edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9210. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before you put the House into Committee I want to raise a matter that was canvassed the last time this bill was before the House. You will recall that on at least one occasion during the evening you were recalled to the Chair. On one occasion you were asked to rule on the scope of the debate. If I recall your ruling correctly you ruled that because this bill was one being taken part by part and two because it had some controversy attached to it and was not a Government bill the widest possible debate should be allowed in the Committee. I want to confirm that that was the ruling you gave that it still applies and further that you have advised the Chairperson of the Committee that that is your expectation.
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18407] 
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 6; Green Party 9. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — Collapse of World Trade Talks in Cancun Mexico 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — Collapse of World Trade Talks in Cancun Mexico 
[Volume:611;Page:8671] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Richard Prebble seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the collapse of the world trade talks in Cancun Mexico. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and given that the Government was a participant in the talks I consider that it requires the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the application and call on the member to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Hodgson Pete: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7601] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the committee finally report the bill by 25 November 2003. 
Motion agreed to.
Franks Stephen: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
Franks Stephen: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
[Volume:626;Page:21039] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was not clear whether you had decided that you had answered my request in your extempore ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I have. I followed existing rulings. I was very careful to do that. I am sorry but I have answered the member’s question. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Madam Speaker you referred in fact to having to meet a very high standard for a prima facie case. My question was because the rulings appear to state that that is not the test. The statement following Speaker’s ruling 160/4 states: “Until 1979 the Speaker was required to determine whether a prima facie breach of privilege had been made out”. It appears to me from your letter that you have assumed that that is still the function. I may be incorrect in that but I believe we need to know whether that is the role you think you are performing. Your answer to me earlier suggested that you think you are still performing that role; if so what is the meaning of the ruling that states that that role appears to have stopped in 1979?
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3820] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
Noes 60 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 7. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 31 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by adding the following paragraph: 
(c)provide advice on future ownership options.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22296] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
[Volume:613;Page:10013] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to but does not seek to relitigate events that occurred last night at the closure of the debate on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. As I say I am not seeking to relitigate them although there have been a number of messages received by my office today expressing dissatisfaction with the procedure that was applied. 
The point of order relates to Speaker’s ruling 53/6. I raised a point of order last night regarding that ruling because it states: “The closure must be moved by a member rising in the member’s place pursuant to the Standing Orders.” The ruling given by the chairman and upheld by you when you were recalled was that Speaker’s ruling 7/1 in effect overrides it and means that a member does not need to be sitting in his or her allocated seat but may sit in one of his or her party’s allocated seats for the moving of the closure motion to be valid. At the time I looked at Speaker’s ruling 7/1. I sensed you were not in the mood to take further debate on the issue at that time so I decided to raise it in the calmer atmosphere of today. If you look at Speaker’s ruling 7/1 you will see it states: “… the allocation of particular seats to individual members by practice of the House is left to the party leaders and whips …”. That does not imply that because someone is simply sitting in a block of seats that are allocated to that member’s party he or she is meeting the test of Speaker’s ruling 53/6—that a member must rise “in the member’s place”. It does not state: “in the member’s party’s place”; it states: “in the member’s place”. 
The reason I am raising the point of order is there are many times when a closure motion often on less controversial matters than the one dealt with last night is moved in this Chamber and I think there needs to be some clarity. If the argument is that Speaker’s ruling 7/1 overrides Speaker’s ruling 53/6 I say that clearly it does not. There should be a better reason than that. I am seeking a considered ruling from you on this point that can be applied to future matters so that we do not get into the sort of situation we ended up in last night. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will please sit down. If the member reads the Standing Orders he will see that I can always hear a point of order; I can then rule straight away—which I can do here; it is one of the easiest ones I have ever had to rule on. A member does not have to be in his or her ordinary seat to move the closure. Acting whips often sit in another seat to do it.
