Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I tried to rise a couple of times during the debate, but unfortunately these gentlemen over here were standing up quite frequently and speaking quite loudly, and I never ever got the opportunity to speak. By the time you got to make your ruling, you had already made it before I could get back up again. So I would appreciate having the opportunity to speak to this part.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have to say to the member that I was being particularly attentive and I did not notice him. That is probably my mistake. His objection to my not giving him a call is noted, and I will be more vigilant in the future.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that when you reported to the Speaker, you said to the Speaker that all those members who sought the call had been given it. Surely, Mr Hone Harawira—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The matter has been dealt with. Please sit down.

The next amendment in the name of Hilary Calvert on Supplementary Order Paper 209 to clause 4(1)(d) is ruled out of order as not being a serious amendment. Hilary Calvert’s next amendment to clause 4(2)—

💬 Hon John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have ruled out Hilary Calvert’s amendment to paragraph (d) of clause 4(1). You say that it is not a serious amendment. What we have done there is to substitute the words “Treaty of Waitangi” for “te Tiriti o Waitangi”. We noticed that the Hon Christopher Finlayson has changed the wording on his Supplementary Order Paper from “whānau, hapū, iwi.”, to “iwi, whānau, hapū.” So if it is good enough for the Hon Christopher Finlayson to change around word order, surely it is good enough for the ACT Party to move amendments that do the same.

There are a suite of Speakers’ rulings on page 111 to page 114. I have sought advice and I have given this matter some serious consideration. The amendment is ruled out of order.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 4(2)(a) be agreed to.

The amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 4(2)(b) to (e)(i) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 are also ruled out of order.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 4(2)(e)(ii) be agreed to.

We come to Hilary Calvert’s first amendment to clause 5(b) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, the contrary No. The Noes have it? [Interruption] I think we might have just done that one. I am sorry. I am getting confused—I have amendments crossed out. I apologise to the Committee. So the next amendments, which are to clause 5(b) and (c) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209, are out of order, as is the first amendment to clause 7. We then go to Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 7 to insert a definition—

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. At the risk of disagreeing, I am not sure that we did do the first amendment to clause 5(b). I do not think it had been put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will just consult as to what the Clerk has got on the top of the vote. I am a little confused myself, but I thought we had. Yes, we have. I neglected to cross one out that was ruled out of order. That was how I made that mistake.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am unclear. Which one did we pass and which one has been ruled out of order?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We have not passed any. They have all been voted down.

💬 Hon David Parker: Which one was voted down and which was ruled out of order? You have described them both as amendments to paragraph (b).

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There are two amendments to clause 5(b). The first one we voted on and the second one is out of order, as is the one to clause 7.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have just used the words “as is the one to clause 7.” There are actually several amendments to clause 7—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The first amendment to clause 7. If the member was listening before, I started on the second clause 7 amendment, which is in order. We are now going to vote on it—the one that inserts a definition of “directly affected”, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209. That is the one we are now voting on. Is everybody clear?

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 to insert a definition of “directly affected” be agreed to.

The next amendments to clause 7, to amend the definitions of “Director-General”, “environment”, etc. are out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect, I would have thought that if that amendment passed, the wording of the statute and the meaning would change. Why, therefore, is it out of order? The Government has the power to vote them down, but I would have thought that it was within order.

If the Committee would show a bit of patience, there are a few that I have dealt with. It is around omitting “Conservation” and substituting “Department of Conservation”. In Speakers’ ruling 114/1, although there is a somewhat subjective judgment on behalf of the Chair I am guided by minor word changes or alternative forms of words, as in Speaker’s ruling 111/3. Those are the things taken into consideration.

I ask for some consistency, then, because many of the Minister’s amendments in his lengthy Supplementary Order Paper make corrections to words that could be argued to be of similar effect. I ask the Chair to apply similar rulings to the Minister’s amendments when it comes to the consideration of them.

