Whitewashing the Fence: Leading Leaders in a Way That Works (The CERV Series Book 1)

This ministry proved to be the longest of his career to date, and one that left a huge mark on their lives. His congregation had a fascinating mix of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, professional athletes from Bay Area teams, and other influential global movers. He said, "We had a fun mix of really committed people in every field. It was a pretty astounding privilege. He says, "To our horror and delight, we sensed God calling us out into the mission field. We walked out the door of a very comfortable life and into the unknown. His desire to help others in those areas led to the creation of Potter's Clay in with the goal of producing materials and experiences to foster those passions.

The past three years have been spent writing and presenting on these themes with leadership workshops, marriage coaching, and Unshakable Marriage workshops. Potter says that while this experience has been a good one, it has been a lonely one. Because of that he has started a new endeavor, a cooperative of speakers and coaches called CERV: Centers for Excellence, Renewal and Vitality. This collective is a mobile institute which trains leaders toward organizational health and feed marriages and primary relationships, "This has been a lifelong dream of mine.

My thing has always been empowering and sending others to do His work. I am having so much fun now because I am working with more partners and enjoying the vicarious pleasures of sending as well as going. For a while, it was weird just to keep going and going myself. Now I get to pick my battles and send others. It is a place for couples to come together to talk, to listen, and to heal.

As the member knows, because he has heard the arguments, in fact, actually, the new legislation not only significantly increases the oversight but also actually narrows the mandate that the GCSB can operate within. Will the bill govern the collection of metadata collected by the GCSB? The metadata is treated the same as the content of communication in the bill, and there is no difference. In the light of his answer, how will the collection of metadata of New Zealanders be regulated, and in particular will there be a requirement for either an interception warrant or an access authorisation?

In answer to the last part of the question, yes.

Main Navigation Menu

I think the reality is that the oversight of the GCSB is, as a result of the legislation, significantly improved and enhanced, and that includes everything from, basically, a three-person panel with two other people to assist with what is happening in terms of what the inspector-general does. It also includes registration annually of the amount of information that is collected by those agencies—and transparently. It includes changes to the Intelligence and Security Committee, so that the inspector-general comes along once a year—and obviously others—and the committee can do its work. It includes a review starting in , and a review every 5 to 7 years.

What I have seen is members like Phil Goff going on about them not—. Why did he, as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, oppose the opportunity for us to hear from the New Zealand Defence Force, the SIS, and the police about why they needed GCSB assistance, rather than allowing them to give evidence before us? Firstly, any of those organisations were free to put in a submission. We did not stop them doing that. Secondly, I would have thought it is inherent in the legislation. The very purpose of the legislation is to re-implement the Act that Labour passed that allows assistance to those agencies, except we are doing it up front, in a way that it is transparent, with much better oversight.

I go back to the point I was about to make before. There are many people on the other side who used all of this information. They were more than happy when it was in a much broader framework, but now they do not want it. I find myself looking at, I think, the only Leader of the Opposition around the world who does not think their citizens should have decent security and decent rights.

The member is raising a point of order? That last comment was out of line. We are here today to ask questions of that Government about the behaviour and the actions of a future GCSB, which people have lost confidence in. The member has a perfect right to raise a point of order. On this occasion I do not agree with the member.

I do not believe the answer given to the question that was raised was out of order at all. It must have been obvious to the Speaker that throughout that point of order we had a barrage of interjection from the Government, which the Speaker did not address. I am asking you why that was the case. It was certainly obvious to me that there was a barrage of interjection. I had difficulty hearing the member. I was concentrating on hearing him.

The barrage was coming from, I think, a significant number of members. I would have been unable to identify a specific single member at all. Is this a further point of order? I do not accept your explanation. If you picked just one or two, you might have been able to stop it. I do not need any assistance. I accept the point the member is making. If I had looked and attempted to identify a member, I am sure I would have found plenty, so I accept the point the Hon Trevor Mallard made. I was having difficulty hearing David Shearer, and I was concentrating very much.

I was looking at David Shearer, trying to interpret him. But I do accept the point the member has made. Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I make the point very simply. It is not a point of order that the Leader of the Opposition does not like something I say. If he does not like it, he can take offence and ask me to withdraw and apologise. That is not a helpful point of order. The Hon Trevor Mallard raised a point of order with you, and you accepted it.