Benson-Pope David: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4942] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There has been a discussion amongst the other whips and it has been agreed that we deal with these clauses in the same way as the previous bill. I seek leave for the debate on the clause to be one wide-ranging debate with the questions being put at the end of that debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15441] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I thank the deputy leader of the National Party Gerry Brownlee for pointing out so eloquently to the Committee—and it would normally take much more than 5 minutes—all the layers of bureaucracy wrapped up in this bill. I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that would take out at least one layer of bureaucracy between Sealord’s or Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and the Maori beneficiaries on the ground who are supposed to own the asset and I ask members to support that. It is simply this. As the member for Ilam pointed out to members in selecting the directors of Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd Maoridom currently has to go through five processes. Firstly Maori registered with an iwi group have to choose iwi representation. That iwi representation then selects its representatives who are just a few in number. 
Progress reported.
Brownlee Gerry: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18909] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister’s view of things it is now well understood that where there is some difficulty in interpreting a law courts will refer to the commentary on a bill. We are told so repeatedly by the Law Commission and by many others. The commentary is supposed to be the expression of what Parliament intended in passing a law. I am simply saying that when we have two texts that clearly are not literal interpretations of each other then we have a difficulty—certainly National members from our perspective have a difficulty in supporting it. 
As to the comments made about the Maori Affairs Committee making a decision to go ahead along those lines let me be very clear that the select committee is dominated by Government members. Although no one wants to pick an argument and see a bill come back in a split way there most certainly was an expectation that this issue would be dealt with subsequent to the difficulties we had with the recital in the main bill. 
All I am saying is that if one or two things in this bill are wrong and if in the future some disgruntled people in Ngati Awa challenge the right of this organisation to deal with settlement monies then quite clearly the matter would end up in a court and a judge would have at least to look at the commentary to see what Parliament intended. If those people were able to argue that there was a difference between the two texts then we are establishing a real bind for the future. 
The real point in this case is that the Government is choosing to pass the settlement but more than 70 percent of the eligible voters and recipients of the settlement offer did not vote for it.
Carter David: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15078] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak against the Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill. I do that as a member of the National caucus and of course as the chair of the Primary Production Committee. I thank the Hon Annette King for her kind words at the start of her contribution to this debate. I always worry about what I have done wrong when the Minister of Health congratulates me and thanks me for my involvement. I thank her also for her display of the well-worn tube and for extolling the virtues of hemp oil and I note the Minister’s smooth hands.
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22222] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 32 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Bill read a first time.
Sowry Roger: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11843] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be quite wrong to say that points of order were to come off the time of the party that raised them because it may be that the speaker was inciting another party and it had to take a point of order for protection. But the way around the problem and I would be happy to do so is to seek leave for the debate to be extended by the length of time taken by any points of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course? There is.
Connell Brian: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Connell Brian: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16213] 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I have not made it yet. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If the member is not seated he will leave the Chamber. I have ruled very clearly on that matter.
Carter John: Business Statement 
Carter John: Business Statement 
[Volume:607;Page:4269] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House might just tell the House when he expects that we might be in urgency. I understand it is not next week but the week after but it would help us with our planning if he could confirm that. And is it likely just to go until 6 o’clock Friday?
Duynhoven Harry: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11401] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
 on behalf of the 
 Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
:I move  
That the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill contains changes to the Resource Management Act that are necessary to support the Government’s energy and climate change policies. The bill provides a stronger directive to recognise the benefits of the efficient use of energy and the value of renewable energy as a lower greenhouse gas - emitting resource. It is about being smart in our use of energy and about being smart in our choice of energy sources. The Resource Management Act is New Zealand’s principal legislation for ensuring the sustainable management of resources so it is important that energy and climate change matters be given appropriate recognition within it. These changes will not result in our skylines being peppered with wind farms. Clearly all activities administered under the Resource Management Act are assessed against a suite of sustainability principles. This bill simply clarifies within the hierarchy of decision-making criteria the importance of not wasting energy and of recognising the benefits of lower greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources. 
