edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15288] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am the lead Opposition member speaking to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill and I note that Mr Jim Peters whom I respect greatly and who has made two good contributions represents a party with significantly fewer members than National. I wish to note that I have had only one speaking slot. 
Further to that I had to put up with an extremely derogatory speech from the Minister in the chair Mr Benson-Pope to the point where he had to withdraw. I wish to make a further contribution about the very important issues in Part 1 and to respond to the points that the Minister has made. I have had no opportunity to do so. 
I point out that in the Standing Orders there is provision for up to three speeches from members. It is the norm for the presiding officer not to allow every member of the Committee those three speeches per part but it is the practice—longstanding as you will see if you read the book commemorating the 150th history of Parliament and very vigorously defended over the years—for bills in the Committee stage to be debated thoroughly. I ask you to reflect on that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for that. I am going to accept the closure motion in terms of the Standing Orders. There are several parts in the bill and there will be ample opportunity to speak to those parts.
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Correction 
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:624;Page:19241] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the vote on the third reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill to be amended. The proxy vote of Pansy Wong was inadvertently cast both for the Ayes and the Noes. The result was announced as Ayes 76 Noes 44. It should have been Ayes 76 Noes 43. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought by Lindsay Tisch for that amendment to be made. Is there any objection? It shall be made.
Cullen Michael: Responses — David Henderson—Statements Made By Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP 
Cullen Michael: Responses — David Henderson—Statements Made By Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP 
[Volume:623;Page:18229] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Burton Mark: Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Burton Mark: Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17831. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 We have just had a flood of crocodile tears from the party that would give everything away or sell everything off in support of the failed National Party. I am proud to support this legislation and I am proud to be part of this Government.
Duncan Helen: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Duncan Helen: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11204] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of this bill. It is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.
Adams Paul: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4046] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 We should have voted in favour of the amendment. My apologies. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is confusion. We want certainty so I will ask the Clerk to call the vote again.
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11315] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8805] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 71 I move  
That the order of the day for the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be discharged.
Hereora Dave: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hereora Dave: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18074] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to extend my support for the bill. The bill’s main feature for me is that it implements the outcomes of the early childhood regulatory review by establishing a new scheme that gets rid of ambiguities in the current system of licensing early childhood education centres. Therefore it will be easier for early childhood services to understand what is required of them to meet licensing standards. The regulatory review was part of the Government’s 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education. I extend my support for the bill.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15236] 
7.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Has any evidence yet been supplied to substantiate the claim that “many students gave exactly the same answers to questions” during assessments for National Certificate of Educational Achievement credits at Hauraki Plains College; if not what reports has he seen on the matter? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No. I am advised by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority that a box of supposed evidence to support these claims contained student workbooks that were never intended to form part of the students’ assessment. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has advised that all of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) credits awarded to students at Hauraki Plains College are legitimate. Those students have had their school and their qualifications recklessly undermined by baseless allegations. To make things worse they have had no public support from their local MP although I understand she stropped Bill English up in their caucus yesterday. 
Helen Duncan 
: Does the Minister have any evidence that Hauraki Plains College has acted inappropriately in any way with regard to this matter? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No absolutely not. As I said earlier as soon as the school was made aware of a potential problem it acted swiftly. I understand that Bill English has apologised to the school. I wish he would do it publicly. 
Hon Bill English 
: I have not apologised to the school. What does the Minister have to say to the Central North Island Principals Association which has stated: “We support NCEA as an assessment of choice for the sake of integrity and credibility. We ask that there be a review of procedures and policies at a national level.” and if he will not believe what I have to say why does he not believe the principals association that published that statement in a newspaper? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I certainly do not believe what that member says. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can now come to the actual point about the principals concerned. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We are all concerned about the integrity of NCEA. Clearly at Cambridge High School there was a major error on the part of a number of teachers. That is still the subject of investigation. People making up things about other schools dragging them through the mud the way the member did taking the word of a liar and taking stolen documents does nothing for the integrity of our education system.