It therefore no longer existed. So why did you give the Prime Minister a chance to speak to it, to reopen the point of order? Because at the time the Prime Minister raised it, he said he wanted to speak to the point of order, and I was unsure particularly what he was going to raise. It was not a new point of order, but the point of order you had just disposed of. Why did you allow him this special privilege? Because I was not aware of what he would raise at the time he said he was going to speak to the point of order.

• Similar authors to follow.
• Volume , Week 49 - Tuesday, 30 July - New Zealand Parliament.
• Jung & Geil : Feuchte Pfläumchen (German Edition).
• Members Sworn.
• Tuesday, 30 July 2013;
• Children of the Courthouse: Alice;

This matter is now disrupting question time, and the House is becoming disorderly. I will not take a further point of order. The last question that was asked by David Shearer asked why a certain group of organisations had not been brought in front of the select committee when they had been asked to be.

The incident that caused disorder was the Prime Minister moving on to personally attack the Leader of the Opposition about his interests in security matters. That is what caused disorder in the House, and that is why David Shearer took a point of order. Except that the original question from David Shearer asked why did the Prime Minister, as chair, oppose, so it was quite a direct question, in my opinion, to the Prime Minister himself.

I certainly hope that this is a fresh point of order that is being raised by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. Could you tell us, given that it was a direct question to the Prime Minister—if it was not a direct question, should it have been directed at somebody else, and whom should that have been?

It was a direct, non-political question. Why did he oppose certain agencies coming before the select committee, not political, straight—. Can I ask the member, if he wants to raise a point of order, to think carefully about it. That is not a legitimate point of order. It was a question that was directed to the Prime Minister as the chair. That is not out of order at all. It was a political question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister responded. If this is a fresh point of order, I will hear it, but if it is relitigating this particular matter, then I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber.

Is it a fresh point of order? It is a fresh point of order. If it is a fresh point of order, then I am happy to hear it. When you go to Government House, you ask for freedom of speech and the right of members to speak in here. Included in that is the right of people to ask direct questions of the executive. The question that I have to you is when are we going to get an arrangement whereby, when people have asked questions in an absolutely proper way in an area for which a Minister has responsibility, even more responsibility than a normal select committee chair, because they are the member in charge of a bill as well as being in charge of a statutory committee—what remedy do members have when they are accused of not taking into account the security of New Zealanders, which is, effectively, treason?

That is effectively the accusation, and it is something that members on this side find very offensive. My question to you is what remedies do members have under these rulings. If members are offended, then they do have recourse under the Standing Orders to raise that matter and to have the offence struck out. That has long been established. But I think the bigger problem here is the failure on the part of questioners today—on numerous occasions, I might say—to recognise that when some answers to questions that are asked stray into an area that points out some of the inconsistencies in the public view held by the person asking a question, there is suddenly a leaping to the feet to, in fact, deny the very free speech that Mr Mallard is talking of.

I think you have been right to rule that there are sometimes questions that are asked with a particular political outcome in mind or a particular answer in mind, which does make it a much more political question than the obviously political questions asked each day. That is where we are getting into, I think, some difficulty. But it comes down to, I think, as you have previously ruled, that if people want to go down that track, then they should expect the sorts of answers that they are getting and finding very uncomfortable.

I appreciate the point the member makes. At this stage I do not intend to rule further on this matter. When the member the Hon Trevor Mallard raises an issue and suggests that what we have heard is actually going as far as treason, that becomes, in my mind, a very, very serious matter. On that basis I want to take the opportunity of reviewing the Hansard , particularly in light of the whole of this question, before I come back to the House. What is the Government doing to improve border processing?

However, I have also seen a report that in the unlikely event of a Labour Government getting elected, the number of UK and US people wanting to even come to New Zealand might be small enough that we can process them by hand. What information has he seen regarding the success of SmartGate? There is overwhelming evidence of its success. Since more than 6 million New Zealanders and Australians have used SmartGate when arriving—that is way ahead of initial estimates—and now, with the one-terminal SmartGate Plus, which is the one-stop shop, we have already had 13, people using that on departure.

I agree with the member that the requirement of recent occurrence refers to when the member becomes aware of the matter, rather than when it actually occurred. However, the making of an allegation can never constitute a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility.

Volume 692, Week 49 - Tuesday, 30 July 2013

An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be a distinct Government responsibility for this particular case that is sought for debate. Although I accept that the Minister of Defence is responsible for defence orders that refer to a threat from certain investigative journalists, these were first issued in They alone cannot constitute a case of recent occurrence.

