edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
[Volume:624;Page:19510] 
Points of Order 
Speaker’s Ruling—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have had time yet to give us a ruling on the question of whether a description of a political party necessarily includes members in the House. You did say at the time despite Mr Prebble’s protestations that you would consider it. I am asking you to look at the precedent set by Speaker Hunt when the Alliance had a significant dispute which was effected in this House by Mr Anderton claiming to lead the parliamentary party and being separate from the party as a whole. It is pretty important because the rule that you relied upon was set in 1914 and I think that Mr Hunt’s ruling overrides it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to look at that for the member and report back.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15642] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 7 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedule 7 as amended agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Business of the House Allocation of Questions 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Business of the House Allocation of Questions 
[Volume:606;Page:3901] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have in front of me the schedule given to me by the Clerk. I will have a look at it. The allocation of questions is done to an agreed formula and I understand that it is done very carefully. It has been rolled over for months.
Pettis Jill: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3934] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 The Government Communications Security Bureau Bill is an important bill and it needs a considered and careful debate. The aim of the bill—certainly as stated by Labour members—is to define the objectives and functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau while at the same time increasing its ability to undertake its operational activities. This bill will place the Government Communications Security Bureau on a similar footing to that of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service following the amendments that were made to that organisation’s legislation in 1999. 
We are all aware of the great tragedy that occurred on September 11 after this bill was introduced in May 2001. This bill is timely because it responds to issues that New Zealand itself needs to respond to but I am also pleased to say that it provides important safeguards to ensure that the privacy of New Zealanders continues to be protected. The Government Communications Security Bureau Bill as amended creates a legal structure that will permit the bureau to adapt quickly and effectively to the highly dynamic global communications environment and I am pleased to support it.
Shirley Ken: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5350] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a clear understanding that select committees do not sit when the House has taken urgency. I have learnt from past experience that I need to move an amendment to that motion for that not to occur. I therefore propose an amendment to add the proviso that the committee not meet at times when the House has taken urgency. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for drawing that to my attention. However it is not a point of order. And no written copy of the amendment was handed in before the debate concluded.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13024] 
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 the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 53 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 53.
Hartley Ann: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9456] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to take a wide-ranging debate. Is there any objection? There is not.
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15899] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Presence on Order Paper 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Presence on Order Paper 
[Volume:626;Page:21243] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can we take it from the Leader of the House that the Hon Jim Sutton is not prepared to have that debate with Gerry Eckhoff and that once it was drawn to Mr Sutton’s attention that a debate would be called he quickly removed the notice? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21895] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 32 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14466] 
5.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What steps has New Zealand taken in response to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Given the scale of the crisis in which at least 30000 people have already died and 1.2 million have been made refugees the Government has today decided to grant a further $1 million in humanitarian assistance to bring to a total of $4 million the funds given to international and non-governmental organisations working to prevent further catastrophic loss of human life. In addition and in respect of Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s request New Zealand has also urged the Sudanese Government directly and in conjunction with Australia to comply with the terms of agreement reached between that Government and the United Nations. New Zealand is also pushing for a strong resolution from the Security Council on Sudan and will consider a request if made to make a modest contribution towards peacekeeping forces in that area. 
Tim Barnett 
: How is the Government providing the aid in a way that ensures it actually gets to those in need of it and is not misappropriated by a corrupt Government or bureaucracy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The $4 million has been paid directly to international organisations and humanitarian agencies that have a strong track record. For example $2 million was shared between the World Food Programme and the United Nations commission for refugees. A further $1 million has gone to the New Zealand Red Cross and to Médecins Sans Frontières. The latest $1 million will be channelled through New Zealand non-governmental organisations that have counterparts providing emergency assistance actually on the ground in Darfur.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5436] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Noes 38 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 19; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.
Jones Dail: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5629] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to allow the introduction of the Commission for the Family Bill which is a member’s bill and stands in my name—and incidentally has a definition of family in it—and to have it referred to the Social Services Committee along with this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21968] 
11.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much of the $500 million extra transport spending announced by him on 23 June 2005 is made up of tax currently in dispute? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 My latest advice is that none of it is tax in dispute from the banks. 
