edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Donald Rod: Voting — Correction 
Donald Rod: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:609;Page:6238] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to change the Green Party’s vote on the previous matter—the performance of Crown entities. I gather that by mistake we voted against the receiving of those reports and I seek leave for nine votes against to be changed to nine votes in favour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there anybody opposed to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none so the records will be altered.
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:614;Page:10359] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question that is on the Order Paper has some quite specific information sought of a particular Minister. It is evident that the Minister to whom the question is addressed has no public engagements outside the House today. The Government has made a calculated decision to avoid her being accountable to this House during question time. That makes a farce of this process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. If the member does not want to ask the question he does not have to. I call question No. 6 from Murray McCully. Question No. 7 Gordon Copeland. [ 
Interruption 
] I regard that as a totally inappropriate remark. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Member 
: I didn’t hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear it either. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That could only be an inappropriate remark if he was referring to Mr McCully or someone else. However he could have been referring to his colleague which would be entirely appropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is an attempt to comment. I want him now to stand and withdraw for any implication that that has. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will be removing some people from the Chamber in a moment very quickly. I want the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I shall do it for a second time. I withdraw and apologise.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:610;Page:7981] 
Thursday 14 August 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Last night leave was given for the New Zealand First Party to alter its vote on the question that the order of the day for the consideration in Committee of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Health Committee. The New Zealand First vote was initially recorded as a split party vote and Dail Jones sought to have the vote cast as a single party vote for the Ayes. This was not clear at the time and the corrected result was not correctly announced. The corrected result is Ayes 56 Noes 61 and the motion is not agreed to.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:612;Page:9337] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Peck Mark: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peck Mark: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8210] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I also want to support this bill. It has been very much welcomed in my electorate. People in my electorate are looking forward to its rapid passage through the House.
Brown Peter: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Brown Peter: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:20142] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take the full 10 minutes but I just want to make a summary of New Zealand First’s views. In particular I want to respond to some of the assertions made by the Hon Matt Robson. I know he was sincere; I felt it coming through in his body language. But he did attempt to send those who support the legislation on a bit of a guilt trip and he did suggest that various caucuses had not analysed the bill—meaning to his satisfaction probably. I say to the honourable member that New Zealand First has analysed this legislation. We are totally supportive of it. However we do not think that the Government has got it totally correct. Our assessment is that it is about 85 percent correct. 
We have concerns about the life of a passport as we have indicated and we suspect that the costs will remain the same or even increase when that does occur. We are still not totally happy that the 10-year passport should go to a 5-year passport. But we would have been more convinced with Matt Robson’s approach or assertions if he had been able at all—at any point—to convince his own leader. In a caucus of two when one cannot convince the other person on anything it hardly gives one the justification to come here and criticise caucuses and parties that have 100 percent agreement. 
We will tell immigrants or anybody who wants to come to this country that we value this country. We value its standards we value its culture and we value what it stands for in the world economy and in a social sense. But we say that if people do come here we will give them an extended time to prove themselves. They need to prove that they want to be part of New Zealand and be part of the New Zealand team if I might be so bold and then they will have no problem at all I would suggest with anybody else in this country. New Zealand First is not here to say that we should differentiate between one person and another if people come here with honest endeavour the appropriate background and the appropriate approach to be part of New Zealand society. 
There was a time when freedom and security went hand in hand. But now to some extent regrettably if one wants freedom one needs more security and if one wants less security then it will impinge on one’s freedom. That is a fact of life in this volatile modern world. This bill will help add to security but we pay the price in limits on our freedom. 
New Zealand First will support this bill and we are very very pleased that the Minister has taken our advice. Being the modest party that we are we simply say: “Can we fix it? Yes we nearly did.”
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16415] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
[Volume:614;Page:10353] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Deborah Coddington to be a member of the Education and Science Committee 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.
Simich Clem: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19136] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Cunliffe David: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7797] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15206] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope be agreed to.
Hawkins George: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Hawkins George: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8841] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22136] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Health be agreed to.  
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 19 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 6. 
Vote Health agreed to.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16023] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 2(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “26 January 2004” and substitute the expression “31 October 2004”.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8454] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Power Simon: Voting — Correction 
Power Simon: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:624;Page:19001] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to Mr Donald. This will not take a moment. For the sake of clarification which vote was that for? Was it for the amendments coming from the Justice and Electoral Committee? There was also a second vote in respect of the second reading after those amendments had been passed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The correction is for the vote on the question that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to.
