there many many times since then. Asking that question shows that the member is ignorant or wants to perpetuate a lie or both. He should make up his mind. Maybe the man has never been there himself and is jealous of me. But here we have a situation where the member has been there three times in 5 years—not bad given that he has worked in this Parliament for a lot longer than that. Do we not find it ironic that those people who left the Labour Party with their vote who took their membership away—and there are a lot of them here in the House—look upon the Labour Party now as a new cultural and social elite? That makes them given their criticism of the Tories whom they hate and of the capitalists whom they loathe— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And secretly envy. 
RON MARK 
: And secretly envy and whom they just want to be like—even more able to be called that horrible “h” word that we are not allowed to use in the Chamber. 
This bill is a good move. However I cannot let this debate pass by without mentioning that tower of strength in support of Helen Clark as a painter and an artist: the mayor of Christchurch Gary Moore. He is a Labour Party stalwart from way back. It has not been lost on Labour voters in Canterbury that the very people who fronted up with $47 million of ratepayers’ money to build the new art gallery which is replacing the McDougall art gallery came from Labour ranks. Once again Labour members want to be seen at the opera at the ballet and at the forefront of promoting art because God knows they cannot paint for themselves. God knows that Helen Clark cannot paint despite the fact that she said she could. Labour members want to be seen up there amongst the socially elite. That is actually one of the most astounding things about the Labour Party of today. If we are to look at that party closely we must ask ourselves what it does stand for in all the things that it has progressed through the House and through its Labour Party card-carrying lackeys in local government. What have Labour members been most concerned about in the last 4 years? Well they are not concerned about housing in Christchurch because the State houses are full of immigrants and refugees. They are not concerned about the health services and their delivery because that money is going out to immigrants and refugees. They are not concerned about catering for real jobs. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It’s about jobs—real jobs. 
RON MARK 
: Oh jobs the man says. The only thing he is interested in is chasing 55-year-olds out into the workforce. He does not give a toss about the lazy sit-on-their-backsides-doing-nothing people whom New Zealand First had working for the dole. No he wants to harangue nanas and granddads and to get them out to work because they need a job jolt. 
It is good to see that this bill will go through the House. It is good to see that the Christchurch City Council has consulted with people and has adhered to the principles laid down by the people who originally fronted up with the money and donated it for the building of the art gallery. That will leave a great sense of satisfaction with their heirs and no doubt with the 200-300 people who actually made submissions to the council. But that leaves this question: what about the tens and hundreds of thousands of other Christchurch people who did not make submissions? What about those people who actually just want the Labour-led local government of Christchurch and this Labour central government to take care of some of the basics? I am referring to things like escalating electricity prices people who cannot get a State home people who sit in a queue waiting to get access to hospital services while immigrants refugees and asylum seekers take the money out from under their noses—[ 
Interruption 
] It is all about being relevant. This is all about splurging money—hard-earned money—on things that are actually set up to gratify Helen Clark’s artistic desires. That is what the issue is all about. 
If the old gallery ends up being used as a museum that will be great because I know a lot of work is being done to expand the Canterbury Museum. That is desperately needed because in there we house the whakapapa of the Canterbury district and the greater South Island and that is very very important. What I do not want to see there are the ashes of Helen Clark’s painting. I do not want to see in the Robert McDougall Art Gallery which will be converted into a museum Helen Clark’s art works. I do not want at some distant time my great grandchildren to wander through the gallery and see the replica painting of Helen Clark’s forgery—it would have to be a replica because we know that for some reason someone purchased the painting that she signed and destroyed it. But Helen Clark did not know anything about that! 
Hon David Carter 
: What about a photograph? 
RON MARK 
: There may be a photograph but we will have to decide whether it should be the one where she used a hairbrush or an airbrush. That is the other piece of art forgery that could go in this art gallery. The Labour Party’s pre-election card purports to have a photo of Helen Clark on it but it must be her daughter. Yet we know she does not have a daughter so that cannot be the case. Now I am really confused. That was the last bit of art forgery. 
There is another forgery over here. I saw a document down in the bookshop in Bowen House and on the front page there was a photo of a woman with Jim Anderton. I asked who the woman was. Well again it is a piece of art forgery because it is not Helen Clark. It certainly does not look like her. But who knows one day when my great great grandchildren are going through this art gallery they may see the transitional sets of photographs election after election of Helen Clark—one with a hairbrush and one with an airbrush; one with her as an older woman and one as a younger woman. Right beside them we will probably see the ashes of her painting. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I do not have a lot to say about this bill. It is a local bill and the really fundamental question is why it actually needs to come to this Parliament. That is a fairly fundamental question. 
We have had a number of entertaining speeches where we have gone into the vagaries and inadequacies of the health sector and into the issue of refugees and immigrants. But personally I find this bill to be very narrow and very specific. It is a local bill and in essence clause 7 is the key part. It affects the rights and prerogatives of the Crown by repealing section 54 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act of 1925. All that essentially means is that what would have happened to the Robert McDougall Gallery if it ceased to be used for the purpose of an art gallery is that it would have reverted to the Crown. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered that and really there is a lot of satisfaction that the Christchurch City Council is the appropriate body to look after the building. 
Christchurch members have already made the observation that the city is developing a sort of arts sector as it were along a kilometre or so of “Christchurch Boulevard” adjacent to Hagley Park. As this gallery is adjacent to the botanic gardens I actually believe and ACT believes that these are matters that should be dealt with at the local level. We should not spend the time of our national Parliament on this bill. I do not mean to say that it deals with trivia but these are strictly minor matters. I just want to put in a plug that in the future we should look to strip ourselves of jurisdiction over these sorts of matters. 
Some local bills are important and do need to come to this Parliament. Our Standing Orders make provision for local bills and so they should. But I think there are at times very very local matters that should not come here—and I see that the Leader of the House is nodding in agreement with my submission. I do think there are matters that can and should be dealt with by local councils and this in my view would be one of them. 
ACT supports this bill. We see no mischief or any problem with regard to the bill. There is a commonsense recommendation from the select committee and we will support it. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I acknowledge the honourable member Ken Shirley who has just resumed his seat but I took a slightly different position from his. A few weeks back in the House we debated and were in cooperation to pass the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill which happened to be a local bill as well. My contention is art galleries and museums are not just entirely a local issue as such. I think that museums and galleries in each city have a national and to an extent international importance as well. Most museums including art galleries whether in Auckland Wellington or Christchurch are not just the pride of the local people. They also provide quite a major attraction to international visitors and in fact they are always within the itinerary the first port of call in order for international visitors to understand New Zealanders then further each region’s differences. 