The bill also requires people to have particular regard to the effects of climate change. That is simply good risk management. Changes in typical rainfall patterns a sea level rise and potential flooding could place infrastructure and people at risk. To support that provision the New Zealand Climate Change Office is currently developing a range of material to help councils to identify and plan for the risks associated with climate change. 
Finally the Government has chosen to control the impact on climate change from greenhouse gas emissions at the national level. By removing the ability for regional councils to also apply controls this bill removes the potential for duplication and unnecessary costs to occur and the potential for local controls to conflict with national objectives. The Government remains committed to ensuring that New Zealand has a sustainable energy industry and to taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9864] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 1A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14332] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Katherine Rich. Is the member speaking on Vote Social Development?
Chadwick Steve: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6959] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8114] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member of course has an obvious remedy in not asking the question today but can I make two further points. Firstly the Minister is not here. He is absent and he is not well. Secondly two Ministers have responsibility for the Maori Television Service and I am the other Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question.
Robertson H V Ross: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3962] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: These are the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 16. They are all being taken together Mr Tisch. I now put that motion. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11505] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I remind you that our senior whip John Carter in fact took the issue up with you in relation to how well the document in question was described. I am sure that you will take into account the  
Hansard 
 description as far as it was able to be given by Mr English. It could well be that Mr Mallard understood that a different document was being tabled from the one that was actually being requested for tabling given that that full request was not heard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is hypothetical and I will deal with the situation if I have to. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not ask you to have Mr Mallard back but perhaps you might decide that you do want to have him back. On dealing with matters of disorder especially when a member makes an allegation across the House that by innuendo implies that a member has misled or lied to the House Speakers have required that allegation to be withdrawn and apologised for. In this case there is no doubt about that. When a member calls out “You’re off to the Privileges Committee.” there is a clear understanding that he is saying that a member has misled the House. That is a most grossly disorderly statement. In fact what should have happened is that the Minister should have been required to rise withdraw and apologise been given an appropriate warning and then sent out. I just say to you that we are now in a position where Mr Mallard has been able to make a grossly disorderly comment and it has been allowed to stand on the record. He has not been required to withdraw and apologise. I regard that as a very unsatisfactory situation.
Mackey Janet: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mackey Janet: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6506] 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Budget Statement — Budget Debate Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Budget Statement — Budget Debate Procedure 
[Volume:625;Page:20750] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Budget 2005 Speech the Fiscal Strategy Report 2005 and the Economic and Fiscal Update 2005 (B.2) (B.3); the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2006 (B.5); and the Departmental Forecast Reports and Statements of Intent 2005-06. I move  
That those papers be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18725] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member needs to seek leave. He cannot “move”; he needs to seek leave. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to so move.
Carter Chris: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3819] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put.
McNair Craig: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
McNair Craig: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21449] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a call to talk about the thin capitalisation rules. First of all I want to highlight to the Committee that what I said earlier in my second reading speech was misrepresented by Mr Prebble. I have no problem with banks making profits. Obviously I am very supportive of banks making profits. Any business needs to make a profit to survive and obviously that is just a statement of fact. I have no problem with that. What I do believe—whether or not Mr Prebble thinks it is an immature belief a young belief or a junior belief—is that there are certain strategic assets that should be kept within New Zealand hands. The facts are that most New Zealanders agree with my view in that respect. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So do most of them bank with a local bank or an Aussie bank? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Mr Smith from the National Party asks why most of them bank with an Aussie bank; but when only one or two banks in New Zealand are owned by New Zealand and the other 15 or 16 are owned by foreign-owned enterprises it will probably stay that way until more time passes. Kiwibank is growing and hopefully the tide will turn in that regard over time. 
I do not want to focus my whole speech on what Mr Prebble said but I was interested that he said that this is police-State legislation. Towards the end of his speech I honestly thought he would vote against the bill but he said he would vote for it. I do not know whether I am allowed to ask this but I would like that member when he next speaks to clarify his position on that. It would be informative for the Committee. 