In this case, I deem that “Conservation” and “Department of Conservation” are the same thing, and under Speakers’ rulings 114/1 and 111/3 I have ruled it out. But I note what the member has said. So we move to Hilary Calvert’s amendment to clause 7 to amend the definition of “mana tuku iho”, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209. The question is—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not trying to waste your time; I really am very confused. If we go back to the beginning of clause 7—the Supplementary Order Paper I have is 209—the very first definition under clause 7, referring to “aquaculture activities”, you ruled out of order. The next one, on the definition of “Court”, we voted on, and it was lost. The next one—

Sorry, slow down. The next amendment to clause 7 we did vote on, and it was lost—

💬 Hon John Boscawen: That was the definition of “Court”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The third amendment to clause 7 I have ruled out, and now we are about to vote on the fourth one.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You just mentioned “Conservation”; the fourth is to omit “given” from the definition of “Crown entity”. I am looking at my Supplementary Order Paper—

“Director-General”—

💬 Hon John Boscawen: “Director-General” is about the sixth or seventh amendment in.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The Hilary Calvert amendments to clause 7 that I have ruled out are to amend the definitions of “Director-General”, “environment”, “High Court Rules”, and “local authority”. Those ones are not significantly different, but the next one is, so we are about to vote on it.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 relating to the definition of “mana tuku iho” be agreed to.

The next amendments, to amend the definitions in clause 7 of “mineral” and “plan” as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 are out of order.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 relating to the definition of “planning document” be agreed to.

The next amendments in Hilary Calvert’s name, again to clause 7, amending definitions about “privilege”, “proposed plan”, “public notice”, “quota management system”, etc., on Supplementary Order Paper 209 are out of order.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 relating to the definition of “responsible Minister” be agreed to.

I am advised that I may have truncated the words around the amendments I ruled out of order previously, so I will read the statement in its completion so there is no confusion. The amendments to amend the definitions of “privilege”, “proposed plan”, “public notice”, “quota management system”, “recognition order”, “regional council”, “regional document”, “register”, and “resource consent” are ruled out. Hilary Calvert’s six further amendments to clause 7 to amend the definition of “responsible Minister” as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 209 are out of order. Hilary Calvert’s amendments to clause 7 to amend the definitions of “road”, “ship”, and “structure” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 are out of order.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 7 to insert a definition of “substantial interruption” be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That vote cannot be right. If both National and—

Ayes 47, Noes 73—the amendment is not agreed to.

Yes. We are 57, they are 42. That has to be well over the numbers we are talking about.

Labour has voted against the last two amendments. It voted 42 votes opposed.

So for the last two you voted against. Leave is sought to amend the record. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is no one; we will do that.

I also rule out of order Hilary Calvert’s amendments to clause 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 209 to “taonga tūturu”, “territorial authority”, “territorial sea”, and “warden”.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to omit clauses 8 and 9 be agreed to.

The Hon David Parker has a typescript amendment to omit clauses 8 and 9. That is now out of order as being the same in substance as the previous amendment. Metiria Turei’s amendment to omit clause 9 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 is out of order for the same reason.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Hilary Calvert to omit clause 10 be agreed to.

We have the Minister’s remaining amendments, as amended, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 and Supplementary Order Paper 211. The question is—

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You might be able to correct me as to process here, but it seems that in respect of the ACT Party’s amendments we had to take them clause by clause, yet you are now proposing that we take all of these other ones, which seem to include some individual amendments, as one question. Is that in order?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes. That is the Minister’s prerogative.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I have an assurance that we have had the Clerk of the House go through each of those amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper, applying the same logic that was applied in respect of Hilary Calvert’s amendments, and strike out those that are effectively inconsequential in terms of the change of meaning and therefore out of order on that same basis. When I read the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, there are certainly some that would fit within that category.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, you have that assurance.

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to be clear, is this a vote on all the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 and to Part 1 only?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Only to Part 1—the ones that have not been dealt with consequentially as we have moved through.

The question was put that the remaining amendments to Part 1, as amended, set out on Supplementary Order Papers 207 and 211 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson be agreed to.