Gosche Mark: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
Gosche Mark: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16411] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I sat on the select committee that considered the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It was interesting that both the National Party and the ACT party spokespeople who have spoken in the debate before me were not on the committee and know nothing about the bill. I wonder why Pansy Wong who was on the committee had to be relegated behind Bill English. It was largely because we heard that ridiculously political speech that concentrated his entire intellect on looking at the use of colons in one part of the bill. It is interesting that the once-great National Party as people have described it used to be there for business people and farming people. 
Did we hear one thing about what this bill does in respect of helping people affected by those terrible floods earlier this year? There was not a scrap. Nothing. The bill also deals with the tax treatment of replacement plantings of fruit trees and vines. Did we hear the party that used to represent rural New Zealand say anything about those good provisions? No not a thing. No wonder people in those parts of New Zealand have abandoned the National Party in such great numbers! And then the pretenders to the throne at 1 percent—who will be pretending for a very long time—the ACT party which is supposed to be here in the interests of consumers and sometimes taxpayers: did we hear anything about the improvements for new businesses starting up the discount for early payment? Did we hear any of that from Muriel Newman? No! No wonder that party is dead in the water and cannot even get its finance spokespeople to turn up and debate these sorts of issues! 
This is a good bill. It deals with a lot of issues that have been raised by taxpayers and business people in the past. One of those things was dispute resolution. I heard the submissions and I watched the work of our advisers who are from the industry and who are expert in the area. We took notice of it. The bill has been changed and it is now a very good bill. That is why United Future is supporting this legislation. It helps business the rural community and the people who make this country great and National and ACT are opposed to that. It is so sad that those parties that pretend to be here representing the interests of business the rural community and taxpayers completely fail to do so and will vote against the bill. That is shocking. That is why the ACT party is at 1 percent and dropping rapidly so that Bill English’s result will look pretty good next time.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16590] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Copeland Gordon: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6528] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I listened with some interest to the speech made by the Hon Tony Ryall. Let me put my cards on the table at the beginning and say that United Future will be voting for this bill. I think the principle that I would respond to Tony Ryall with is that we cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Also I would like to say that many of us New Zealanders were very very disappointed indeed that the more extreme provisions of the Resource Management Act were not dealt with during the term of the National-led Government. I think that many people have spoken through the ballot box on that issue. I would certainly hope that the Government might take notice of that and that we can indeed give the people of New Zealand some relief from that legislation which in some ways I think has been very poorly thought through. 
However I come back to this bill. The amendments appear to be largely technical and uncontroversial in nature. They are intended to clarify and update various statutory provisions to give effect to the intended purpose of the provisions remove unnecessary compliance costs and remove conflicts within and between different pieces of legislation. Most of the amendments stem from suggestions from business law practitioners enforcement agencies and the business community. 
Given that the bill is running well behind schedule and that the business community is eager for the proposed reforms to be implemented we have pleasure in supporting this bill.
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18311] 
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Debate resumed. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 Yesterday and today we have been paying our respects to those people in Asia who have been affected by the tsunami disaster. I would like to pay my respects to those hundreds of thousands who died and to those who have been affected by this disaster. I have been really touched by the generosity of our Kiwi brothers and sisters who have so generously given so much to the victims of that disaster and I am proud of this Government that has committed so much—$67 million—towards that disaster. I have really been touched by the many small communities in this country that have given whatever they could. 
The other day I was talking to members of the Sri Lankan community which is a very small community in New Zealand. They told me that they have contributed $400000 towards the disaster in Asia. That shows the pride of this nation. When I travel around this country and overseas and I hear people talking about New Zealand and the generosity of this nation and its people I really feel proud that we are proud New Zealanders. I believe that this country has every reason to be confident about its future and proud of its achievements. We believe that a confident proud nation is one in which people want to live work raise their children and invest. We believe in celebrating our people’s successes across business education sport the arts and culture and the many facets of our society in which we are doing so well. 
A strong sense of national identity makes us a stronger nation. We are building a nation that offers fairness and opportunity is tolerant and respectful of all and is economically dynamic creative and committed to a sustainable future. As we heard from my colleague the Hon Chris Carter this country has contributed so much in terms of having better race relations in promoting interfaith dialogue and good relationships within the communities we live in and certainly through our contribution to our neighbours in Asia and the Pacific over the years. I feel very proud that we have done so. The building blocks for a confident and skilled nation are confident and skilled families. Individuals and families who are at peace make up skilled nations and are skilled people whom we should respect. 