 I follow on from the compliments paid to the McDougall family by a few colleagues who have just spoken. Indeed the McDougall art gallery has for 70 years provided a very very enjoyable experience for the many people who have visited it. My participation in the opening of the new Christchurch art gallery reminded me of how all these treasures valuable paintings and art have been hidden away from the public for so long because they had long outgrown the old McDougall gallery. As well as receiving the generosity of the McDougall family the new Christchurch art gallery also received generous support from local people. I would like to mention for example Ms Ros Burdon who contributed as part of the fundraising committee of the new art gallery. Also I am very privileged to be married to Sammy my husband who has also served on the fundraising committee and has seen quite a few Asian community members in Christchurch donating generously to the Christchurch art gallery. This demonstrates that whatever the background of the members from Christchurch they all share the same pride and generosity towards the new art gallery which will provide much enjoyment and pride to this very fine city that I have been living in for 27 years. 
The reason we are here to debate this bill is due to the advantage of having the new Christchurch art gallery situated on Worcester Boulevard which led to the McDougall gallery now being available to be leased by the Christchurch City Council as it sees fit. But the submitters rightly pointed out that they want to make sure the future use of the McDougall art gallery will also still be for public enjoyment. I am very pleased that the Christchurch City Council has already indicated that the art gallery will be leased to the Canterbury Museum. Like the Auckland War Memorial Museum collections the art treasures and collections of the Canterbury Museum also deserve a lot more space. I have a particularly soft spot for the Canterbury Museum. About 10 years ago the Canterbury Museum curator approached the Chinese community and asked whether they were interested in assisting the Canterbury Museum to develop a dedicated Asian display gallery. It was with a lot of pride and joy that we cooperated with fundraising and providing cultural input. The Canterbury Museum now has a permanent display area to show the fine collection of Chinese Korean and Japanese artefacts. The other interesting thing is that the existence of the permanent display gallery continues to attract generous donations from the Asian community. Every time there are international visitors or visitors from Auckland and Wellington the museum is one of the places to which the Asian community proudly invites those visitors. 
I think I mentioned in the House a few weeks ago that I hope that one day the Auckland War Memorial Museum will also see fit to have a space dedicated to the growing Asian population up there. I certainly would like to see Te Papa the national museum acknowledge that New Zealand is now a multicultural society. The people of Christchurch can see the collections of the Canterbury Museum or any other future special exhibitions that can be brought to Christchurch and I think that is a fantastic addition for Christchurch people. I remember that for quite a number of years the Canterbury Museum and the McDougall gallery cooperated to bring special exhibitions to the area. Now with this extended space I can imagine the Canterbury Museum not only expanding its existing display space but also negotiating with a lot more flexibility with international museums to bring special exhibitions to Christchurch. I always think it is a very good commercial venture when one brings in special exhibitions that will help to pay for the cost of exhibiting those shows and at the same time generate revenue that will help to reduce the operating expenses of the museum. 
It was quite interesting to see some of the anxieties shown by the submitters with regard to making sure that public purpose statements are introduced to this bill. They are concerned that maybe local government or whoever may want to use the McDougall gallery for purposes other than public access. Although I can understand their anxiety there is nowadays a more consultative way for central and local government to conduct their business so the public certainly should have more confidence that this consultation process will be respected. I can remember that in Christchurch for a long time people always told me that if any mayor or elected people dared to touch a corner of Hagley Park they could guarantee they would never be elected to any public office. I am quite sure that the Christchurch public can rest in peace as no public body would imagine that a very valued part of the Botanic Gardens which has a fantastic building in the form and shape of the McDougall gallery would not continue to remain in public hands. 
It is indeed a pleasure and an honour to be associated with the debate on the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I thought the Labour members might have had something useful to say but as usual they are full of hot air and do not have much to contribute. Unlike Labour members I certainly have New Zealand’s interests at heart—not petty politics about regionalisation and criticism from members who cannot respect and support the initiative in cities like Christchurch Wellington or Auckland. I can assure members that I will support good projects and roading issues whenever they are necessary. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Before I start to say a few words as a fellow Canterbury member who supports the bill I thank Mrs Wong the new representative of west Auckland— 
Pansy Wong 
: Central Auckland. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—central Auckland for her contribution. I find it ironic that she talks about petty politics. It is strange to be in agreement with Mr Shirley—and it scares me to think of it—but I think he is right when he says that a number of these bills could be dealt with differently if we had a change in the Standing Orders and we should expedite good bills like this swiftly. But when Mrs Wong gets up and talks about petty politics I have to point out that it is the petty politics of the National Party today—it broke an agreement to expedite this bill—and the grandstanding of the National Party that is slowing down the process of a very straightforward bill that is supported by my fellow Cantabrians and by every member of the Parliament. [ 
Interruption 
] I think Mr Mark supports it but we are not quite sure. I think Mr Mark is looking forward to the day when the Robert McDougall building opens a branch of Madame Tussauds wax museum so that all the relics from New Zealand First will be able to have a permanent exhibit within it because they will not be exhibited in this Chamber. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Before the dinner break I made the point that I agreed entirely with Mr Shirley when he said that we should expedite bills like this through the House. I made the point that I agree as a Canterbury member that this bill is a good bill. It is I believe supported by all parties in this House yet we have the bizarre situation—and I believe it was Pansy Wong who had the audacity to talk about petty politics—where the National Party welshed on a deal that was before the Business Committee. We now have the bizarre situation where a good bill—which has no politics in it whatsoever—from my neck of the woods in Canterbury will be delayed inexplicably by the National Party’s wallowing in petty politics. I ask Mrs Wong and members of the National Party to reflect on that. It is pathetic. It is not what we get paid for in this Chamber. Occasionally we can do things that have no politics in them. Mr Shirley made a pretty reasonable contribution. We do not often agree but we agree on this. At times when these issues are non-partisan non-political and straightforward to have an Opposition playing games like this welshing on deals and delaying a local bill just for the sake of it is pathetic. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It’s a very sad day. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a sad day. It is pathetic. The people of Canterbury—my neck of woods and Mr Barnett’s—will look with contempt on that Opposition for the petulant and immature display it has given us today. This is a very good bill. It modernises the ownership practices of the Christchurch City Council. Finally it is worth noting that in establishing the new art gallery that replaces the McDougall we should thank many of the folk who made huge donations to the new art gallery. People like the Burdon family and the Stewart family in Christchurch have made huge contributions in a monetary sense to facilitate that new art gallery and they should be acknowledged despite Mr Mark’s scornful comments that the Government somehow pours buckets on people who have a few bob. That is not on. It is immature and he is well suited to his position on the Opposition benches. This is a good bill. As a Canterbury MP I support it. I know that Government members will facilitate it expeditiously unlike the petulance of the Opposition. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I was pleased to hear Mr Clayton Cosgrove assure the House that at the end of this debate when leave is sought to try to progress this bill through all its stages tonight it will not be denied by the Labour Party. The National Party is very keen for this bill to pass through all its stages tonight. The only thing we sought at the start of the debate was the ability for our interested Canterbury members to make a contribution. After quite lengthy points of order that opportunity was denied to us by the Labour Party. Why it did not want local National Canterbury members speaking to this legislation I do not know. It was interesting that as Mr Cosgrove finished his contribution he acknowledged that it is in the interests of Parliament and of Christchurch people to see this bill progress through all its stages tonight. I know that it is the intention of the National Party to seek leave for that to be done. Let us see once and for all whether the Labour Party intends to assist this bill through all its stages tonight. 