We are debating the new thin capitalisation rules on stopping banks from avoiding certain tax that really should be paid. A lot of companies foreign-owned and New Zealand - owned alike are in that situation. I agree that it is in human nature to find the best way to pay the least amount of tax but regardless of whether that is wrong or right what I stated was that for the last 7 or 8 years New Zealand First has been highlighting the issue of unpaid tax and that it needed to be addressed. 
It may be 7 or 8 years too late but tonight we are debating the issue. I am proud to be in a party that has highlighted that issue for many years now—which I believe is a triumph in its own little way. 
Given that we are talking about tax and money earned I think it was disappointing that Westpac joined other Australian-owned banks in not paying imputation to Kiwi shareholders. That highlights the fact that there are certain strategic assets that I believe should be kept within the hands of New Zealanders so that those banks can make decisions in the best interests of New Zealanders because to do so will be in their own best interests. The Australian-owned banks are doing what is in their best interests. I guess some people would say that they cannot really be blamed for that.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21116] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all the words after “That” be omitted and the following inserted: “this House has no confidence in this Labour-led Government which lacks the vision to lead New Zealand to a high growth high income future which will cause growing numbers of our children and grandchildren to seek better opportunities abroad and which having overtaxed hardworking New Zealanders for five long years insults their intelligence with election year fiddling while our future burns.” 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14766] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:624;Page:19676] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise at the conclusion of this debate and the taking of the vote on the bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Samuels Dover: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Samuels Dover: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20279] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cosgrove Clayton: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4525] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As a member of the Primary Production Committee I support this bill. I note the contribution of Mr Carter and others on the committee. I think there was quite a bit of unanimity on this bill. It was efficiently dealt with. 
Hon David Carter 
: There always is. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Absolutely. Given the Speaker’s full endorsement of the industry I am driven to the point where I think that we should seek leave for the Speaker to take a call. I will not do so because I know it would be inappropriate but I know that he would probably like to take a call in respect of this industry. 
This bill is all about quality. As John Key has said it is about protecting our international reputation. We have a quality product that creates huge amounts of economic growth and jobs throughout this country. That quality product and its standards must be preserved. This Labour Government has facilitated many reforms in several primary industries notably dairy and pipfruit. When the Government has been presented with industry-mandated solutions and reforms it has listened to the industry and enacted those reforms. In doing so we now have a world-beating dairy industry as we have in wine and hopefully pipfruit as futher reforms go through. 
I endorse the bill. It is a sound piece of legislation. I commend colleagues on both sides of the House who were part of the Primary Production Committee for the way they handled the bill’s dispatch.
Pettis Jill: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21184] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for the bill to be taken as one question to facilitate the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave that the bill be taken as one question to facilitate the debate. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:609;Page:6761] 
Tuesday 1 July 2003 
( 
continued on Wednesday 2 July 2003 
) 
Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Commerce Committee must finally report the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill to be extended to 18 December 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:621;Page:16865] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I have not mentioned an urgency motion but if as I fully expect the Supplementary Order Paper on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill is ready in time there will be urgency on that bill. The urgency would not include the Electoral Matters Bill.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10471] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:618;Page:13707] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House would be prepared to assist us by indicating at this early stage where the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill might be sent for select committee consideration.
Worth Richard: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20631] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A fresh point of order? 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Yes a fresh point of order. The Minister has abandoned the default position by saying there is no report-back date. It is not a question of there being the default report-back date; he has made it very clear that there is to be no report-back date. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I cannot make it any clearer. That is in the Standing Orders. The Minister was incorrect. The default position is 6 months. That is in the Standing Orders. It is for the Business Committee to extend the time if necessary. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Mr Assistant Speaker before you finally come to a view on that may I ask you what the relevant Standing Order is. We have this interesting position— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Can I interrupt the member. The Minister was incorrect in his statement. The Standing Orders are quite clear on the issue. Standing Order 289(1) states: “A select committee must finally report to the House on a bill within six months of the bill being referred to …”. Despite the fact that the Minister said there was no report-back date there is a report-back date it is within 6 months and it is the one we will adhere to. It is the one that I take was the intention of the Government. It was its intention that that date apply.