This Government has overseen solid growth—4.6 percent for the year to September. That is equal to the United States and among the OECD second only to Korea. This Government wants to lift growth not as an end in itself but to improve the living standards and life opportunities of all New Zealanders. Our approach is pragmatic not dogmatic and is reliant upon continuous evidence-based evaluation. Although as a result of the economy’s relatively strong growth in the last few years we have now overtaken Spain to move to 20th place among the 30 nations in the OECD in terms of per capita income there is still some distance to go to restore New Zealand to the top half of the OECD. 
Debate interrupted.
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8812] 
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.
Choudhary Ashraf: Energy Safety Review Bill — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Energy Safety Review Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21804] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill which has been—[ 
Interruption 
] My good friend Harry Duynhoven discussed this bill with us in the caucus and in the caucus committee we had a thorough discussion of it. I am delighted to support this bill and to recommend it to the House. I think I had better leave it there.
Fairbrother Russell: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7953] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Shirley Ken: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12225] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand also supports this bill but again we would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson to tell us why it has taken as long as it has. That is a valid question which has been raised now by two people in this debate. Why indeed is it necessary the bill having languished for so long on the parliamentary Order Paper for it to be rammed through under urgency? I suspect given the support that all parties have expressed for this bill there is absolutely no need to take it through parliament under urgency. In fact it will probably take longer to put the bill through under urgency than it would have taken if we had done it in the normal process of the parliamentary week. Perhaps the Minister will have the grace to tell us why that is the situation because the reason is certainly not clear. 
In essence this bill is all about the principle of responsibility under the law being based on nationality as well as territoriality. New Zealand it seems has not shared the expansion that other countries have had and the bill is of course confined to civilians abroad: to police officers acting on Government directives and to those people who are not covered by United Nations legal requirements. So it does seem that the bill fills a gap. Certainly the Solomons experience triggered the need for this bill but of course it is not specific to the Solomons—as indeed it should not be. I think it is quite conceivable that in the years ahead we will have similar situations arise to that in the Solomons particularly given we live in what is becoming a quite unstable Pacific region. ACT supports this bill as it seems does every other party in the Committee.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14577] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 68 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 68 agreed to.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19521] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I would like to assist my colleagues from the Greens. Speaker’s ruling 130/2 does support Mr Tanczos’ contention where only one Minister could be expected to have personal knowledge of the subject at hand. In this case we are referring to the Prime Minister’s statement presumably prepared by the Prime Minister which only she would be in a position to comment on.
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6777] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hartley Ann: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6271] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We have some amendments to clause 1. The first is in the name of John Carter which I have ruled out of order as not a proper and serious description of the bill. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act 2003” and substitute the words “Amalgamation of Trade and Enterprise Services Act 2003”.
Carter John: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Carter John: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13234] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could you just clarify for me please the two areas not yet reported back. You said Industry New Zealand and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The New Zealand Teachers Council. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is just that they were on the schedule we had been given so we had speakers ready to speak on them and had advised the whips of that. Will there be further debate on those in due course or how do members go about debating those reports that are not prepared as there is only a 3-hour debate set down? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is not now an opportunity for that debate. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Obviously I will have to take this up with the Speaker in due course. I will not call the Speaker back now but perhaps we could discuss it at the Business Committee.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19230] 
6.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is the Government taking to promote better linkages between tertiary education organisations and industry? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Sixty research projects linking tertiary students with industry have been approved under the Enterprise Scholarships programme. These scholarships support students to undertake study involving a significant research component. Half the funding is provided by private companies or organisations such as Crown research institutes and half is funded by Government contribution. 
Helen Duncan 
: How are students and industry benefiting from Enterprise Scholarships? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Organisations benefit by having access to talent technology knowledge and training by working with students in research teams from any discipline area to improve processes business solutions train existing staff and identify potential future staff. Students benefit from having significant financial support to undertake their studies. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister is funding links between students and business through the Enterprise Scholarships scheme what is happening to the money he allocated to the strategic initiative scheme for exactly the same purpose—a sum of $25 million to organisations that are already flush with slush funds from the Government? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will share that comment with the private training organisations which the member has criticised over the last 24 hours.