I rise with pleasure to support the bill. I recall a contribution I made when this bill was given its first reading in the House. I talked about the tremendous contribution that the McDougall family amongst others has made to Christchurch and to arts and culture within our city. No doubt when he made his decision to vest a substantial amount of money to the city of Christchurch for an art gallery which opened in June 1932 he had not given much thought to the future and had not considered the fact that 70 years on Christchurch would be the proud owner of a tremendous new art gallery which was opened earlier this year. 
To bring just a tinge of sadness in terms of that particular opening it is interesting to note that no National members of Parliament were asked by the city council to attend. It occurred on a Saturday morning. I was quite happy to spend my time in the electorate office looking after all those constituents coming to me. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Who’s the mayor? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The person in charge of the guest list was none other than the mayor Garry Moore—that well-known Labour Party lackey of Helen Clark. If Helen Clark and Garry Moore get a huge sense of satisfaction in going through the guest list for the opening of the new Christchurch gallery and taking off names like David Carter Gerry Brownlee and Brian Connell because they do not want National members of Parliament at the opening that is their business. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: They didn’t know who you were. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I say to Mr Cosgrove that that is the level of petty politics that the Labour Party sometimes stoops to. I also think it is the level of petty politics that it will again stoop to at the end of this second reading debate when there will be the opportunity by leave of the House to move immediately to the third reading and to pass this legislation through all its stages tonight. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: We tried once. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: So did we! It is important that Mr Burton tell the truth—something that that particular political party is very economical with at the moment. He talked of a deal that was done in the Business Committee. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: That member wasn’t there. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I was not there but Mr Brownlee was and he disputed what Mr Burton said. He then invited him to table the minutes of the Business Committee. We have waited. Throughout the dinner break when Mr Burton went up to his office he had the opportunity to get the minutes but he has not tabled them. It is obviously over to the House to draw its own conclusions as to why Mr Burton has not tabled the minutes of the Business Committee. He has not done so. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I have no need to table the minutes. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He is absolutely right; he does not have to table the minutes. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I told the truth. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I do not know about that because we get so many questions here about that side about the truth and open government. We had questions only today about the “corngate” inquiry and the Prime Minister’s intention to cooperate with full disclosure of the facts and we are getting a litany of suggestions that that is not happening before that select committee. 
I want to talk about the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. I was commenting on the tremendous benefactor to our city that Robert McDougall was in establishing this art gallery. What Labour members will also not remember is that his family was a tremendous benefactor in establishing the Nurse Maude Association which was the subject of a local bill about a year ago that I was pleased to be involved in. That is the sort of people Christchurch often has—people who are prepared to donate huge amounts of money to make sure that our city is richer certainly in its arts and culture. 
I want to move to the interest that the National Party has shown in this particular legislation. It was with some pride that I took Bill English Lynda Scott Lockwood Smith and Nick Smith past the Robert McDougall Art Gallery about a month ago. I pointed out the extreme importance of this locality and the way it knits so closely to our museum which is a remarkably good complex and the way it sits on the edge of our Botanic Gardens. So Bill English Lynda Scott Lockwood Smith and Nick Smith are well and truly appreciative of the fact that this bill should be passed tonight. I hope we will see that happen. 
Gerry Brownlee informed us of the reason it is important to have this legislation passed. He talked about the 8000 pieces of art—contemporary Canterbury art and historic Canterbury art—in storage at the moment that could soon be displayed in this particular building now that it has been vacated with the opening of the new art gallery. 
David Benson-Pope 
: There is nothing in it! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Benson-Pope says there is nothing in it. I think the 8000 works of art should be seen on public display; it would be nice to see them. I guess he is hoping there is room for a little bit of the more contemporary artwork that is around Parliament at the moment. Maybe Helen Clark is in her office now doing another painting that she may sign or she may not sign. She may get Alec McLean— who I think was the artist but did not get to sign it because Helen Clark could not get there quick enough to sign it—to do one. Maybe that sort of art could be displayed in the Robert McDougall Art Galley. Maybe that is why Labour members now perhaps do not want this legislation passed with alacrity; they want to give the Prime Minister more time to prepare her artwork. 
Pansy Wong 
: Is that the reason? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I do not really know. But it is vital that this legislation is passed. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Hold it up then why don’t you? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Let  
Hansard  
know that I have to hold the legislation up for the senior Government whip who I think suffers from Alzheimer’s because he does not realise what piece of legislation we are debating. For the benefit of Mr Benson-Pope it is the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill. 
The reason the bill has to be passed is so that Christchurch can enjoy the magnificent arts precinct that has been created over a generation. The museum and this particular building are contiguous and are situated almost opposite the arts precinct—the old university site—and the boulevard leading up to the new art gallery and further on for the benefit of Mr Benson-Pope if he visits Christchurch the magnificent Avon River. The other site that I think is also important to the art and culture of our city is The Strip—the well-known Strip. I see Mr Barnett’s eyes light up. I tell Mr Barnett that no we are not talking about that sort of strip at all; we are talking about The Strip along the Avon River. 
Let us hope we can get this legislation through all stages today. Christchurch people are listening with anticipation to the contributions that are being made by Labour members tonight. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill which deals with the issue of what to do with the gallery now that the new Christchurch City Council art gallery is open. We know that the Robert McDougall Art Gallery was presented to Christchurch City by Mr Robert E McDougall and was opened on 16 June 1932. The land on which the gallery is situated was part of the city’s Botanic Gardens until 1925 when Parliament passed the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act. Section 54 of the Act vested the land in the corporation of Christchurch City for the purposes of a public art gallery. 
Craig McNair 
: Tell us more. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I will. 
Hon Member 
: When was that? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: In 1925. The Act imposes certain conditions on the use of the land. After 70 years as one of the city’s most significant arts and cultural centres the Robert McDougall Art Gallery was closed to the public in June 2002 to enable its collection to be transferred to the new Christchurch Art Gallery which opened in May this year. I am very pleased that the old gallery which holds a category I classification in the New Zealand Historic Places Trust register and is a group one listed heritage building in the city plan is to be retained on its existing site by the city council. Group one heritage items include buildings places and objects of national significance the protection of which is considered essential. The Canterbury Museum approached the city council to use the building as an extension to the museum complex as it is already situated adjacent to the museum. 
The direct descendants of Robert McDougall have also been consulted over the future use of the building. Robert McDougall was a successful businessman associated with the Kaiapoi woollen mills and the well-known Aulsebrooks bakery—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes indeed so. It was said of McDougall that by instinct and practice he was generous and above all he was modest. He was a well-known philanthropist establishing a welfare league for his employees and providing a library tennis courts and bowling green in the factory grounds for their use. But his particular interest was art. He gifted £26000 to establish the Robert McDougall Art Galley. 
