edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15862] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson and the following amendments in his name to clause 45 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 43KZE the expression “section 43KU” and substitute the expression “section 43KZA”; and 
to insert in new section 43KZH after the words “levy rate” the words “or amount”.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5908] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of the question because I did not want to disrupt it. You have given a very clear ruling about members not being able to use computers—PCs—or electronic gadgetry in the House. I ask whether you would also revisit the issue of knitting because the member for Hamilton East Dianne Yates sits and knits during question time. I think that we have got to the stage where that does bring the House into disrepute. Members are not allowed to sit in the Chamber and use a computer as part of their work—they are not allowed to access any research they have on a computer because they cannot have a computer in the Chamber—but if a Government member sits and knits then that I think does bring the place into disrepute. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised two issues. The first issue concerns laptops in the Chamber and of course they are permitted provided that they are battery powered and remain silent except for a beep when turning them off. There has never been any objection to that. I have the ruling here which the member can have. Secondly as far as knitting is concerned I have made a ruling that any Minister in the chair cannot knit but at other times I have not ruled that matter out.
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14567] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:606;Page:3552] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Sue Bradford to be a member of the Commerce Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Consumer Credit Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Barker Rick: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7756] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The last speech forces me to make a presentation because it shows how little respect the National Party has for intellectual property. It was Dail Jones who spied the word “vacancies” not Gerry Brownlee. Mr Mapp did not correctly attribute the idea. I say to Mr Jones and all the other members of the Committee that there is no conspiracy here about “vacancies”. The law is drafted as a general provision and because it is a general provision it would be wrong to use the word “vacancy”. The point about the drafting is to be grammatically correct. It is a general provision as it should be and therefore the plural word “vacancies” has to be used. There is no drama there at all.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation from European Parliament 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation from European Parliament 
[Volume:606;Page:3849] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that a parliamentary delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand from the European Parliament led by Mr Robert Sturdy is present in the gallery. I am sure that we welcome them.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6844] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 25 
New Zealand National 25. 
Noes 89 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3)” and substitute the words “Fair Trading (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill”.
Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14571] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clause 68 also and I will address the issue of the boundary change that is now recommended in the bill. On behalf of United Future I shall explain how we have come into this situation not having been on the select committee in the first instance and not having worked through all the issues that other members on the select committee have worked through. The issue of the boundary change really exercised our minds when we were asked to support the legislation. We were prepared to support the recommendation of the committee in terms of the allocation to those aggrieved parties. It seemed to be the best solution possible and we certainly respected all the time and effort that other members had put into coming up with a solution to things that had been mentioned in this debate. 
So far I have not participated in the other clause-by-clause issues. I think they have been covered very well by others. It was the issue of the boundary change that was of most concern to us and mainly that we could understand why it was happening. The member who spoke before me also covered the issue very well and we are grateful as he has been to the Minister and the officials from the Ministry of Fisheries for assisting with our inquiries. The issue was quite complicated and difficult to get our heads around and the additional information that was given to us was gratefully received and enabled us to say today that we supported the boundary being where it is. We also support the bill being passed this week so that it can take effect. United Future is supportive of scampi coming into the quota management system this year and not having to wait. 
Now that we understand that the boundary was changed in order to provide greater sustainable management of the fishery and to create more quota we are very pleased to be able to support this clause and the schedules that will accompany it when the debate gets to that point so that it is the best outcome for all those who have been involved in the process. The more quota that can be created means more whether tendered or allocated for those who have missed out and ultimately the sustainability of our asset in that fishery is managed. 
The fish stock around the Chatham Islands can be utilised to its maximum potential and the fish stock around Mernoo Bank can also be managed without the complication of a boundary line running right through the centre that would lead to the possibility of misreporting if trawlers moved across the imaginary line in the sea. We are now comfortable that that makes very good sense and is the best possible scenario for the future.
Vote: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14654] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Overseas Investment (Queen's Chain Extension) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 23 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19714] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The application of Standing Order 38 was in accordance with the Standing Orders. It is a question for comment by the public and by members of this House not by the Speaker. My role was to apply the Standing Orders as they are written. I have done that. If the Standing Orders are not acceptable to the members of this House then I suggest that the Standing Orders Committee should look at them.
Choudhary Ashraf: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Choudhary Ashraf: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18311] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 Yesterday and today we have been paying our respects to those people in Asia who have been affected by the tsunami disaster. I would like to pay my respects to those hundreds of thousands who died and to those who have been affected by this disaster. I have been really touched by the generosity of our Kiwi brothers and sisters who have so generously given so much to the victims of that disaster and I am proud of this Government that has committed so much—$67 million—towards that disaster. I have really been touched by the many small communities in this country that have given whatever they could. 