Cullen Michael: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13519] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7069] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 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:607;Page:4283] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I have received reports which other members may be getting that apparently hostilities may have broken out. That is not confirmed yet. President Bush is addressing the United States in about half an hour. I anticipate the Prime Minister coming down to the House to make a ministerial statement once those matters are confirmed. 
Question time resumed.
Hunt Jonathan: Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hunt Jonathan: Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18159] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member quite bluntly that I am not having that sort of comment made. I do not protect members at all. I have advised in addition Government members that they will not be interjecting on Dr Brash who has asked to be heard in silence and will be. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member interrupts once more—just once—while I am talking he will be out. I have made the ruling. I have determined that this will be a debate where people have the opportunity to express their views. People throughout New Zealand want to hear this debate. I have done that for the time in which I have been the Speaker and I have not changed any policy at all.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5168] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member who raised the point of order for notifying me that he was going to do so and I have had an opportunity to examine this matter closely. I can understand the member’s point that the subject of the question refers to a statement made by the Minister of Finance not the Minister of Energy but that does not alter the fact that it is the Government that decides which Minister answers a question not the questioner—see pages 115 and 116 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. The only circumstance—and it would be a very exceptional one since it has occurred on only two occasions in the history of this Parliament—is if only a single identified Minister would have personal knowledge of the issue. I refer to Supplement to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 20/3 and 20/4. That is plainly not the case here.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14168] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We come now to the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 223 and Supplementary Order Paper 230 and the typescript amendments to clause 6A.
Speaker’s Statements — Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
Speaker’s Statements — Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
[Volume:622;Page:18107] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A point of order was raised earlier concerning the lodging of written questions. I undertook to look into the matter and to bring information to members. A problem occurred yesterday in the offices of two members in the lodging of questions. That was caused by the importing of formatting that was not compatible with the questions for written answer system. The problem was successfully resolved yesterday and the members were able to lodge their questions. The questions for written answer system received all written questions lodged today and those are now being processed. A message was sent this morning to the users of the questions for written answer system to inform them of the problem that occurred yesterday and to provide members with some information about how to avoid that problem in the future. Unfortunately the message did not clearly identify that the problem actually occurred yesterday and has been resolved.
Maharey Steve: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Maharey Steve: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17096] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9230. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Not on this part. I am sorry. I stand corrected. 
Peter Brown 
: Am I right again?
Hughes Darren: Border Security Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Border Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6834] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I am pleased to speak in support of the first reading of this bill which has been introduced by my colleague the Hon Rick Barker. Other Labour colleagues have spoken about aspects of the bill and the one thing I am pleased to see is that it provides a legal base for the Customs Service’s innovative secure export partnership scheme which sees the Government and industry working together to secure goods from the point of loading to the point of export. I think that the Customs Service has taken a very innovative approach and it deserves our congratulations. I am glad to see that this bill formalises that approach.
Mapp Wayne: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20653] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National has chosen to vote against this bill for quite deliberate reasons. The circumstances in which this bill is now introduced are those where the Government has had a complete agenda culminating in the establishment of a special select committee on constitutionalism. National deliberately chose not to be part of that select committee and there is a reason for our having done that. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Franks who is on that select committee knows the conspiratorial theories that are abounding there to drive New Zealand down the road of republicanism without the consent of New Zealanders. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh nonsense! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is the truth of it and the Government—particularly Lianne Dalziel—hates hearing that fact. 
I am disturbed in fact that New Zealand First has chosen to be duped by the Government with its plans. Those members stood out from that particular select committee knowing full well that it had the intent of republicanism. So right now when that select committee is deliberating and considering what has the Government done? As part of its agenda it has introduced a bill on oaths and declarations—ostensibly to modernise and to make a minor titivation but really to condition and get New Zealanders used to change in their constitution and on the fundamentals. That is the truth of it. 
Debate interrupted.