Craig McNair 
: How much? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Twenty-six thousand pounds which is quite a bit. The family of Robert McDougall has expressed the desire that the building continue to be used for widespread community use and I am pleased that this sentiment has found favour in the decision to lease the old gallery building to the Canterbury Museum. 
The entire museum complex is a wonderful old building that was once part of the University of Canterbury along with what is now known as the art centre. The museum is in great need of additional display space and I think it is a good idea to utilise this vacant and adjacent building for this purpose rather than construct a modern building nearby that would be out of character with the rest of the museum complex. The annexe built on to the Anglican Cathedral in Cathedral Square is a case in point. 
In the case of the Robert McDougall Art Gallery I am pleased to advise the House that a conservation plan has been prepared by the city council to assist with the conservation and adaptive reuse of the building. Although the McDougall gallery served the cultured citizens of Christchurch so well for so many years there were times when one sensed that its capacity was limited and that had implications for its ability to host many major exhibitions. The gallery was opened in 1932 with 160 paintings and sculptures but its exhibition space has not been altered since its construction more than 70 years ago although an administration area—the Canaday wing—was added in 1982. 
I am very excited by the new Christchurch City gallery which can deliver in place of the McDougall gallery. It is a wonderful building. I was there at the opening. I can tell the National members who were not there that there was plenty of hot air for the balloons so they were not needed. The new $47.5 million complex features two floors of exhibition space two educational activity areas an auditorium a cafe and wine bar which I particularly like two retail outlets a sculpture garden and underground parking. Through purchases bequests and donations the gallery’s collection now totals over 5500 items including paintings prints drawings sculptures ceramics textiles glass metalwork and photography. The gallery’s collection and acquisition policy is now focused on the art of Canterbury. 
I want to return to the bill and some of the recommendations of the Local Government and Environment Committee which were very sensible indeed. Several submitters wanted the word “public” to be inserted before the word “gallery” in clause 6 and the committee agreed to ensure the building’s continuing public use which was intended when the land was originally vested in the council. However it was noted that should the building be leased to the Canterbury Museum the affirmation of public access would not prevent the museum from charging for special exhibitions as this is the usual practice in the case of special exhibitions in order to cover extraneous costs. 
A number of submitters were concerned that the wording of the bill leaves open the possibility that the gallery be used for commercial purposes. This ignores the fact that the gallery previously ran a retail service to supplement its income. I am pleased that the committee has taken the reasonable view that the museum may also want to do this on the side in the course of fulfilling its functions. 
Perhaps the most important aspect of the bill that was addressed by the select committee relates to the future use of the land. A number of concerns were raised about the future use of the land and the buildings if they are no longer used for the purposes specified in this bill. The original enabling legislation intended that the land could be re-vested in the Crown and the control of it reverted to the then Christchurch Domain Board if it ceased to be used for a gallery. The city council today is the successor of the Christchurch Domain Board. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt my colleague because he is giving a very fine speech. Even though I am sitting as close to him as I can it is very difficult for me to hear given the interruption we are getting from the benches over there. I think you should call the members to order. As an ex-Cantabrian I know that this is a very important cultural issue for Christchurch and it deserves to be well ventilated this evening. My colleague was doing that but he was being interrupted and you need to intervene. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is absolutely right. I was just about to do that. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I shall continue ventilating. Without this bill the council could potentially lose the ownership of the McDougall art gallery and would be left with only the control of the building if the Crown chooses to exercise its right under the original Act. That creates legal doubts as to the ability of the city council to permit the gallery to be used for other purposes. It is important that a public facility such as the McDougall art gallery should not be subject to such doubts no matter how unlikely one might consider that they would be realised. 
However the effect of the bill is that the area becomes a local purpose reserve owned by the council and subject to the Reserves Act. That means that the reservation could be revoked or changed by normal processes under the Reserves Act although the council would not be able to sell the area because of the specific prohibition clause. The committee considered it unlikely that the building would cease to be used as a gallery in the foreseeable future as the council has indicated its intention to lease the building to the Canterbury Museum. However it is important that should the building cease to be used for the purposes specified in the bill the local community is involved in any decisions about the future use of the land. 
So I am pleased that the committee recommended a new clause that provides that the purpose for which the land is held must not be changed under the Reserves Act. This would avoid the slightest possibility of the status being changed without the requirement for public consultation under the Reserves Act. It ensures that future councils will not be able to change the purpose of the reserve from its use as a gallery as set out in the bill. Should the building cease to be used for that purpose the council at the time would need to bring another local bill to Parliament to determine its future use. That would ensure the public’s involvement in the future use of that land. As a Christchurch-based MP I think it is an eminently sensible plan that should take account of local opinion. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It was a great pleasure to take the Local Government and Environment Committee to Christchurch to hear submissions on the bill for a number of a reasons. It was a pleasure to have a trip laid on for us around this gracious and historic building early in the morning—in a biting frost I must say but they turned on the heating especially for us. The gallery is a very beautiful building constructed with special-purpose lighting and designed to maximise the display of works of art. Clearly a purpose-built building like that needs to continue to be used to display materials that need that very good lighting and physical layout. It was interesting to hear the story of the imitation marble columns and the special process that had been pioneered here to make those columns. It was interesting to see the very extensive basement where there are restoration facilities storage and workshops. Indeed it is an impressive building. It was exciting to hear the plans to combine that building with the museum as an extension of a very significant public building and display in Christchurch. 
It was also a pleasure to hear the very strong community feeling that the people of Christchurch have for this building for their public buildings generally for the Botanic Gardens in which the gallery sits and for its purpose as an art gallery. Quite a number of submitters argued very strongly that the important thing to them was that this gallery remained a public building and freely accessible to the public of Christchurch. There is a real fear out there that in times of change buildings like the gallery will somehow end up in the commercial sector and no longer be freely available to the people to whom they were originally given as a bequest. Submitters argued strongly that the word “public” should go before the word “gallery” in clause 6 to reinforce the idea that this was a public building and it should stay a public building and the committee agreed with that request. As I said there was a lot of suspicion about the risk of losing public ownership and control of an asset such as this. 
Also very strong representation was made to the committee that access should remain free that there are now very few public facilities for recreation and education that are accessible to poor families who have difficulty enough affording the bus fare and the lunch for a day’s outing without having to pay admission charges as well. That has always been the tradition in the McDougall gallery except for special exhibitions where a fee can be charged. The committee agreed with the public that it was important that that be maintained. 