John Key 
: Of the $1.6 billion of tax in dispute from the finance sector how much has the Crown already received and does the Minister intend to spend all of that prior to the outcome of pending court cases? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I have indicated to the member none of the $500 million is related to tax in dispute from the banks. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question I asked the Minister was in relation to $1.6 billion of tax in dispute from the finance sector. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am happy to add that I do not have the figure in front of me; all I know is that payments have been made in relation to the $500 million. 
John Key 
: Is it not a fact that if the Crown loses those cases it will be forced to repay not only the $1.6 billion of principle but also cumulative interest leaving the Crown owing about $2.1 billion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes of course in an extreme scenario that would be true. That is why it is so stupid to promise already $1.1 billion in tax cuts when one has yet to announce what one will do with tax thresholds and tax rates—which is what that member has done. 
John Key 
: Is it the actions of a trusted and responsible finance Minister with over 20 years of experience in Parliament to spend billions of dollars before he even knows that it is his money to spend? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes because I have not done so—unlike a greenhorn would-be finance Minister who has promised billions of dollars of tax cuts and cannot explain where the money will come from.
Pettis Jill: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19140] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13145] 
A party vote 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
New schedule 3 agreed to. 
was called for on the question That new schedule 3 be agreed to.
Mackey Moana: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Mackey Moana: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12393] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the first reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). This is an important bill. It reinforces the preference for the quota management system to manage our fisheries resources as opposed to the use of individual catch entitlements which are often touted as an alternative but do not perform well by comparison. The bill provides more direction on when the quota management system will be used as the current laws lack guidance and have created uncertainty in the industry. Sustainability and utilisation thresholds will be introduced which when breached will require the Minister of Fisheries either to bring the species into the quota management system or to implement an alternative management intervention. I think those provisions are good for the industry they provide certainty and I commend the bill to the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19829] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I need to clarify a vote because the Clerk at the Table is not sure whether the vote was heard correctly. It is the vote on the Minister’s amendment to Part 3. I ask the Green Party to be so good as to repeat their votes on Part 3.
Franks Stephen: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18004] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is there a means of moving an amendment to that motion to omit the permission to sit outside normal hours? I would like to move that we omit the words that represent the departure from the normal Standing Orders relating to the sitting times of that committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that the member might be able to seek leave to do that but it is my understanding that it should also be in writing if there is to be an amendment. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I did not know that that was to be the condition of sending the bill to the select committee until the motion was moved. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The member should have read my first reading speech. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Minister mentioned the committee. He did not mention those conditions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise the member that Standing Order 284(4) states: “An amendment to substitute another committee or to alter any proposed special powers or instruction may be moved if notice of such an amendment is delivered to the Clerk at the Table before the bill is read a first time.”
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6189] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Awatere Huata 
Dyson (P) 
Key (P) 
Smith N 
Barker 
Ewen-Street (P) 
King 
Sowry 
Benson-Pope 
Fairbrother (P) 
Laban (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Beyer (P) 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Locke (P) 
Swain (P) 
Bradford 
Gallagher 
Maharey (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Brash (P) 
Goff (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Tanczos  
Burton (P) 
Gosche 
Mapp 
Te Heuheu 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
Okeroa 
Tizard (P) 
Chadwick 
Hawkins (P) 
Parker  
Turei 
Choudhary (P) 
Hereora  
Peck (P) 
Turia (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hide (P) 
Pettis (P) 
Ward (P) 
Copeland 
Hobbs (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Rich 
Wilson (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Wong (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
Robertson 
Donald (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Duncan (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Simich 
Teller: 
Dunne (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Smith L 
Barnett 
Noes 48 
Adams 
Donnelly (P) 
Mark  
Shirley (P) 
Alexander 
Duynhoven 
McNair (P) 
Smith M 
Anderton (P)  
Eckhoff (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Ardern (P) 
English (P) 
Ogilvy 
Tisch (P) 
Baldock 
Field (P)  
Paraone (P)  
Turner 
Brown  
Franks 
Perry (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Goudie 
Peters J (P) 
Worth (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Yates 
Catchpole 
Heatley (P) 
Power (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Collins  
Jones (P) 
Robson (P) 
Connell (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Roy 
Teller: 
Cosgrove (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Scott (P) 
Carter J 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendments are in the name of Stephen Franks on Supplementary Order Paper 71 and they deal with the under-age prostitution age limit. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of Stephen Franks to clauses 9 and 9C and to insert new clause 9MA be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12328] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Duynhoven Harry: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12210] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 I just clarify for the benefit of the Committee that Mr Brown’s amendments to clause 5 included the one we have just passed which was originally not in line with the wording of the International Ship and Port Security Facility Code. We have dealt with that one now. We lined the wording of that amendment up with the code and passed that particular part of the amendment and Mr Brown has withdrawn the others. The other part was about contracting out the port facility security officer by inserting in clause 5 “Interpretation” the definition of “company security officer”. We have already dealt with the amendment concerning “contracting Government” and it was lost. I hope that clarifies the situation for the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 194 in the name of Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 5 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
suspicious act 
 by omitting the word “lawful”.
