OK we have had a good look into this and you have an issue you need to resolve.
A trace of your name servers shows this:
; <<>> DiG 9.3.4 <<>> +trace ns1.power-business.co.nzhttp://ns1.power-business.co.nz
;; global options: printcmd
. 19071 IN NS j.root-servers.nethttp://j.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS m.root-servers.nethttp://m.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS e.root-servers.nethttp://e.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS i.root-servers.nethttp://i.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS c.root-servers.nethttp://c.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS l.root-servers.nethttp://l.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS h.root-servers.nethttp://h.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS d.root-servers.nethttp://d.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS k.root-servers.nethttp://k.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS g.root-servers.nethttp://g.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS b.root-servers.nethttp://b.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS f.root-servers.nethttp://f.root-servers.net.
. 19071 IN NS a.root-servers.nethttp://a.root-servers.net.
;; Received 512 bytes from 60.234.1.1#53(60.234.1.1) in 29 ms
nz. 172800 IN NS ns4.dns.net.nzhttp://ns4.dns.net.nz.
nz. 172800 IN NS ns6.dns.net.nzhttp://ns6.dns.net.nz.
nz. 172800 IN NS ns2.dns.net.nzhttp://ns2.dns.net.nz.
nz. 172800 IN NS ns5.dns.net.nzhttp://ns5.dns.net.nz.
nz. 172800 IN NS ns3.dns.net.nzhttp://ns3.dns.net.nz.
nz. 172800 IN NS ns1.dns.net.nzhttp://ns1.dns.net.nz.
nz. 172800 IN NS ns7.dns.net.nzhttp://ns7.dns.net.nz.
;; Received 428 bytes from 192.58.128.30#53(j.root-servers.nethttp://j.root-servers.net) in 13 ms
power-business.co.nzhttp://power-business.co.nz. 86400 IN NS ns1.power-business.co.nzhttp://ns1.power-business.co.nz.
power-business.co.nzhttp://power-business.co.nz. 86400 IN NS ns3.power-business.co.nzhttp://ns3.power-business.co.nz.
power-business.co.nzhttp://power-business.co.nz. 86400 IN NS ns2.power-business.co.nzhttp://ns2.power-business.co.nz.
power-business.co.nzhttp://power-business.co.nz. 86400 IN NS ns4.power-business.co.nzhttp://ns4.power-business.co.nz.
;; Received 230 bytes from 202.46.189.130#53(ns4.dns.net.nzhttp://ns4.dns.net.nz) in 0 ms
ns1.power-business.co.nzhttp://ns1.power-business.co.nz. 10800 IN CNAME bia.power-business.co.nzhttp://bia.power-business.co.nz.
bia.power-business.co.nzhttp://bia.power-business.co.nz. 10800 IN A 60.234.77.213
;; Received 76 bytes from 60.234.77.213#53(ns1.power-business.co.nzhttp://ns1.power-business.co.nz) in 1 ms
The CNAME is illegal, this means we dont follow it.
RFC2181 section 10.3: Copied below:
10.3. MX and NS records
The domain name used as the value of a NS resource record, or part of
the value of a MX resource record must not be an alias. Not only is
the specification clear on this point, but using an alias in either
of these positions neither works as well as might be hoped, nor well
fulfills the ambition that may have led to this approach. This
domain name must have as its value one or more address records.
Currently those will be A records, however in the future other record
types giving addressing information may be acceptable. It can also
have other RRs, but never a CNAME RR.
Searching for either NS or MX records causes "additional section
processing" in which address records associated with the value of the
record sought are appended to the answer. This helps avoid needless
extra queries that are easily anticipated when the first was made.
Additional section processing does not include CNAME records, let
alone the address records that may be associated with the canonical
name derived from the alias. Thus, if an alias is used as the value
of an NS or MX record, no address will be returned with the NS or MX
value. This can cause extra queries, and extra network burden, on
every query. It is trivial for the DNS administrator to avoid this
by resolving the alias and placing the canonical name directly in the
affected record just once when it is updated or installed. In some
particular hard cases the lack of the additional section address
records in the results of a NS lookup can cause the request to fail.
Let me know if you need further assistance.
Paul
On 2/09/2013, at 7:47 AM, Paul Tinson