Some concern was expressed about the word “ancillary” as in “ancillary purposes”. Here again there was a fear by people that the building might be taken over by commercialisation by souvenir shops selling tasteless junk or extensive food and alcohol premises thus reducing the space available to display works of arts or of historic interest. Quite a strong argument was presented to the committee that we should remove ancillary activities altogether from the bill. We did not feel that was a logical or feasible thing to do given that we wanted to provide for all the curatorial and other activities that go with a museum or an art gallery. We also thought it quite reasonable that a cafe should be provided where people could have a bite of lunch when they were visiting. But it is worth recording the strong feeling of the people of Christchurch that this building should be public space used for the display of works of art and should not be used for just another commercial activity. 
There was also concern about what might happen if one day the building were no longer required for the purpose that this bill provides. Strong representations were made to us that if that were the case it should return to the Botanic Gardens. On the face of it the Botanic Gardens have nothing to do with the purpose of this bill. In fact that is where the gallery is located and the citizens of Christchurch laid their concerns before us that the Botanic Gardens had been gradually whittled away with little bits here and there having been taken for other purposes and no longer part of the gardens. They argued strongly that if the McDougall gallery were no longer to be used as a gallery the land should return to the Botanic Gardens. We thought that was putting too tight a constriction on people in 50 years’ time when the lease will run out if it is not renewed but we thought it was important to provide some process whereby the purpose of the gallery could not be changed and the ownership of the land could not be changed without a full process of public input. In the end officials recommended to us that it was difficult to do that with certainty for a time 50 years into the future without our ensuring that if that were the case it should come back to Parliament. So despite being one of those who argues that we get too many local bills taking up the time of the Local Government and Environment Committee and that it would be good for local government to solve more of these issues itself rather than bring them to Parliament to respond to the strong feelings of the people of Christchurch that they want a legal guarantee that the purpose function and ownership of this very special place could not be changed without their input we have provided that if that change needs to take place in 50 years it will come here again as a local bill and therefore they will have input into it. 
I commend the bill to the House. I think the changes made to it by the committee are valuable and I look forward to seeing it passed and implemented. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to join this debate and support the rapid progress I hope of the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill. This is the second time I have had cause to discuss the bill in the last 2 days. Yesterday good agreement was reached in the Business Committee to advance it quickly and now today when that agreement was welshed on by some members of this House. It is becoming a bit of a practice with members opposite to welsh on the undertakings of the Business Committee but I want to share something with the member opposite who by inference as good as called me a liar without breaching the privilege of the House. 
 I want to read to him item 8 from the minutes of yesterday’s meeting and I am happy to table them afterwards. In “General Business” it was noted that leave would be sought for the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill to have a second and third reading with no Committee stage in a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. That is precisely what I said earlier and precisely what I assured the House about. Mr Brownlee welshed on the deal because his colleagues put pressure on him which is a very sad thing because it was a cross-party agreement that we had carefully put together. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Oh come on! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Now of course Mr Mapp says it does not matter because they have been caught out with their nasty little tricks. It has backfired. I say that the good people of Christchurch should not be disadvantaged because of members opposite who cannot be trusted. 
Before I conclude I want to say that Mr Shirley and I do not agree about a lot of things but in his comments earlier he did make a point that I think has some merit and we should consider it through the Standing Orders Committee in relation to these sorts of bills. It is not that these bills are not important but they do perhaps belong more properly in the jurisdiction of local government. I think it is something we should look at in the future. 
With that it is my pleasure to support the progress of the bill. I seek leave to table for the benefit of the House the minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee meeting. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House and leave subsequently rescinded. 
Secondly I seek leave that at the conclusion of the second reading of the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill the House move directly to the third reading and that the question on the third reading be put without debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not object to the tabling of the minutes of the Business Committee but I seek your advice upon an aspect of it. My understanding is that the minutes of committee meetings cannot be tabled in the House until they have been cleared by the committee itself—in other words adopted by the committee. The Business Committee met yesterday and the minutes have been circulating today. I do not think they have been adopted by the committee. Therefore while I have no objection to full disclosure I question whether it is in order for minutes that are not yet the official record of the committee to be tabled in the House. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I share the concern of the member but given that my integrity had been challenged and that the challenge had been specifically put to me across the House to table the minutes and that most importantly I did so by seeking leave of the House—the House can give leave for anything—I therefore tabled the minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is right. I do not need any further assistance on this issue. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek a point of clarification Mr Speaker. The Hon Peter Dunne raised a very interesting point and I did not hear you respond or rule on that aspect. The Deputy Leader of the House has moved on to the next stage of it. I would certainly like a clarification of the point because I find it a bit of an outrage that the Deputy Leader of the House particularly should come down here and wave around the minutes of a committee that has not yet approved those minutes. That is my understanding of the situation and I think it is very inappropriate behaviour. I think we need a ruling on that from you as Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I did not give you a ruling before because Mr Burton was speaking to the same point of order. I was about to give a ruling when you chose to speak on the same point of order. I allowed you to speak and that is fair enough. The ruling is that Mr Burton was fully entitled to seek the leave of the House to table the minutes which he did and there was no objection. In fact the minutes are a draft only so no approvals were needed. The House was fully entitled to do what it did. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That decision which I do not question raises a further issue. In the event that the committee when it meets next week does not adopt those minutes what becomes the status of the document that the Minister has just tabled which purports to be the minutes of a meeting? 