Benson-Pope David: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11186] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise briefly in support of this bill. We welcome it in the House just as many members in the community will welcome the progressive removal of asset testing for older people in long-term residential care. I guess we all regret that that has to be an incremental process but one of the many things the community welcomes about this Government is its fiscal responsibility. Indeed there is a degree of confidence and trust that this Government while delivering on its social objectives will do so in a way that the whole community can afford.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14880] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: MPs can ask questions; Ministers decide how they answer. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! That is the last warning today. If the member interrupts me again while I am on my feet the member leaves. MPs can ask questions; Ministers decide how they answer. MPs can then criticise the answer. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will be aware the various parties in Opposition have expressed to you over a long period now dissatisfaction at the way in which questions are being answered in the House. The fact is we have to go to some effort to prove the veracity of the question in the first place then when we come down here we have it regularly batted away by Ministers who routinely decide they are not going to give an answer. I notice Speakers’ ruling 144/5 includes rulings from previous Speakers Harrison and Gray that indicate that Ministers are not obliged to answer questions. I wonder Mr Speaker given that this trend now appears to be taking hold whether you might consider asking the Standing Orders Committee to consider whether that might become a formal arrangement—that a Minister who does not want to answer a question indicates so at 10 o’clock in the morning when oral questions are lodged so that the Opposition is given time to ask a question to which the Minister may be able to oblige with an answer.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22145] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Agriculture and Forestry be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 18 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 5. 
Vote Agriculture and Forestry agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13027] 
A party vote was called for on the question That 
 the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 72 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)Every prisoner will be given food that complies with: 
(i)nutritional requirements; 
(ii)cost implications to taxpayers; and 
(iii)in line with public expectations of what inmates ought to receive.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13923] 
10. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 on behalf of  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Official Development Assistance) 
: How will recent funding announcements regarding New Zealand’s overseas development assistance help advance security in the Pacific? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Official Development Assistance)) 
: 
 The Government has provided an extra $14 million for development in the Pacific. Over 20 percent of that amount will support region-wide police training and conflict prevention. There is also significant funding for education in the Solomon Islands which will help address the root causes of community instability. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How does greater peace in the Pacific further New Zealand’s interests? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Strengthening peace in the Pacific will help those countries develop their economies and stand on their own feet. Supporting our Pacific neighbours in their domestic law enforcement can prevent violent confrontation and subsequent requests for our intervention. Having neighbours at peace and in work is of benefit to all New Zealanders. 
Dail Jones 
: What action if any is the Minister proposing to take with regard to the extraordinary reports of members of Parliament from Tonga elected by the people recommending that aid to Tonga should be withdrawn until a full democracy is instituted in that country? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Of the $5.6 million allocated to Tonga $3 million is spent at community level or in the outer islands—much of that in supplying clean water to villages. Even when Fiji was in trouble with the Commonwealth New Zealand still supported the independent Fiji Human Rights Commission and village-based projects.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8229] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 9 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 9 as amended agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4609] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I join my colleagues who have spoken previously in congratulating Clayton Cosgrove on the effort he has put into this bill. I also congratulate my colleague Martin Gallagher who has done a lot of work along with Mr Cosgrove with local government leaders throughout the country. 
Like most members of the House and a large number of the members of the community I am very grateful to the ACT party for showing its true colours. We should all be grateful for the dazzling display of policy acrobatics that ACT has shown since the earlier statements of Mr Shirley’s that were quoted so accurately. I do not think that anyone who saw the television coverage in the last couple of days of extraordinarily stupid dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour—uncharacteristically of course in Christchurch—would have any doubt that this bill will provide a really useful deterrent enabling the getting rid of and modifying of totally unacceptable behaviour. I commend the bill to the House.