O'Connor Damien: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17099] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9026] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might well have to divide the amendments if there are other amendments at the same place. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Speaker this really does make a nonsense of Standing Order 301. If say we have 30 clauses in a part and there are amendments to every one of those clauses then if the Minister has amendments all of those amendments then have to be taken one by one. But that is not what Standing Order 301 says. What it says very clearly is that the member in charge of a bill can require that all amendments in the member’s name be put as one question and that any amendment proposed by the member in charge is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill. In this case the place is presumably the part. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have agreed to take the bill part by part. The amendments are to that part whether it be clause 14 clause 17 clause 21 or whatever the case may be. This is what the House has been doing for some considerable number of years now and the import of your ruling is to change our procedures very significantly indeed from what they have been for a long time now. I suggest to you that if that is so then there is no meaning to Standing Order 301 at all.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
[Volume:620;Page:15443] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday we had 51 points of order during question time. I hope we do not have the same number today but we have not started question time yet. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I make the comment that points of order will come from members if they feel the need to raise them. I thank you very much for coming back to the House with that ruling. It is very useful for us. However I wonder whether you might elaborate just slightly on Standing Order 370(1) which suggests that an answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest. That raises the point particularly where it states “if it can be given consistently with the public interest” of who is the subjective judge of that. It sometimes seems that answers are given in a way that certainly makes them appear to be inconsistent with an answer that is in the public good. So is it the Minister who makes that subjective judgment or is it in fact on behalf of Parliament and as an interpreter of the Standing Orders the Speaker?
Robertson H V Ross: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15913] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Part 2 clauses 8 to 41 and including debate on schedule 1 stand part.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11505] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think that we want to see Mr Mallard at the moment. I think the proper answer is for you to rule that before Mr Mallard can resume his seat he must raise a point of order and withdraw and apologise. I did not realise that he started to call the right honourable gentleman a liar. However if that is the case it most certainly cannot stand and he most certainly should withdraw and apologise to the whole House for making those two statements.
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19592] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced into the House on 4 December 2003 and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. It was reported back to the House on 10 August last year. This bill proposes amendments to 26 different Acts and includes six new parts for which the Committee gave leave to be included in the bill. New parts to the bill include amendments to the Armed Forces Discipline Act the Constitution Act the Government Superannuation Fund Act the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act and the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act of 2004. 
The select committee has recommended amendments to three existing parts of the bill relating to the Fire Service Act the Maritime Transport Act and the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. I thank the select committee for its work on the bill particularly given the pressure it faced in responding to a number of late inclusions. I am pleased to inform members that the Cabinet Office recently issued a circular containing new initiatives that will address the challenges posed by such late inclusions and enhance the process of gaining cross-party support. 
Earlier I mentioned that the bill included amendments to the Constitution Act. I want the House to note that there may well be a further Supplementary Order Paper to come into the House during the Committee stage. I understand that that matter has been subject to intense discussion between Dr Cullen and the Clerk of the House and was considered at the Business Committee today. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Standing Orders Committee. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes the Standing Orders Committee. I believe that an agreement has been reached that will see fruition in the Committee stage. As a reassurance to the House I shall repeat the point made earlier by Richard Prebble that one of the beauties of a Statutes Amendment bill is that it has to be agreed to by every member of Parliament. Should any member raise an objection to any part of the bill then that part does not proceed. That is a very good guarantee. 
Lastly I take the opportunity to convey the Government’s appreciation of the parties’ patience and support for the amendments that have come through and are proposed in this bill. I recommend the bill to the House and that it be read a second time.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8329] 
12.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Maori Affairs; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I do because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: As the Prime Minister is personally responsible for the Government’s foreshore policy would not a popular and competent Prime Minister go herself to the foreshore huis instead of sending an obviously sick man who we all know had no role in formulating the Government’s foreshore policy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is quite incorrect. The Minister of Maori Affairs has participated fully in the formulation of the Government proposal and he and the other Ministers who have worked on the proposal with colleagues in the Maori caucus will be taking it around the country.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6805] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14165] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12263] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill because I support the changes to the charter. I listened very carefully to what the previous speaker had to say and I am sorry she missed what is the intent of the changes to the charter. I believe they are about informing people. We in the Government like people to be informed. We like to encourage people to think and debate the current issues that are topical today both nationally and internationally. We are lucky in New Zealand that we have a good choice of radio to listen to. Talkback does not appeal to me but I am an avid listener to Radio New Zealand and I support the programmes it is putting out to New Zealanders. 