 I think we have put ourselves in a very difficult position. I accept that the House can by leave do just about anything but we have put ourselves in a very difficult position if papers that have not been formally adopted by a committee can be tabled in the House purporting to be the record of that committee’s proceedings when the possibility exists that the committee may subsequently change those records. Does that mean that the Minister is then obliged to come back to the House withdraw those papers and table the amended set of papers? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The point I am making Mr Assistant Speaker is that we end up in a situation where the integrity of the committee process is challenged. Also—and I say this with due respect to the Minister—perhaps by inadvertence his integrity is challenged by virtue of the fact that he may have tabled documents that are no longer accurate. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I want to raise another matter that I think you should take into consideration Mr Assistant Speaker. It seems to me that we may well have been misled with the tabling of this document. I heard Mr Burton seek leave to table the minutes of that particular meeting. As it has now transpired he has not tabled the minutes. What he has done—according to what you have said yourself Mr Assistant Speaker—is table the draft minutes. If the Minister had correctly described them as the draft minutes he might well have found that Parliament was not prepared to accept them. It is important that when a member of Parliament seeks to table any document the document is factually described. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I think the member has made a very valid point. It may well be that the best way to resolve this impasse is for the member who sought leave originally to seek leave afresh to table the draft unapproved minutes of the committee then the House can make an informed decision on whether it wishes to accept them. As Mr Carter points out we now have a rather bizarre situation. The Minister says he has tabled the minutes. Next Tuesday will be the earliest date the committee can approve those minutes. There is an error there. The way through it is for the Minister to withdraw the original request seek leave to table the draft unapproved minutes then the House can resolve the matter accordingly. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 As the House knows I sought leave to satisfy David Carter’s doubting of my word. I am more than happy to further accommodate the House and as an act of goodwill—I have no obligation to do so because I sought leave in good faith—amend the leave I sought to say that I seek leave to table the draft unconfirmed minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee meeting. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am now a bit confused because the House acquiesced and did not deny leave so the motion was carried. I totally agree with the Hon Peter Dunne. I think he has made a very good point because people may have had a totally different feeling if they understood them to be the draft minutes. I think the Deputy Leader of the House would have to withdraw the previous leave he was granted then reapply for leave to table the appropriate document which is the draft unapproved minutes of the Business Committee. Otherwise I do not know how the  
Journals of the House 
 would record it. We would have a somewhat messy situation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is pretty clear cut. I thank members for their contributions and for their guidance. What was done was done and it was done quite rightly. The Minister may not have described them as draft minutes but I do not think that is a big enough error—if an error at all—to negative what happened. The House was fully entitled to agree with the leave that was sought to table those minutes. It is irrelevant—and I mean no disrespect to the committee about which we are talking—what the committee does next week. It is totally irrelevant to the tabling of that document. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 With respect that document was tabled under the guise of being the minutes of the Business Committee meeting of yesterday. Your ruling now implies that the document was not the minutes of the Business Committee meeting yesterday. The question that then arises which the House does need to consider is what the status of that document is. It is merely the secretary’s doodlings. It has no official status whatsoever until it is adopted by the committee—and I do dispute your point about relevance in that respect—which comes back to the fact that the Minister sought I thought leave to withdraw his original request and to submit to the House a request for leave to table what are simply the secretary’s notes of a meeting which I think the House might have an entirely different view about accepting. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That was the second part of what I was going to address. You chose to extend the point of order and that was fine. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I am speaking to the point of order because it does not seem to have yet been resolved. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: What? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The issue that Mr Dunne has raised has not actually been resolved; you have not actually ruled on that matter. The question is this. I believe that the House was under a mistake—you will be well familiar with that concept in law—when the Deputy Leader of the House sought to table minutes that were not actually what the House had been led to believe they were. It is quite clear that the decision of the House could well have been different—I am not saying it would have been different; I am saying it could well have been different—if people had known what was actually being tabled. What was represented to be tabled was not actually what was tabled. The importance of that is this. You just mentioned a bit earlier that that was not a material factor. I put it to you that it actually is a material factor and it wholly changes what was sought to be tabled. The minutes if they were such have an official status and there would be no other issues that could possibly arise from that fact. In this instance however they are not minutes but are to use the rather memorable phrase of Mr Dunne mere doodlings of the secretary until approved. That is a material difference. It is not a minor consequence as may have been suggested by yourself Mr Assistant Speaker and I would suggest to you that you do have to reconsider your earlier ruling on the matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Dr Mapp for that contribution. The fact is that leave was sought to table a document leave was granted and that document is in the custody of the Clerk now and any member may familiarise himself or herself with that document. I do not intend to reverse my ruling. I accept that there was a slight misdescription. I do not think it had any bearing whatsoever despite what members say on the agreement to the leave. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 113/5. I have ruled similar to that ruling that the slight misdescription did not invalidate the tabling. The document is in the custody of the Clerk. It has been tabled. Where you wish to move from here is over to you—I do not mind—but you will not relitigate that issue as far as I am concerned. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a way forward—and this is relating to the status of the document that was tabled. Your assertion and your judgment were based on the fact that it would not make any material difference. I think there is way to test that. If you were to invite the Deputy Leader of the House to resubmit the draft to apply for leave to table the draft minutes of the Business Committee then we could test that assertion—whether your assumption that it would not have made any difference is true or false. I put that to you as perhaps a way forward. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. It was my view that it would not have made any difference. Of course a new test of that would not quite be fair because all members have prepared for it and have as you know discussed the issue. But if the member would like to do that. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am more than pleased to do it. I just want to say this as I do so. I submitted the document in good faith to the House. If I gave any inadvertent ill-description I unreservedly apologise to the House; it was submitted purely to assist the member opposite who cast aspersions on my word. I simply want to say to that member that it is an unfortunate turn of events when his own colleagues have driven us to this because it further sours our ability to do business in the House. I seek leave to table the draft unconfirmed minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee meeting. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that the Minister is now seeking leave to table a document described as the draft minutes but under your ruling of a few moments ago the original decision to table a document that he described as the minutes still stands so if the House agrees to leave for the Minister to table the draft minutes what is the status of the document that he tabled a few moments ago—and I accept that he may have been inadvertently misled at the time—that he claimed was the minutes? Do we have two documents under two different titles or is in fact a second set now required to withdraw the first document? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member is now clearly being unreasonable. I have already made clear to the House that I inadvertently ill-described the document that I am now seeking leave to table as the draft unconfirmed minutes. I think that is a matter of clarity. I am disappointed in the member. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I have in my left hand the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of today’s date. I have in my right hand a document called  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. If we go down the path that the Minister is now suggesting I could seek to table the  
New Zealand Herald 
 believing and saying to the House that I think it is actually  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 then when someone says they are two totally different documents I could say: “Oh well actually what I meant to table was  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 even though I have also tabled purporting it to be  
Speakers’ Rulings  
the  
New Zealand Herald 
.” It is an absurd situation and I think the way forward is for the Minister to withdraw his original request then to seek to table afresh whatever he chooses now to describe the document as. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I get the message from the example you have used. I think it is a very extreme example. There is no way that you would have been able to do that if I was in the Chair. The member would not have been able to table  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 instead of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. He would not have got that past the Chair. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any further assistance. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It is a fresh point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: When I get to the member I will allow him a fresh point of order. I want to say in relation to the other one that leave has been sought again and even 
if they are submitted it does not alter the fact that the document has been tabled and it remains in the custody of the Clerk. You can table as many documents as you like. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What is the official record then? What becomes the official record? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is all part of the official record. The first one—and we accept that there was a slight misdescription—is part of the official record. It is the draft. That is the one he seeks to table; it will be exactly the same and they will both be in the custody of the Clerk. If members wish to view them and to prolong this matter I am quite happy. Dr Mapp has a fresh point of order. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is fresh point of order and an important one in view of the second attempt—well it is actually not a second attempt; it is a new attempt—by the Deputy Leader of the House to table the unapproved draft minutes. The question I would invite you to consider is why on earth the Deputy Leader of the House would be seeking to table draft minutes— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Because his colleague asked him to. That’s why. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There is actually an issue of privilege here Mr Assistant Speaker. The Privileges Committee has been sitting for weeks on a whole variety of cases that have been brought before the Privileges Committee on the issue of documents of various select committees being released before they are approved. Yet here we have the Deputy Leader of the House seeking to table a draft document not approved by the committee and one could only speculate about that very act. Ironically I am actually helping the Deputy Leader of the House but I have to express my surprise that the Deputy Leader of the House is so deficient in knowledge—well that is not a fair statement but it is one that it invites—as to actually invite a breach of privilege by seeking to table minutes. It is extraordinary. I would ask the Speaker to consider that point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Of course I will consider that point; what weight I give to it is a different matter. I want to repeat that it is not for the Chair to ask why a member seeks to table a document. I am not sure whether the last speaker was present when that tabling occurred or whether the member had a chance to object to it. I do not need to be reminded that the request had a slight misdescription in it. In my view that had no bearing on the acceptance of the leave at all and I repeat that. I think we need to move on. It is members’ night; if members wish to go on for another hour on this I am quite happy. I would not let it continue if it was not members’ night. It is over to members. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the course of the Hon Mark Burton’s contribution to the House earlier he made statements that to say the least impugned my integrity. I think it is important for the House to understand that the Business Committee is a group that works under the chair of the Speaker in a very informal manner that the resolutions of that committee are reached by consensus and that the greatest beneficiary of that committee’s activities is in fact the Government because it is for the greater part facilitating the Government’s business. We routinely allow select committees a longer period of time to report bills than the date for the report back put on the bill when it was sent by the House. We make arrangements for members to be able to participate in select committee business where they have a particular interest. The Leader of the House is often able to indicate on a confidential basis where he thinks the legislative programme is going and to indicate some priorities that the Government sees on different sorts of legislation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: What is your point Mr Brownlee? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My point is this. The accusation was that somehow I have welshed on the deal that was made on the day. The deal was that provided that United Future had no objection because United Future is like a sore toe to the Government—very tender and hard to make progress with—provided that United Future was happy with arrangements around the bill then it could progress through all stages today. Leave would be sought at the start of the proceedings that there be a second reading and that we then progress to the third reading with no debate and a vote. All that we asked for was some consideration of local Christchurch members’ interest in speaking on this bill and that there be another 30 minutes of contribution from members who wanted to make it. The Government in the sort of bloody-minded approach that it takes to all these things decided to refuse that. 