Vote: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Vote: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:622;Page:18023] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 32 
New Zealand National 24; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Visitors — Treasurer Commonwealth of Australia 
Visitors — Treasurer Commonwealth of Australia 
[Volume:606;Page:3551] 
Wednesday 19 February 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Treasurer Commonwealth of Australia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Peter Costello Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia accompanied by the Deputy Prime Minister is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed. 
Hon Peter Costello accompanied by the Deputy Prime Minister entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7878] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 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. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9019] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Richard Worth to clause 17(1) be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) after the words “Governor-General” the words “on the resolution of the House of Representatives”.
Connell Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Connell Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14305] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I apologise to the House—I realise I should have raised this at the time—but I seek leave to table a document from KierenKortegast written on 15 June which points out that those targets were in fact not achieved. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member to seek leave. Is there any objection? There is.
Hutchison Paul: Points of Order — Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Hutchison Paul: Points of Order — Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:606;Page:3339] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to have the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2)—the dog control bill—placed as item No. 1 on the Order Paper at the completion of the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement.
Jones Dail: Budget Debate 
Jones Dail: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5916] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is a good place in which to start this speech because on the Justice and Electoral Committee we have had Maori submitters time and time again ask the Labour Maori members of Parliament to oppose the Supreme Court Bill and what do those members do? They are out there supporting it. And those members say they are conscientious and hard-working! They are nothing like that—nothing like it at all. They have no regard for their Maori electorates. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know what the member is going to raise. I will not have that sort of noise. I know some members have to leave the Chamber to go to committee work but I want there to be no more noise. I was involved in an important discussion and I do not want to have to raise this matter again or people will be leaving. 
DAIL JONES 
: The issue becomes a question of access to justice. We are to have $39 million now being spent on a Supreme Court and we have Maori New Zealanders who struggle to get access to justice for all their cases. The Maori members have no regard for their electorates whatsoever. The report of the Law Commission has looked at the question of access to justice and has made it clear that it is usually people in the lower socio-economic group like many of our Maori citizens who are unable to start court cases because of costs. Claims are not pursued because the costs would probably exceed any recovery. People plead guilty to criminal charges in order to close the matter more quickly and end up with a criminal record that is with them for ever. They sometimes have to represent themselves because of the cost of hiring a lawyer they have difficulty in assessing and calculating the costs of legal action and they have large personal debts from litigation. 
What is this Government doing about that? It is doing absolutely nothing. We have seen the vote for legal aid for example being reduced from $85 million in 1998-99 down to $78 million in 2000-01. This Government should be ashamed of itself insofar as its regard for the hard-working people of New Zealand is concerned. The Law Commission has stated that the cost of access to justice is the biggest problem facing New Zealanders and this Labour Government is doing nothing about it other than using $39 million to have a court that the Maori people in all their submissions have stated they do not want. That is $39 million to replace a court that currently costs us absolutely zero and is regarded as one of the best courts in the world. 