Benson-Pope David: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3879] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I am very pleased that after a long gestation period the bill is finally having its third reading.
Coddington Deborah: Building Bill — First Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Building Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8433] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party which opposes this bill. This bill should not be called the Building Bill. It should be called the “Anti-Builders Bill”. It should be called the “Anti-Business Bill” because once more we see a Government—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand from the Standing Orders that running commentaries are out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already called the member to order. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The bill should be called the “Anti-Builders Bill”. I sat on that select committee and I accept that there was a problem with leaky homes but what do we have here? We have legislation that is just hammering builders. [ 
Interruption 
] Before I start I would like to say to that member that perhaps he might like to read up on some philosophical history—some writers like Adam Smith— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I just say to members on the cross benches that it is a longstanding convention in this House that there are no interjections on other members—basically because it affects the microphones. I bring the member to order. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that one of my colleagues on the other side was somewhat maligned in that regard. She was not responding to any interjections from the member concerned. She was simply responding to the speech given in the address. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I heard an interjection. I call the honourable member Deborah Coddington.
Tisch Lindsay: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15439] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want some clarification. Is it correct that we just voted on clause 14E? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We voted on clause 14E and we voted on that after clause 15. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Can you explain why we voted on clause 14E after clause 15? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It was an amendment to the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 which are just coming up. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I understood that the Minister’s amendments are put first. It has always been the process that Ministers’ amendments go ahead of members’ amendments. So I would like clarification as to why we voted on a member’s amendment prior to the Minister’s amendment being put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. It is the correct procedure. It is set out in Standing Order 301. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: If you are quoting from— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am just checking to see whether I have the right year for the Standing Orders. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Standing Order 301(2)(a) states: “an amendment proposed by the member in the charge of the bill is taken ahead of an amendment proposed by another member” so in fact those amendments were out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry. We are proceeding under Standing Order 301(3). 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well can you explain to me why Standing Order 301(2)(a) states that an amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of an amendment proposed by another member? It has always been my understanding from debates over the years that the Minister’s amendment are put first because if they are passed they actually rule out members’ amendments that have been proposed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Tisch for that.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:618;Page:13911] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Noting the Government’s intention to take urgency I ask whether he can give the House an assurance that the right of the Opposition to scrutinise the Government by way of question time will not be lost and that the Government will recognise that its performance generally in the House has been poor— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The business statement is not a time for that sort of comment—it is to ask about the business. The question has been asked.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Security Intelligence Service—Inquiry and Allegations of Spying 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Security Intelligence Service—Inquiry and Allegations of Spying 
[Volume:622;Page:17228] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Keith Locke seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 allegations by journalists that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service spied on the Maori Party and other organisations and the decision of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to initiate an inquiry into the allegations. Standing Order 373 permits a member to raise “a particular case of recent occurrence” for debate yet the member’s letter raises two issues: the allegations and the announced inquiry. I will deal with the two cases separately. 
Allegations can never constitute a particular case of recent occurrence—see Speaker’s ruling 154/2. There can therefore be no grounds for a debate on the allegations. The decision to hold an inquiry is a particular case of recent occurrence and because it requires the concurrence of the Prime Minister it does involve ministerial responsibility. However it would be very unusual for the decision to set up an inquiry to require the immediate attention of the House and I can see nothing in this case that would justify it. The application is consequently declined.
Prebble Richard: Debate on Iraq 
Prebble Richard: Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:607;Page:4112] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am not sure whether the Prime Minister had actually finished her words. If she had not I seek the leave of the House for the Prime Minister to have up to another 5 minutes to be able to complete her statement and for the Leader of the Opposition to be able to match whatever that extra time is. I think we are entitled to hear in full what she wants to tell us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to the Prime Minister finishing her remarks and for a similar time to be given to the Leader of the Opposition? There is.
Benson-Pope David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:5062] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this fine legislation.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8157] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
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 103 in the name of Dr Lynda Scott to clause 116(2A) and (3) be agreed to.