I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that he might like to get on the blower to his superior the Leader of the House and ask whether he thinks some of the arrangements he has been discussing with us—that are known to me and to our senior whip and to no one else in our party—are likely to progress if he keeps up this sort of attitude. There is no doubt that people listening to this will be absolutely flabbergasted by the utter waste of time that has gone on here tonight. It could have all been fixed if there was just as much goodwill from the Government to a members’ day piece of legislation as the Opposition is routinely required to show to the Government in the advance of its own business. 
With regard to the impugning of my integrity I do take offence and I ask the Chair to indicate an action to the member concerned to put that right. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that and I need no further assistance on it. There is no material in that point of order on which I can or should rule at all. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: But I took offence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am aware that offence has been taken on both sides on this matter which is quite surprising really—but it has. I cannot interpret it for either side and I cannot interpret it for you Mr Brownlee. It is a matter for you to sort out with those who have impugned you and I wish you would do that. I am sure the other party would be happy to talk to you and settle it. We should not need to come to this. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order. While that point of order was in progress I had a look at  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and I found two that are highly relevant to the circumstances we now find ourselves in. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 113/5 made in 1998 by Mr Deputy Speaker Revell—a member who will be well known in this House for the acuity of his rulings from the Chair. Mr Deputy Speaker Revell ruled in 1998: “In seeking leave to table a document members should not only succinctly describe what is in the document but also sufficiently describe the nature of the document to inform members.” My submission to you is that by suggesting to the House that the document that was being tabled was the minutes of the Business Committee—something we now know it was not because the minutes have not been approved—the Minister did not succinctly describe what was in the document because the document was not what he said it was and he did not sufficiently describe the nature of the document as being a draft document to inform members. Therefore he was at fault on that score. 
The situation gets more serious. If one looks at Speaker’s ruling 114/4 made by Mr Speaker Kidd in 1999 one can see that a totally different complexion can be placed on the turn of events. I think it is worth quoting that Speaker’s ruling to the House: “If a member is given leave to table a document and deliberately misleads the House by delivering to the Clerk a totally different document from that for which leave was granted a contempt would be committed.” The member purported to table the document that was the minutes of the Business Committee. He made no suggestion at the time that he was in error or that he was vague about what he was doing. He said subsequently—and I am inclined to accept his word—that he might have been in error in doing so but that might be because as a very astute observer of the Standing Orders he was well aware of the provisions of Speaker’s ruling 114/4 and knew that he had placed himself in a situation of potential contempt. 
You have ruled that the materiality of this is not relevant given that it is essentially the same document and all we are arguing about is whether the word “draft” appears on the top. But I would submit that your very esteemed predecessor Mr Kidd when he made that ruling in 1999 was well aware of these types of situations and ruled in quite a severe way that members who act in this way place themselves at risk of being accused of contempt of the House. So I would ask you to reflect on your earlier ruling in the light of that situation. I would come back to the point that was raised in an earlier point of order that the best way through the divide that the House now finds itself in would be for the Minister simply to withdraw his original request and to resubmit a fresh one. I say to the Minister—who previously indicated he was not prepared to do that—that unless he does reconsider in that light the House is starting to find itself in a very difficult position and it may well require Mr Speaker to be recalled to rule on it ultimately. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to inform the member that I am the Speaker and the member will not be approaching that subject at all. I do not need any assistance on this. I have allowed the member to relitigate in a way my ruling and I should not have allowed that because there was not too much new in what he said. The member brought up Speaker’s ruling 114/4. I did not accept for one moment—nor do I believe that any members in this Chamber would accept—that the Hon Mark Burton set out deliberately to mislead the House. You all may have your own views but as the Chair I do not accept that he was in contravention of Speaker’s ruling 114/4. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What about 113/5? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is the one I quoted to you earlier so I was quite aware of that one. The Minister sufficiently described the nature of the document; he did not describe the status of it—that has been canvassed. He certainly described the nature of the document and anything else we wished to know. I am certain that all members knew that the document was if not the minutes part of the record of that committee. I do not think there is any doubt about that. But I thank the member for raising those two Speakers’ rulings. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The first document sought to be tabled would not constitute a breach of privilege because it was described as official approved minutes. However we find that it is not that kind of document; it is unapproved. It is my submission to you that an attempt to table unapproved documents of a select committee would constitute a breach of privilege based on other decisions of the Privileges Committee. I invite you to consider whether you would wish to facilitate the Deputy Leader of the House seeking to table unapproved minutes which in my submission would constitute a breach of privilege. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Given that I value your advice Dr Mapp can I ask you if that constitutes a breach of privilege who would be guilty of the breach—the one who attempted to do it or the one like yourself who approved it? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 We did not know at the time of the request that it was draft minutes— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That was not the question. I was asking you because you had posed a question there. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Surely it is the one who attempts to table it—the perpetrator. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Even though you as a member allowed it? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well no one has allowed it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think we are going round in circles. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You wish to assist the Chair? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes that is exactly what I wish to do. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 114/1 made by Mr Speaker Tapsell in 1996. It makes the point: “Leave should only be sought to table papers that are not readily available from other sources. The tabling of a document is not an occasion to make a point;”. That is relevant in this case because the Deputy Leader of the House was of his own admission attempting to make a point. He said he wanted to counter the suggestion that in essence he had told porkies. That was his verification of that so he was attempting to make a point. I put it to you now that under that Speaker’s ruling perhaps he should never have been allowed to table it in the first instance. I seek your clarification of Speaker’s ruling 114/1 as it relates to the sequence of events that have occurred here tonight. Would you like me to repeat that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I was listening intently to it. I am aware of what you have said and I thank you for it. Was there someone else who wished to give advice on that? No there is not. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a separate point. In addition to the I think quite valid point raised by Mr Shirley I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 110/7 which was made by a very esteemed Speaker of this House Mr Speaker Guinness who ruled in 1905: “The Speaker must accept the assurance of a Minister that a document from which the Minister is quoting is not a public document.” The Minister—and I assume that the Deputy Leader of the House was acting in a ministerial role when he sought to table the document—was quoting from what were allegedly the minutes of the Business Committee. I submit to you that the process that has been followed has been deficient on two counts. Firstly you did not as Speaker meet the test of Speaker’s ruling 110/7 in that you did not seek from the Minister an assurance as to the status of the document that he was quoting from and secondly the Minister did not provide clarity to the House as to the status of the document he was quoting from. I therefore submit that the last 35 or 40 minutes have been entirely out of order and that we should simply go back to where we were and carry on as though nothing had happened because the Minister’s procedure has been in error and I submit that your rulings in allowing him to table the document are in breach of Speaker’s ruling 110/7 and that therefore the House finds itself in a position where it has acted completely contrary to its own rules and procedures. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for that contribution. No my rulings up to this stage have not been in error. Specifically Speaker’s ruling 110/7 does not apply to this case that we have before us. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: So he wasn’t acting as Minister when he tabled the document? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: He was not dealing with an official document. The advice I have received from the Clerk and I accept that advice is that Speaker’s ruling 110/7 is not relevant at all and that will be the end of that one. It was a tabling under Standing Order 362 which I have here and which you refer to not a tabling by leave and therein lies the difference. I think we have had a good go at this. It is now entirely over to the Hon Mark Burton. I know we are halfway through his second request for leave but he may withdraw his first request to table a document and revisit that; it is entirely up to him. He can seek leave to rescind it if he wishes. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am happy to seek leave to rescind the first tabling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought to rescind the first granting of leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. I thank all members for their contribution. The original tabling has been rescinded. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House that at the conclusion of the second reading— 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understood that there were two stages here. He was firstly going to withdraw the original tabling and leave has been granted for that and it has now been withdrawn. The second step was that the Deputy Leader of the House was going to seek leave to table the draft minutes— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I’ve already done that. I did that before. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: He did it earlier but if that is unclear to members— 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am happy to do it again because I have already done it. I seek leave to table the draft unconfirmed minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House that at the conclusion of the second reading of this bill we move directly to the third reading and that the question on the third reading be put without debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I understand that there is still a speaking spot left and National would like to take that spot and have two 5-minute speeches. The speakers who will be speaking have spoken before. I seek leave for two 5-minute speeches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is true; there is one gap left. Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 As a resident of Christchurch for 27 years I think it is fitting for me to stand up and put some positive aspects back into this very fine legislation. I remember that a few weeks ago the House cooperated and passed in unison the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill and I regret that the Labour Government has wasted Parliament’s time in taking offence at arrangements that the National Party was very happy to oblige with to help facilitate the passage of this bill. 
Putting all those negative feelings aside I think tonight is the time that Parliament should celebrate the passage of this bill. The Canterbury Museum and Christchurch will be the benefactors of this bill. I am pleased to learn that the Christchurch City Council will lease the Robert McDougall Gallery for the extension of the Canterbury Museum. I want to pay a compliment to the Canterbury Museum director Anthony Wright who in the past 5 years has invigorated the museum. I have every confidence that he will utilise the McDougall Gallery well to exhibit and showcase the very fine collection of the Canterbury Museum. 
I also take the opportunity to compliment and acknowledge another Tony—Tony Preston previously the McDougall Gallery director and now the director of the new Christchurch Art Gallery. Tony Preston landed in Christchurch some 4 or 5 years ago. He is not from Christchurch but has integrated into the society well. He is a very strong director with a good network and has the city and its residents behind him. Christchurch has now seen a very fine building take shape in the form of the new Christchurch Art Gallery and that has freed up space for the Canterbury Museum to take over the McDougall Gallery. 
We come here to tonight to celebrate the passage of over 70 years in the life of the McDougall Gallery. It has provided much pleasure and prestige to the residents of Christchurch and indeed to other New Zealand and international visitors. Those visitors can continue to enjoy its fine works in the new Christchurch Art Gallery but in addition the McDougall Gallery will be utilised by the Canterbury Museum under the very capable direction and management of both Tony Preston and Tony Wright. I have pleasure in being associated with this bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I rise with pleasure to support the passing of the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill. It is interesting that this bill is before Parliament but it is not surprising that we are modernising something that was set in place over 70 years ago. As has been discussed by most contributors to tonight’s debate we are moving forward now that the Robert McDougall Gallery which was the major art gallery for Christchurch has been replaced by a magnificent new structure approximately a kilometre away. Clearly because it involves legislation it has been necessary to bring a local bill back to Parliament so that we can talk sensibly about the future of the Robert McDougall Gallery building. 
A number of Labour Party members have questioned why such a small and insignificant bill needs to come before Parliament but it is a very important bill for Christchurch. The second point I want to make is that the debate surrounding this legislation will go down in history as the most incredible debate we have ever seen. I can imagine many students of politics and law hauling out  
Hansard 
 and reading it— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Night after night. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: —if they have nothing better to do—with absolute amazement at what has occurred. Two amazing precedents have been established tonight. I am making a second contribution in a second reading debate and I never thought I would see that. [ 
Interruption 
] As I say it will be read by students for a long period of time. 
The second more interesting point is that we have also seen through a 30-minute series of points of order the very interesting situation of a document being tabled and subsequently withdrawn. In time when people study this particular legislation— 
Rodney Hide 
: In the member’s time in Parliament has he ever seen leave sought for untabling documents? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Rodney Hide asks if I have ever seen that and I have not. That is the point I am making—this is a precedent. It is absolutely amazing; it is history in the making. People will be staggered that those of us who have been privileged to make a contribution in this debate have made two precedents within a bill that was really not a major one. I take the opportunity of noting the two precedents that have been established. I hope in a way that the management of the House will improve substantially so that those precedents will not be recreated. 
I hope that we will see the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill passed tonight because that is what the people of Christchurch who are associated with the arts community want to see. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill name changed to Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill. 
Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill 
Third Reading 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time. 
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. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.