I just want to touch briefly on another matter. The Labour member for Waitakere last night said that in 2007 there will be seven schools in Waitakere City. But I have news for her. We have seven high schools already. I have a list of them: Rutherford College Massey High School Waitakere College Henderson High School Kelston Boys High School Kelston Girls High School and Green Bay High School. That member should get out into her electorate more often.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11908] 
2.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Has she received a copy of the report “Community Management of GMOs” and what advice if any has she received on its contents? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes my office has received a copy of the report. I have been advised that appendix 1 the interim opinion of Dr Roydon Somerville QC does not differ materially from the Crown Law advice to the Government. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When she was quoted by  
Morning Report 
 this morning as warning that councils wanting to use the Resource Management Act to create GE-free zones may face an expensive legal battle was she threatening councils with a legal challenge to their plans and rules by central government agencies or was she merely warning them that the international GE industry has very deep pockets and might bankrupt their ratepayers? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No I have never issued a threat. I have never said that local authorities cannot exercise their Resource Management Act powers to regulate GMOs locally. However the legal advice is clear that there are high hurdles for councils doing so which might expose them and their communities to legal expense. 
David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware of any reports indicating local government attitudes to local control of GMOs? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Today  
Morning Report 
 reported that many councils appeared satisfied with leaving central government to make the hard decisions rather than see local authorities take a piecemeal approach. Local Government New Zealand has yet to consider the matter. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why is it straightforward under the Resource Management Act for councils to prohibit the growing of pine trees in certain areas as a land-use control but not GE crops? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: That is interesting because one can take the hypothetical example that should the Environmental Risk Management Authority give approval for a Crown research institute to grow genetically modified pine trees in Northland under certain conditions and the Northland Regional Council attempts to oppose controls under the Resource Management Act the council’s controls will have to be science-based and effects-based just like those of the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Crown research institute will probably take them to task if they are not. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is she aware of a report to the European Parliament last year that stated: “The GMO-free region of upper Austria has become a magnet for seed firms and has attracted foreign investment because strict business rules can be complied with here. In such a situation retaining GMO-free status may represent the most economic and effective measure for co-existence.” and does she support the right of New Zealand councils to exploit such economic potential for their regions? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No I am not aware of that Austrian report.
Tisch Lindsay: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15507] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. I seek leave on the Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill for a party to cast votes for the Ayes and the Noes and to record abstentions notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b).
Beyer Georgina: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19827] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7730] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to oblige the member. I can assure the House that the Labour Party is at more than full complement in terms of its vote entitlement at this time. The vote being down by two is to accommodate the fact that the Speaker is abstaining on this question and that Mr Duynhoven’s vote is not part of the 50 votes that I am exercising.
Carter John: Points of Order — Speaking Slots—Allocation 
Carter John: Points of Order — Speaking Slots—Allocation 
[Volume:617;Page:12702] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am going to seek leave which may actually help with the point I raised earlier. Indeed it follows on from the point that Mr Richard Prebble has made. I seek leave of the House to extend the debate of 2 hours on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to 2 hours and 20 minutes to give two extra speaking slots—one to Mrs Tariana Turia and the other to the National Party. In the event that you make a decision New Zealand First will get two and we will get three. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will put that leave to the House. Is there any objection? There is.
Simich Clem: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15507] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought by Mr Tisch for a split party vote. The remedy to the member’s question lies in that. Leave has been sought by Mr Tisch for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. Therefore a personal vote will be held. Before we get to that point the question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it.
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17263] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 25 
New Zealand National 25. 
Amendment agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: General Debates 
Pillay Lynne: General Debates 
[Volume:615;Page:11102] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is great to be speaking today in support of our Government—a Government that has a clear vision for the future and a proven track record that tackles the tough issues and is positive. Compare that with the negative National Party. I know that party is in Opposition but it takes negativity to the extreme. The doom and gloom merchants from way back claim that every positive policy or legislation will wreck this country whether it is in health education industrial relations race relations or the economy. Time after time it is wrong. 
This Government deals in facts not fiction. It is amongst the highest deliverers of health and education in the world. That is fact not fiction. There have been fewer work stoppages under the Employment Relations Act. Why? It is because those labour laws are fairer. It is a fact that the economy has grown faster over the last 3 years than the OECD average. It is also a fact that our unemployment rate in this country is the lowest in 16 years. 