The application is therefore declined. There is no ministerial responsibility for the actions of Parliamentary Service. The Speaker is responsible, not the Government. This application is also declined. Thank you for your consideration of my applications. As a point of clarification—you said, with regard to the first application, that I can be responsible in terms of timeliness only when we became aware of it. We became aware of this particular part of the defence manual only at the weekend.

In your ruling you said that this defence order dates back some years. How can that possibly be relevant to turning down my application when it is very clear that the application depends on when I became aware of it? It was only possible to become aware of it on Sunday. I do not think it is helpful to debate these matters on the floor of the House. The member is certainly welcome to come and talk to me after question time. The issue of when the allegation was made is not a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility.

The Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate on these estimates. Each member may have no more than two speeches of 5 minutes on each vote. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table. The Parliamentary Service plays a critical role in establishing the environment in which we work and in which members of the public and members of the media work in with the parliamentary process. The role of the media in relationship to Parliament and Parliamentary Service is an important part of our democracy.

That is one of the most serious and disgraceful actions that could take place in this Parliament. The media, acting as they do on behalf of the citizens of New Zealand, need to know that their communications are sacrosanct, and that has been breached. That is an incredibly serious matter for this side of the Chamber. We condemn the release of that material.

The question has to be asked of how that material came to be released. It appears that David Henry, the person leading the inquiry, did not want it. He did not want the information, and he sent it back, so who requested the Parliamentary Service that that material be released? If we look through the history of this matter of the Henry report, there are two people who are at the centre of this: They are the two people who have been at the centre of this inquiry. At the outset of the inquiry, John Key did not want to know about it. It was their inquiry.

John Key did not want to know about it. He went as far as saying he was as in the dark as anybody else about this inquiry. Well, that is clearly not true. What appears to be the case, from written questions and from oral questions in the Chamber, is that the Prime Minister through his chief of staff has put pressure on Parliamentary Service to release material about the activities of parliamentarians and about the activities of the media. That is what it appears. Wayne Eagleson was, as far back as the beginning of May, in contact with Parliamentary Service about email metadata release.

We have contradictory answers about this within the written questions that have been given out, but what we can clearly establish is that Parliamentary Service spoke with Wayne Eagleson during the afternoon of 9 May about whether or not there was cooperation from parliamentarians, including Peter Dunne, about releasing phone records. The question is this: If we look at the answer to written question , this is what the Prime Minister said: That is what the Prime Minister said in reply to a written question.

That means that the Prime Minister and his office are up to their necks in the release of this information, which would have been considered private, certainly by the journalist and possibly also by Mr Dunne, who, I now read, says that the information that has come out today about what Parliamentary Service did is in contradiction to what he was told at the end of May. We have a situation here where Parliamentary Service, the organisation that the Speaker leads on behalf of all of us, which is separate from the executive—which is deliberately separated out from the executive to ensure that we are fairly treated as parliamentarians right across Parliament—appears to have come under pressure from the executive branch.

That is completely unacceptable. John Key is donkey deep in this. This is an incredibly serious matter that we are dealing with now in the Chamber. It strikes at the heart of our democracy.

⭐ Ebookstore Online Ngs Ear Climate Trans Pk By Pdf | Free ebook sites download!

If we are to have freedom in New Zealand, if we are going to have a democracy, if those things mean anything—and if the people whose names are inscribed on the walls of this Chamber fought for anything, they fought for freedom and democracy, and freedom and democracy rely on a free press. Let us remember that those email logs were parliamentary email logs, not ministerial email logs. That is the situation we now find ourselves in. That is the situation. Who now can protect their records from the prying eyes of the Prime Minister—the bullying, menacing Prime Minister, who will come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone who dares disagree with him?

We now have a menacing, frightening Prime Minister who is determined that the only way he can win the next election is to crush all opposition, to make sure that all journalists know that if they do not do what John Key likes, then he might pull their phone records, just like he did to Jon Stephenson in Afghanistan, and just like he did to Andrea Vance here. He will pull their movement records to find out whom they are talking to. And if there is a member of Parliament whom John Key does not like, then John Key will get their email logs to find out whom they have been emailing.

It is a persistent attitude that says: I get to decide. Parliamentary Service must hand over the email logs of members of Parliament. Parliamentary Service must tell us where journalists have been moving about in the building. When it is all revealed, the Prime Minister says: I had nothing to do with it. When the Prime Minister was involved in the Banks inquiry, he said: As members point out to me every now and again, I have been around this House for some time.