I bridled a little bit at the member’s comment about social engineering and her accusation that that only ever happens when this Government is in power. I have to ask that member what she considered the policies of the former National Government were. If that was not social engineering I do not know what is. 
The international radio service that is provided to the South Pacific is incredibly important to a lot of people who are geographically isolated. That in itself is very valuable. I am pleased to support this bill and I look forward to it going through the House quickly.
Mark Ron: General Debates 
Mark Ron: General Debates 
[Volume:614;Page:10388] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to give a member of the Government Steve Chadwick the opportunity to withdraw and apologise for calling Winston Peters or myself—I am not sure who she was talking to—a racist during her interjections. 
Steve Chadwick 
: I said the pamphlet was racist. 
RON MARK 
: That is not what she said. I would like her to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I did not hear it. There was slightly too much noise. [ 
Interruption 
] She did not say it? All right.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16883] 
5.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has he listened to a recording of or read the transcript of Iraena Asher’s conversations with the 111 police communications centre; if so how many times did she ask for help? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Acting Minister of Police) 
: 
 On behalf of the Minister of Police I reply “No”. However he has been advised that Iraena Asher made three specific requests for help as well as indicating other concerns about her safety.  
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What responsibility will the Minister of Police take so that 111 callers who do not scream can get police help? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The police have already indicated that this response was not satisfactory. They have also apologised to the family. In addition disciplinary procedures are under way and on top of that the police have announced an inquiry into the way in which the communications centres work.  
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Government intend to take any action or express a view on the New Zealand Commissioner of Police’s advice that it helps if 111 callers scream? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The commissioner’s response at the select committee was taken out of context.  
Ron Mark 
: How much longer is the Minister of Police going to let the men and women of the New Zealand Police take the rap for his failure to address the staffing shortages the training deficiencies and the consequential increase in workloads and stress within police communications centres brought on by his inability to respond to letters that were written personally to him as far back as 2002; and is it not simply that the biggest problem the police face is that they have an inept and incompetent Minister of Police who cannot secure resources? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The answer to the last question is clearly “No”. Having said that I add that the member will know that 18 additional staff have been placed in the communications centres. As well of course the Minister of Police has been able to secure over $1 billion in police resources. The staff levels in New Zealand Police are the highest they have ever been and the resolution rates are the best they have ever been. The inquiry may show up a number of issues to be addressed. At that point the Minister of Police will raise those with his colleagues. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Exactly how were the words of the Commissioner of Police taken out of context? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am advised that the question was around whether a psychologist should be used as part of the communications centre operations and that the commissioner was addressing that particular issue. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of the commissioner’s appearance before the select committee which makes it absolutely clear he was referring to the question in the House about people having to scream to get police help. 
Document not tabled.
Vote: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22262] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4273] 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: When did the present Governor of the Reserve Bank leave the office of Secretary to the Treasury and why has the position of Secretary to the Treasury not been filled? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I am advised by the State Services Commissioner that Dr Bollard left the position of Secretary to the Treasury on 20 September 2002. The position was advertised the following month. I am advised by the commissioner that he will shortly be making a recommendation to fill that position. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it a fact that interviews in respect of that position were done some weeks ago that one of the leading contenders is a former deputy director of the Labour Party research unit and that is one of the reasons—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes he is. I have it all here in the CV. One of the contenders is a former deputy director of the Labour Party research unit. And is that one of the reasons the appointment has been so outrageously delayed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am advised by the Minister of Finance that the person named may have at some stage been seconded to the Leader of the Opposition. However I am not aware yet of the timing of the appointment. I am told that it will be shortly. I am certainly not aware of the name of any leading contender. 