This Government is committed to reducing inequality not promoting it—with policies that are based on need not privilege—and on building our nation not dividing it. The National Party is the party that voted against fairer labour laws. It voted against improved health and safety laws. It voted against improved holidays. It would repeal the 4 weeks’ holiday. It voted against paid parental leave and in fact Mr Brash questions the need for a Ministry of Women’s Affairs. National does not support increases to the minimum wage and with Gerry Brownlee as spokesperson for Maori Affairs—with friends like that who needs enemies? 
This is a party that wallows in the past. It cannot help itself. It just keeps rehashing the same tired old rhetoric. So I put it to the House: to which group of our “all one people” nation does the National Party have anything to offer—and will not fleece should it get into power? Is it New Zealand Maori? I think not. Is it New Zealand workers? I think not. Is it New Zealand women or New Zealand families? I think not. Is it New Zealand students or New Zealand superannuitants? I think not. Who does that leave? Mr Brash’s proposed tax cuts which would mean less spending on health education and training and superannuation mean that someone on his salary would get another $168 per week. 
National sees that there are two groups of people in our nation. There are the rich and there are the rest. National is for the rich. This Government is for the rest and I say that with pride. That is why we are interested in improving living standards for people on low and modest incomes. That is why we have a major family assistance package coming through in the Budget which will be aimed at low and modest-income earners—at hard-working families in our country who look towards this Government to deliver and to continue to deliver fairer conditions of work fairer job opportunities more training and a country in which they can hold their heads high on the world stage.
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:9245. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to raise with you the ruling given by Mr Speaker on 17 September 2003 which was: “There must be a very full and wide-ranging debate.” That was the Speaker’s ruling. Before the House went into Committee this afternoon I raised a point of order with the Speaker to seek his reinforcement that that view still pertained to this debate. He gave the House an assurance that it did. When the House went into Committee and your deputy Ann Hartley took the Chair I raised with her the same point of order seeking her assurance that there would be a wide-ranging debate. She gave that assurance. I say in response to the point made by Mr Burton that the fact that 33 calls have been taken on this part firstly is not unusual for a significant piece of legislation and secondly given the assurances given by the Speaker on two occasions and by the Deputy Speaker in her capacity as Chair of the Committee today I submit to you that it would be entirely inappropriate to accept a closure motion at this stage. It would be an affront to the rulings that have been given on those previous occasions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member again for refreshing my understanding of comments and rulings that have been made. We will not close the debate yet. We have had 33 speakers seven of whom have been those putting the question. That means we are really only at the 26-point mark and 26 speakers is not wide ranging on a significant piece of legislation.
Motions — Leader of the Opposition—Attendance in House 
Motions — Leader of the Opposition—Attendance in House 
[Volume:620;Page:15865] 
Wednesday 6 October 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Leader of the Opposition—Attendance in House 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move a non-controversial motion. In doing so I gift to you Mr Speaker this visitors book and move that you record in it those very rare and infrequent occasions upon which the leader of the National Party attends the House perhaps starting today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I suggest the member might well be going out to listen to the vice-presidential debate on CNN.
Carter John: Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Carter John: Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14457] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Given that the House will rise in 2 or 3 minutes and to save my speech being interrupted I seek leave for the House to rise and for this bill to be recommenced tomorrow. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave for the House to rise now and for his speech not to be interrupted. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I will be happy to spend a few moments on this bill because it has one or two things in it that need to be discussed. One thing that causes me concern is the issue of victims’ rights. One of the sad things in this country that is starting to become more and more apparent to me is that we worry so much about the offender and not about the victim. 
It is really important that we put time into those who offend. Firstly we should find out why the offending is happening. Indeed in my view we do not put enough emphasis on finding out why it is happening and how we can stop the next wave. For me that is an important point. Indeed there is a lot of information around about why young people offend but we do not do enough or give enough resourcing to prevent it from happening. The sad consequence is that we now talk of this nation needing more places to incarcerate people. 