Speaker’s Rulings — Matter Awaiting Adjudication 
Speaker’s Rulings — Matter Awaiting Adjudication 
[Volume:614;Page:10353] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Matter Awaiting Adjudication 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to refer to a matter that was raised by Mr Brownlee yesterday. Mr Brownlee raised a point of order relating to a question that was returned to him because it referred to a case pending adjudication before a court. He asked for advice on how he could approach the matter he wishes to ask a question about. I do not understand Mr Brownlee to be challenging the applicability of the sub judice Standing Orders in this case. I do not accept the argument that it is anomalous that the news media can discuss something that is not open to members to raise. The fact is that Parliament sets higher standards for itself than does the news media. With regard to matters awaiting adjudication these standards have regard to the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts—see Speaker’s ruling 6/2 (Supplement). 
When the question was returned to Mr Brownlee it was indicated that there were alternative ways of seeking the information sought. I suggest that the member explore those further—I obviously cannot redraft his question on the floor of the House—and I am sure that a satisfactory question can be crafted.
Carter John: Speaker’s Rulings — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction 
Carter John: Speaker’s Rulings — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction 
[Volume:616;Page:12483] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that ruling. Two things come from it. Firstly I wonder whether you would circulate that ruling to members. I am sure you will. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will make sure that it is in every member’s box by 8 o’clock. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Thank you. The second point given that you are now considering the matter further is that I wonder whether you would be prepared to accept any written comments from members on the issue. Some members may wish to make a submission to you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will; I think that point is a very fair one. I will make sure that every member of Parliament is written to tomorrow and that we invite members to make comments over the adjournment so we can sort the matter out.
Hughes Darren: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7335] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17939] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6A as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 6A as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 6B be agreed to.
Hartley Ann: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9611] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to take the bill as one question. 
Is there any objection? No there is not.
Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
[Volume:613;Page:9656] 
Points of Order 
Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like Judith Tizard to withdraw and apologise for the remarks she made when she was leaving the Chamber during question time. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 343 I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation about my views on the eastern corridor. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make that explanation. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In order to maintain good order in the House I want to make it clear why we objected to that and perhaps give the member an opportunity to reconsider the type of leave that she seeks. The Minister is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues and it is her responsibility to assist the Prime Minister on matters relating to Auckland. The eastern corridor is a matter that is of great importance to Auckland. It is part of a programme of roading that the Government puts a great deal of store in. I am quite unclear as to whether a Minister should use the personal explanation process when she has been quoted while talking about a Government policy. It would be quite improper for the House to grant leave for a personal statement on that basis. Personal statements are usually very personal to the member. There is nothing personal to this member about the eastern corridor. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 The only question I have which might lead people to think I was in opposition to this proposal is as the MP for Auckland Central. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am speaking to the point of order. I am happy to seek leave to table the letter I wrote to the newspaper which had grossly misquoted me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made the point. That was not really a point of order from the member who spoke previously but he got the point over that he wanted to make. The member has sought leave to table the letter. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Peck Mark: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17703] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 During the course of that debate Jen McCutcheon knocked on another 200 doors. She is looking extraordinarily well placed to be the next member for Nelson. I must say that the House is looking forward to a real member of Parliament for Nelson particularly one who will be a member of the Government. [ 
Interruption 
] I can tell members that Wayne Harpur will fly in this place. He has my support as the new vibrant member for Invercargill. I support the second reading of this bill. 
Amendments recommended by the Primary Production Committee by majority agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4626] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
:  
I rise to speak in support of the first reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill. The misguided burblings of the member who just resumed his seat may have confused some members and indeed the listening public so I would like to clarify the purpose of the bill. The bill implements in domestic law the requirement of two international conventions the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. As the commentary on the bill states it does so “by providing for: offences involving the use and movement of unmarked plastic explosives: offences involving the physical protection of nuclear material: extra-territorial jurisdiction extradition and mutual assistance requirements in respect of those offences”. 
Other matters that the bill will pursue which people may be interested in include infecting animals with disease for which a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment is suggested; contamination of food crops water or other products intended for human consumption for which a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment is possible; threatening or falsely communicating information about harm to persons or property; harbouring or concealing terrorists; and dealing with radioactive material. Also terrorism will be an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes under the Sentencing Act. I hope this information has been helpful to members and listeners.
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:620;Page:15843] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not hear what the member for United Future actually wants to do. While we are not objecting to leave being granted—that is why the House has resumed—I wonder whether you could explain what the member wants to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call on the member Judy Turner to explain exactly what the position is.
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11663] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20984] 
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 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A further amendment in the name of the honourable Dail Jones to clause 18(5) is now out of order because his amendment to subclause (4) has been defeated; therefore it is inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee. Further amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of the honourable Marc Alexander to clauses 18 19 24 30(1)(b) 48 49 50 and 73 concerning victim support also are now out of order because they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 19(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(c)give in the notice general information about how victims authorised agents of victims and/or Victim Support in the absence of the victim or authorised agent of the victim.