Dianne Yates 
: What steps were taken to attract applicants for the job? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The position was advertised in major New Zealand newspapers the  
Australian Financial Review 
 and in  
The Economist 
. A search consultant was used to identify possible applicants both here and overseas. I am advised by the State Services Commission that the time taken is not exceptional particularly where filling a vacancy involves an international search. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister telling me that he and his colleagues are not aware that the present Acting Secretary to the Treasury was a former director of the Labour Party research unit and is that the reason there has been such an extraordinary delay from September last year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am somewhat at a disadvantage. I am not aware and I will not become aware until the State Services Commissioner advises me whom he intends to recommend. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the CV of Mr Whitehead which sets out that he was a former deputy director of the Labour Party research unit. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous provisions) bill — First Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous provisions) bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6667] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 103 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee
Peters Jim: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Jim: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14628] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill. Our bewilderment is really about why this bill has taken so long to reach this point. The Wellington City Council ought to have been able to deal with its lands many many months before now. It raises the issue as to how some people regard local councils and local democracy. I listened to the member for Wellington Central with great interest but my feelings were that what she said regardless of her personal feelings had nothing to do with this bill. 
The point I want to make on behalf of New Zealand First is that we believe strongly in local democracy. We believe that local government has its own way of dealing with matters and that has been defined largely by the Local Government Act 2002. The issues that the member mentioned with regard to how the land is to be used are simply and absolutely the province of the Wellington City Council. One of the reasons I say that is that this bill was unnecessarily held up by some people who fought an action using this House to try to achieve their objectives. I am pleased to see they did not because the avenue of redress where they could take their concerns was the Wellington City Council which is their council. In the past under the annual plan which is now the community plan they had every ability to advance annually their beliefs as to what should be done with that land. The answer is that they may have but they did not impress the council of the day. 
Secondly this year they have had every opportunity if they felt that there are issues that were not canvassed in the way that that small minority thought so to do something about it in the electoral cycle about to take place right now. But this party New Zealand First deplores people using this House to try to bring about changes that are properly and absolutely the role of local government. So to that degree we support the bill we support the constraints that have been removed and again we wonder why they took so long. 
We know that the special consultative process under the 2002 Act has now been provided for in that last section which states that the council has the power to deal with any reclaimed land and that it must be exercised under and in accordance with section 12 of the Local Government Act. That being satisfied the Treaty of Waitangi issues which also took some time to have an answer back with regard to consultation with Te Puni Kokiri the Department of Conservation the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and with the Wellington Tenths Trust all being satisfied we are more than happy to pass this bill on its way quickly allowing the Wellington City Council to go about its business in the way that the council and staff think is most desirable.
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:5420] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Noes 66 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ken Shirley to clause 3(a) be agreed to: 
to omit the word “align” and substitute the word “increase” and omit the word “with” and substitute the word “to”.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7135] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I fully accept your dilemma that it is the right of the Government to transfer questions. However you as Speaker have quite a lot of moral authority and it would be very useful if you would observe that the Minister who has responsibility for the matter ought to answer the question. What the Leader of the Opposition has said is absolutely correct. We have had the same situation when we have asked a question about a matter within the Prime Minister’s knowledge that only she could answer. In this case the question is going down to an Associate Minister of Justice. In many Parliaments members have the right to ask prime ministerial questions because it is recognised that he or she is the most important Minister. However it is unsatisfactory to have a Prime Minister who does not relish answering questions and just hands them out if at all possible. A statement from you saying that that is unsatisfactory would be very helpful to Parliament.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8483] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 67(5)(c) and (d) be agreed to.