I can remember the reasons for dividing up the old Legislative Department into the Parliamentary Service and Ministerial Services. The reason for that was to take away from political control, from party political control, and from the Prime Minister the ability to access records, and to put it in a place that is independent.

This year that has been severely breached, and it appears to have been breached on at least between four and six occasions. It is not the sort of thing that happens in any democracy.

The fact that Parliamentary Service went further and supplied the access details of a journalist is even more disgraceful. It is fundamental to our democracy that journalists have the ability to move freely around these buildings and to talk to whomever they wish. The idea that if members of Parliament go to the press gallery, that is recorded and reported to the chief of staff of the Prime Minister is wrong, as it is absolutely wrong for journalists moving in and out of whichever doors of the building, going to and from outside appointments, to be recorded and reported.

There has been a lot of discussion over the years about the relationship between the gallery and Parliamentary Service—the offices, what is paid for, what is not. There has always been an assumption that the phone records that go through Parliamentary Service—but I understand that in the end the extra bills are paid by the employers of the journalists—are sacrosanct, and that they would be accessed only in the—.

Oh, there he goes again. There he goes again—. The assumption that we have is that the phone records will be accessed only under warrant. What we have now is the chief of staff of the Prime Minister, the person who appears to order the Government Communications Security Bureau to spy on people, now using Parliamentary Service to get information that would be obtainable only under warrant—under warrant—and approved by the Attorney-General. What we have here is an appalling state of affairs, where journalists and members of Parliament are not allowed to have discussions with each other and with their own groups.

I mean, where does it finish? Yes, say two members opposite. I think it is approved of by both the backbencher—whose name I have forgotten—from King Country and Russel Norman. That is what happens in this Parliament, and that is totally unacceptable.

I think the Speaker has done the right thing. Obviously, this is not the right vote to discuss the fact that the Speaker has referred the matter to the Privileges Committee, but there are a lot of questions that he should answer now. It gives me no pleasure at all to have had to have a meeting earlier today with a journalist and to apologise on behalf of Parliamentary Service for the fact that her phone records were released.

I agree that this is an issue that is very serious. All members who have contributed so far have remarked on how serious this issue is. We all have a love-hate relationship with our press gallery, but it is an absolutely essential part of this democracy. There has been a breach of trust, and I will do all in my power to get to the bottom of it.

But who asked for them? It appears to me that no one asked for them to be released. How can they just appear? How can they just appear if no one asks for them? Well, I am sure that when this matter is teased out before the Privileges Committee, that is likely to be what the Hon Annette King will find out. The phone records were released. They should never have been released. Having been released, they were never accessed. I have seen an email from the David Henry inquiry saying: This whole issue of the David Henry inquiry has opened up some very serious questions about what information should be accessed in the event of a security situation.

I believe there is going to be huge difficulty sorting out whether an email is a ministerial email, whether it is a parliamentary email, or whether it is actually a personal information email, and whether it should be released. That is why it should go to the Privileges Committee. All of us who have our swipe cards to carry around this building and all of us who use our emails need to know the protocols and the rules by which, in the future, in the event of a serious breach of security, that information may or may not be made available.

I can think of no better committee to establish the protocols for this to occur than the Privileges Committee. Although I accept there is a lot of heat around this argument today, I passionately believe it is best to go to the Privileges Committee, and the sooner it can report back so that the rules are clarified, then the better for us, as members of Parliament, the better for the operation of the press gallery, and, therefore, the better it is for the democracy of New Zealand. This is about the separation of the powers of the Government. Under our system of Government, there are three branches.

There is the executive branch, headed by the Prime Minister; there is the parliamentary branch, headed by the Speaker; and there is the judicial branch, headed by the head of the Supreme Court. It is fundamental to protecting our freedom and our democracy that those three branches are kept separate. That is, a report he received as the leader of the United Future Party.

He never received it as a Minister. That is fundamentally important to the system of checks and balances in our democracy. The executive has massive powers of surveillance and intrusion into our lives. The Prime Minister has special agencies called the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS, which report directly to him, that have the ability to break into our email accounts and find out what we are up to.

This is fundamental to our system of democracy and freedom. It applies to the case of the journalist as well. Let us remember that the New Zealand Defence Force categorised journalists as subversives—right? That is how it categorised them in its manual. If you can be defined by the Government as a subversive, as journalists are defined by this Government—the New Zealand Defence Force defines them that way—then you become a legitimate target for the SIS to break into your email account and read your emails.