At the same time we have a system that does not do enough to support people who are victims—particularly young people who often are victims. That really concerns me. We see so often when Family Court conferences etc. are held that the perpetrators are entitled to bring along a lot of support—indeed as many people as they want—but the victim is not allowed to bring support or if he or she has support people they are not allowed to participate to any extent. As I read and understand the bill it does not do anything to address that at all. It gives quite an imbalance as to what could happen in a case where somebody has been offended against and that is rather sad. 
I hope the members on the select committee that addresses the bill will study that issue quite seriously. There needs to be a far better balance when weare trying to address this issue. The whole purpose of Family Court meetings is for those who have offended to get an understanding of what they have done to their victim. Quite honestly if we cannot get both sides of the story out in that circumstance then we are failing. We have a responsibility when we are setting up a system to make sure it works for all parties concerned. I have briefly read this legislation as to its intention and that certainly has not been addressed by the policy being put before us by the minority Labour Government. That is one aspect that I do urge the select committee to have a very very serious look at. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15054] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion 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. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Third Readings 
Hunt Jonathan: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9123] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are four bills. At the end of the debate the question by the presiding officer will be put to each bill separately.
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6952] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind members there must be silence during voting otherwise it is very hard for the Clerk. All members should be sitting down during voting. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by inserting after the word “Restrictions” the words “on Hazardous Substances”.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18746] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I am. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:614;Page:10653] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next Tuesday in the House priority will be given to the report of the Standing Orders Committee and the completion of the Holidays Bill. It is also the Government’s intention to take the first readings of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) as these bills are relatively non-controversial. The House will then proceed to the adjournment motion. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could tell us why we are not seeing seabed and foreshore legislation brought into the House while the House is sitting next week. We in the Opposition are concerned that an announcement will be made by the Government after the House has sat. I wonder if there is an announcement that leads to legislation to clarify the position for all New Zealanders the Leader of the House would consider bringing us back perhaps next Thursday for a 1-day debate on that particular decision? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Perhaps Thursday week would be even more suitable if the member would like to come back that day. As he is probably aware the Government has given an undertaking to the Waitangi Tribunal that a bill would not be introduced before the first week in March as part of the process for the tribunal’s consideration of the Government’s proposals.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11365] 
Thursday 26 February 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the third reading of the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill and further progress on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill and the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. Further business will depend on what bills are reported back by Monday from the select committees. Wednesday is a members’ day and it is expected that the Budget Policy Statement debate will be held on this day instead of the general debate. This is a 2-hour debate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Noting that next week is the last week before Parliament goes into its first adjournment for the year can Dr Cullen indicate to the House whether we can expect to see the seabed and foreshore legislation tabled in the House during the first week back after the adjournment or perhaps it would be sometime during that 4-week block. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No but I would be happy to organise a seminar for the member so he can understand the nature of the policy. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to seek clarification from the Leader of the House with regard to item No. 24 on the Order Paper—that is the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. I note it was reported back on 22 February 2001—3 years ago. I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government is going to withdraw this bill and do a U-turn on its policy or will it leave it languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not allow that to be answered. This is the time for a business statement. Conventionally over the last 20 years a member of the Opposition can ask a question but to ask about that order of the day would be inviting any member to ask about any order of the day. There is a way to do that by correspondence.
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
[Volume:626;Page:21039] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are getting to the stage where I think that while these are—I am on my feet Mr Hide. We are getting to a stage close to challenging the Speaker’s ruling on this. I had in fact set out what options in terms of the Standing Orders are available to the member. I suggest that he avail himself of them if he so wishes.
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4770] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8605] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One thing I think that is being overlooked here—and I would have hoped that it was made clear from the start—is whether Mr Ardern agreed to it. There have been members of Parliament before who have been the subject of questions by the New Zealand Police within this precinct. But on every occasion that I can recall it has been with the agreement of that member of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I am aware of that fact and that is why I want to take advisement on this matter. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I want to say this. It is really not just over to what the Speaker thinks; if a member of Parliament wishes to assert his or her privileges the member need only do that where the police are concerned within the precincts of this place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take that under advisement. I will come back to the House.