Burton Mark: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Burton Mark: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16345] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think with respect to the member that the Standing Orders are clear. The practice has been clear since the Standing Orders were changed. I think the suggestion made by Mr Power is a very good one. I say to any member or party that has a concern about a particular Standing Order that we have a committee at which such matters can be raised. I urge the member to give a considered submission to that committee because it is an environment in which it will be looked at carefully and all the permutations and implications could be examined by a group of senior members who have spent years looking at those things. It is how the Standing Orders are improved. I suggest to the member when he makes such a rash statement that it may be that his party may want to use the split-vote capability. I suggest for his consideration that any day when a party gives a party vote that is less than its full entitlement he does not know which members have voted for or against a matter. It is simply in the nature of the way in which we vote in this Chamber and I give that as an example of how there are wider considerations here. I urge the member to use the Standing Orders Committee as the appropriate vehicle to address his concern.
Jones Dail: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12869] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am in a little bit of a quandary because I understood that there were to be two amendments moved on this part but now I understand that there is only one. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes there are two amendments on Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes just to clarify it that is correct. There are two. 
DAIL JONES 
: But I have just heard that the amendment in the name of the United Future member is to be withdrawn. So I am asking at this stage whether United Future will take a call on that amendment and explain it to us because if it is withdrawn my speech will change. I will sit down at this stage and await a call from United Future and see what it has to say so that I know what I am talking about in support of either amendment.
Donnelly Brian: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12135] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First when it comes to bills like this believes a pragmatic approach has to be taken. We believe that taxpayers work too hard for the money they have taken off them by the Government not to see that there is duplication in expenditure of that funding and that is why we are voting for this bill. We think it is necessary. But we also believe in due process and if there is a criticism of this particular bill it is of the process—and particularly the timing—through which it has gone. To this extent we agree with the comments made by the previous speaker. 
The Government’s intention to disestablish the Early Childhood Development Board and integrate its business into the Ministry of Education was approved by Cabinet on 10 March 2003. The integration date was set for 1 October 2003 but the legislation did not get to the House until 26 August 2003 so it was impossible for it to achieve the intention that Cabinet had set out. Cabinet had said: “Here is the work programme. Here is how we will do it. We will get it all sorted out by 1 October.” It did not even put the legislation in front of the select committee until 10 September and the closing date for submissions was 31 October 2003. The commencement date for the legislation is 1 October 2003. 
I think the public listening would have to raise some very serious questions about the inconsistencies within those dates. Obviously members of the Opposition parties will say that this is a breach of the Fitzgerald principle but I believe it is more purely and simply mismanagement. It is simple mismanagement by a Government that sets up a programme and then cannot commit itself to the programme because it is so poll-driven that it is jumping all over the place responding to different issues. So here we have it and I guess in some respects it tells us all about the history of this particular Government in this Parliament. 
Everything was running so smoothly when the bill went to Cabinet on 10 March 2003. There were no obstacles in front of it. The Government thought it would be able to get this through but guess what? All those things started to go awry and what we now see is a record of things going awry with the Government. So if New Zealand First has a criticism of this bill it is that it has been so poorly managed and the times are so inconsistent that there are some constitutional niceties being overridden in this particular case. The question was asked: why we are bailing the Government out? We are not bailing it out; we purely and simply believe that what is inherent in this legislation is a necessity. Therefore rather than just play political games we will stick to our principles of doing what we believe is right under all circumstances.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19972] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18467] 
11.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What recent reports has he received about migration from Australia to New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I have received a report stating that in the 12 months to September 9000 New Zealanders returned home from Australia and 5400 Australians made the move to New Zealand. The message to Kiwis living overseas is that now is a good time to come home. 
Dianne Yates 
: What are some of the likely reasons for this trend? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: New Zealand is booming. We have one of the highest growth rates in the OECD unemployment is at its lowest in two decades and there are lots of job opportunities as a result. As the Prime Minister indicated in her speech to the nation many New Zealanders currently offshore have skills this country needs. The Government is doing further work on encouraging even more Kiwis to return home and I will be saying more about this in a month or so.