If that happens to journalists trying to keep the executive responsible, then there is no way that we can have a functional democracy. I have a debate going on in the Chamber, and I have two going on either side of me. It goes to the very heart of why this institution exists.

Sport Navigation Menu

Our democracy depends very much on the trust that we have in our intelligence agencies and the functioning of the Government. We do not understand exactly why, but this strikes at the very heart of the confidence that we have in this Government. The Prime Minister refuses to answer the questions of exactly what is going on at the moment and who asked for these documents.

Who asked for these records is the question that we wanted answered. Mr Eagleson, we understand, asked for the overall metadata, but where did that go to and why are we now questioning the absolute right of journalists in this Parliament not to have their telephone records tampered with or sent on to the office of the Prime Minister?

This is yet another blow to the way that we operate in this Parliament. We have had the New Zealand Defence Force in the last couple of days accused of spying on one of our journalists as well. It comes on the back of the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill, which has been rushed through a committee process without the due attention that it absolutely needs.

Instead, what we have got is a bill that is going to creep across the line, sold by somebody who is a willing seller to the Prime Minister, who is a willing buyer. That is what it was all about. The Prime Minister has the audacity to say to me: If since that time the security of this country and the citizens of this country are in any way at risk, we will look with you to see how we can close that loophole until such time as we can have an independent inquiry in and around this issue. There was absolutely no evidence to give me any cause to have to go to him and take that any further.

Instead, what we have seen is the Prime Minister so adamant that he wants to get this bill just across the line that he would do absolutely anything. He is not willing, not interested, in engaging with the Labour Party or any other party in this Parliament. He wants this off his books. Then when people disagree with him, and I am talking about the New Zealand Law Society, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Human Rights Commission, he calls them misinformed—misinformed. Well, he is out of touch with New Zealanders here, because they have lost trust in our intelligence agencies and lost trust in him as the head of our intelligence agencies.

I can tell you that when people look at exactly the oversight that is going on here, we have Mr Key, who appointed his friend as the head of the GCSB, who reports only to him and does not even need to meet with anybody else when the two of them get together. Mr Key sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee—the oversight committee—chairs that committee, sets the agenda, and has the casting vote.

Does that give us any trust or confidence in Mr Key or our intelligence agencies? This is a disgrace. We need, as we have been saying for months now, an independent inquiry into our intelligence agencies, not just into the GCSB but the Security Intelligence Service, the defence forces, and the police and how they work together. I wish the Prime Minister was in the chair, because we expect accountability from this man.

This man on his own is meant to be holding the GCSB accountable, and I have got to say that this Committee has no confidence that he is doing so. It is not doing its job, and, what is more, the Prime Minister comes to this Chamber with the legislation and says that he wants to extend the powers of the GCSB.

He said, in the true spirit of arrogance, and of a leader who is becoming increasingly autocratic, that the critics are misinformed and the critics are always wrong. Well, let us look at who the critics are. According to TV3, 40 percent of New Zealanders do not have confidence in this organisation—40 percent. The Law Society, the Privacy Commissioner, and the human rights commissioner all say that the legislation and the decision to extend the powers is wrong.

If they are all misinformed, perhaps David McDowell, the former head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, is also misinformed when he says that the surveillance is being extended and that potentially undermines the rights of New Zealanders. I have got in my hand here the New Zealand Defence Force security manual. I have never seen it before, but I can tell you what it says.

It describes subversion as releasing information that might bring the Government into disrepute. That is what New Zealanders are worried about. Worse than that, it says that investigative journalists are subversive. It opposes the bill because any organisation like the New Zealand Defence Force heads, who confuse any criticism of them as being subversion, should not have that power.

I want to know why it is that this organisation has been further degraded by a Prime Minister who does a dodgy process of appointing its head—a process that even the State Services Commissioner feels obliged to come out and oppose. How can we have confidence in that organisation? How can we have confidence in it when we see what the National Security Agency in the US in recent months, and the Government Communications Headquarters in the United Kingdom in recent months, have been doing?

They have been overstepping the mark and abusing their powers. And this Government, instead of taking those trends and those concerns on board, wants to increase the power of the GCSB. John Key said he did not know about the Kim Dotcom debacle until September, but we know that the bureau knew in February that it had acted illegally.