Tisch Lindsay: Third Readings 
Tisch Lindsay: Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:20393] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for his assurance over the process for Supplementary Order Papers. I have been quite critical of the process especially with the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). But as I mentioned at the beginning of the Committee stage at the Government Administration Committee the other day we were told there would be a huge Supplementary Order Paper related to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5). The question asked by all members on that select committee including Labour members was simply this: if it is so important why is it not included in the amendment at the time? Why are these eleventh hour amendments coming through by way of Supplementary Order Paper? 
We were informed that the Supplementary Order Paper that we will be debating shortly without the scrutiny of a first reading in the House would be quite comprehensive. If it is so important one would have thought the Minister and the ministries would be incorporating that in the Statutes Amendment Bill at the time that it was tabled in the House and it would be debated at the first reading before it goes to the select committee. So we will be monitoring that process very closely as we go through. 
I do acknowledge the Minister’s comments about reassurance and I would hope that the process will be carried through and streamlined because this is about goodwill of Parliament. It is about all parties agreeing with the process. The changes to the provisions are in the main technical and we do not want to get into lengthy debate on those. So if the Government wants the goodwill then we would ask quite clearly that this provision of Supplementary Order Papers be taken seriously so that we can progress what we also believe to be important changes to legislation.
Shirley Ken: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Shirley Ken: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:5007] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I should say at the outset that I was not present in the Chamber when the incident occurred but I have had the situation reported to me. My understanding of the facts is that Mr Hide in response to a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Georgina te Heuheu on clause 1 “Title” sought a translation. The Supplementary Order Paper was presented in Maori as is a member’s right but Mr Hide not being fluent in Maori felt very strongly about the fact that he was not able to give meaning to it and therefore as a member of the House of Representatives was unable to participate fairly in the debate. He persistently sought a translation. He felt that he was protecting his right—and I agree that he was—to debate the matter from a position of understanding and knowledge of what the words actually meant. My understanding is that because of his persistence on that point he was ejected from the Chamber by the Chairperson. However at the point of ejection it was not conveyed to him what the duration of that ejection might be. I have consulted the ACT whip Muriel Newman and she assures me that she has not been advised of the duration of the period of ejection. We accept that it was the Chairperson’s right to eject any member for what was deemed at the time to be disorderly. 
However on reassuming the debate following the dinner break we have learnt that the incoming chairman of the Committee Mr Ross Robertson has seen fit to ensure that there is a translation available and I commend him for that. That really upholds the point of principle that my colleague Rodney Hide requested and for which he was unfairly I believe ejected from the Chamber. I do not wish to relitigate that. I accept that that would be inappropriate. The issue at hand now is what is fair and reasonable for that ejection period. I put it to you Mr Chairman that Mr Hide having had his time in the sin bin should be allowed to resume his place in this House of Representatives.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19715] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to sit on a members’ day so that the time that was lost from last evening’s business as a consequence of there being no Minister in the House as directed by Dr Cullen Leader of the House may be made up on Wednesday 11 May immediately following question time in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Mark Ron: Business Statement 
Mark Ron: Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3849] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification from the Leader of the House in relation to the Police Amendment Bill (No 2) which I see is still languishing at No. 32 on the Order Paper.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not provided for.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8739] 
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.
Benson-Pope David: Standing Orders 
Benson-Pope David: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10734] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Minister's Comments 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Minister's Comments 
[Volume:608;Page:5458] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a very serious concern for the House. We have had a senior Minister of this Government give an answer in Parliament that has gone around the world and then we have had a situation where the Government of another country which is a parliamentary democracy has been reported in that country as saying that there is no truth in the statement that the Minister has made. So I am in a quandary because it seems to me that we cannot— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member tell me what the point of order is? This is a point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well answers have to be truthful. We have had a Minister give an answer about another Government. That Government has said that is totally untrue— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member knows that if there is any matter like that it then becomes a matter about which the member should be writing to me on a question of privilege. I suggest to the member that that is where we go. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have made my ruling.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8078] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 122 in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 3(2)(b) be agreed to.
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14476] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an article from the  
Timaru Herald 
 from 29 May 2004 titled “Warning over health services for the elderly”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have done that when the question was being asked but I will accept that the House can give her leave if members wish. Does anyone object? Right there is objection.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17053] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 18 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 28 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.