Was the GCSB absolutely incompetent and negligent in not telling the Prime Minister, or is the Prime Minister being dishonest with New Zealanders in saying that he did not know about it until September? Who was right, in terms of the ministerial certificate, to suppress what the GCSB had done? Bill English as the Acting Prime Minister signed it.

John Key said he was never told. Well, I need to make a contribution after that pedestrian effort from Phil Goff, because I think a little bit of legislative history is required. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that the Attorney-General is a relatively new member, but he should know that you do not draw attention to members leaving the Chamber, and you especially should not do it when you are acting for someone who is too gutless to be here.

Well, the member was on good ground but it ended up being one-all. I do acknowledge that I should not have said that, but I have not been here for 35 years like that member. What was the position of the Greens? Well, the Greens were opposed because Rod Donald and the others were so far left they had left New Zealand. They were not interested in national security; their loyalties resided elsewhere. New Zealand First took a principled approach and was in support of that legislation because of the importance of national security issues.

It recognised that national security is more important than politics. Then there has been the much-heralded Kitteridge report, and I am not going to talk about that this afternoon. We will have plenty of time over the next few weeks to look at that legislation in a careful and methodical way. They oppose anything to do with the defence of New Zealand. I am very disappointed in the New Zealand First Party, because 10 years ago it understood the importance of these issues, and I am sure its constituency does.

But Mr Peters—the right honourable Mr Peters—is more interested in political games than in principled debate, so he is going to oppose just for the sake of it. People like the New Zealand First member in the Chamber this afternoon should be very worried about that. But my strongest criticism is reserved for the Labour Party, because it knows the importance of these issues, and in a sense, if you like, even though it is in a similar position to the position we were in in , the two big beasts of politics have to be able to agree on important issues of national security.

It is very disappointing that the Labour Party is not agreeing this year. What we are trying to do in this legislation, far from expanding the powers of the GCSB, is clarify what Helen Clark was too lazy to clarify in , and at the same time provide and strengthen safeguards and oversight, and provide, moreover, for regular reviews—[ Interruption ]—I say to that fellow from Rimutaka, who got all petulant in question time. These are important questions, and the loyal Opposition should carefully consider its position, get away from the hyperbole, get away from all the waffle, concentrate on the substance, and read the bill.

These are important issues. They need careful and mature consideration, and that is something that, on the face of it, Labour is simply incapable of doing. If we look at what we actually contributed in the Budget this year, it was really significant: It equates to 6. This Government is committed to growing our exports, and tourism is a critical part of that. Increased investment in tourism, obviously, will result in more visitors to New Zealand spending more money. I think that is a fantastic benefit for New Zealand. We often hear the Opposition talk about jobs, and tourism clearly results in jobs.

If we look at what this Budget, this new investment, is focusing on, it is high investment and high net-worth visitors to New Zealand, because—and it is a bit of a no-brainer—they spend more when they are here, whether it is in retail, in shops and cafes, or whether it is on activities like bungy jumping or partaking in many different activities.

Of course, at the moment skiing is just absolutely stunning. For those of us in the North Island, as well as the South Island, we have some of the best skiing and the best scenery around. This is a Government that sees things holistically. We have recognised that through spending in conservation, for example, in assets and building up infrastructure in the Tongariro crossing.

That is jobs. On 14 February to 29 March this country will be joint-hosts of the international Cricket World Cup This is an exciting tourism and sports announcement for this nation. It is one that I think the Committee as a whole would join together in congratulating the people who have coordinated this bid on bringing it together.

I congratulate Chris Moller, as the chair of the board, but can I particularly acknowledge Therese Walsh, who led the bid committee in bringing the games to New Zealand. Just think about this for a minute—. I beg your pardon? She worked for rugby then. Just get your facts right. Mate, you understand this: Here is the man over there denouncing the work of a woman in this country who has done an outstanding job for New Zealand. I am reluctant to do this, but Therese Walsh is an honourable New Zealander who worked very hard to get the—. That is not a point of order.

It is a debating point. The member can take a call if he wishes to make a correction. We are not going to use points of order for debating. You are meant to call him up when I think you know he is telling lies. No, that is not correct. The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise for using the word that he just used.

He criticised the member by implication. He will now withdraw and apologise. I withdraw and apologise. The member is somewhat confused. He was at the launch event where Therese Walsh stood on the stage and announced the events. English Choose a language for shopping. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web.

AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go. Amazon Restaurants Food delivery from local restaurants.