The other day I was talking to members of the Sri Lankan community which is a very small community in New Zealand. They told me that they have contributed $400000 towards the disaster in Asia. That shows the pride of this nation. When I travel around this country and overseas and I hear people talking about New Zealand and the generosity of this nation and its people I really feel proud that we are proud New Zealanders. I believe that this country has every reason to be confident about its future and proud of its achievements. We believe that a confident proud nation is one in which people want to live work raise their children and invest. We believe in celebrating our people’s successes across business education sport the arts and culture and the many facets of our society in which we are doing so well. 
A strong sense of national identity makes us a stronger nation. We are building a nation that offers fairness and opportunity is tolerant and respectful of all and is economically dynamic creative and committed to a sustainable future. As we heard from my colleague the Hon Chris Carter this country has contributed so much in terms of having better race relations in promoting interfaith dialogue and good relationships within the communities we live in and certainly through our contribution to our neighbours in Asia and the Pacific over the years. I feel very proud that we have done so. The building blocks for a confident and skilled nation are confident and skilled families. Individuals and families who are at peace make up skilled nations and are skilled people whom we should respect. 
This Government has overseen solid growth—4.6 percent for the year to September. That is equal to the United States and among the OECD second only to Korea. This Government wants to lift growth not as an end in itself but to improve the living standards and life opportunities of all New Zealanders. Our approach is pragmatic not dogmatic and is reliant upon continuous evidence-based evaluation. Although as a result of the economy’s relatively strong growth in the last few years we have now overtaken Spain to move to 20th place among the 30 nations in the OECD in terms of per capita income there is still some distance to go to restore New Zealand to the top half of the OECD. 
Debate interrupted.
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17098] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled. It had better be something new. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is. I just want to let you know that while we accept—[ 
Interruption 
]
Simich Clem: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Simich Clem: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16851] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The last call is by agreement split into 5 minutes each.
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14591] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20522] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 My first point would be that that is not a point of order. On many occasions it has been ruled that the Government is treated as a whole and that any Minister can answer on behalf of any other Minister. On the specific question I am advised that Mr Hawkins has a long-standing engagement dealing with the matters to do with the Bay of Plenty floods. It was set down some time ago and people have been arranging it. He did not control the release of the documentation yesterday. I am not sure whether the member was here but there was a large debate held throughout yesterday afternoon on the matter. So the idea that the Government is not fronting up is clearly not correct. I would also point out that no major party in the House—and in fact no major party that will be here after the election—currently has a leader in the House.
Hartley Ann: Maori Fisheries Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Maori Fisheries Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10485] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I put that resolution we have an amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The amendment is to omit the words “a committee to be established” and insert the words “the Maori Affairs Committee.” 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is this new committee and its membership able to debated now or is it a non-debatable motion? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The motion is the next motion on the Order Paper which is to set up the committee. It was discussed at the Business Committee and has all parties on it.
Sowry Roger: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Sowry Roger: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8739] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to return to the matter that was raised by the Deputy Prime Minister who stated that issues around Mr Ardern and whether the police evidence was gathered correctly could well be matters of privilege and should have been raised accordingly. Mr Speaker you know that a letter has been sent to you as a matter of privilege on this issue and I am wondering whether we can expect a ruling from you before the adjournment. We have a problem in that tomorrow is the last sitting day of the House before the adjournment and Mr Ardern is due to appear in court during the adjournment. You dealt with the matter relating to Mr Duynhoven very swiftly. We do not want this decision to take a long time. We would ask that you act with the same haste with this letter as you obviously did with the matter relating to Mr Duynhoven. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can give the member an assurance that this matter will be replied to. Of course I do not mention to anybody that I have received a letter. In fact I am sure that nobody else knows of this apart from the person who wrote the letter whom I will not identify. However I will have an answer for the member before the House rises.
Peters Jim: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peters Jim: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14591] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of order I wish to raise is that Dr Mapp in the course of his speech stated that New Zealand First supported the Government with regard to a committee meeting in another place in this Parliament. That allegation is not correct and could not be correct. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No that is not a point of order. The member may take a call and counter the statement or whatever but it is not a point of order.
Benson-Pope David: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Benson-Pope David: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14866] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16589] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Duynhoven Harry: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12164] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 It is very interesting to hear the comments made by a former Minister of Education—a Minister who was not very fondly remembered by those of us who were practitioners in the education service at the time. 
Having been a member of Parliament at the time of the Picot report and involved in those discussions I have to say the former Minister’s memory has been a little selective. He conveniently overlooked the very good provision in the bill that requires the union bargaining for a collective agreement to give prior notice of industrial action. I would have thought that a very fair provision because it takes account of the notice that parents and children need if there is to be any disruption. Surely that is much better than any other arrangement. To do what Dr Lockwood Smith suggested would be to take away the normal democratic rights that workers’ groups in this country have had over long periods under both National and Labour Governments. 
This bill is much fairer. It ensures that parents get adequate notice if there is to be any disruption. That is quite unlike the situation that occurred in the early 1990s when Dr Lockwood Smith was Minister of Education.
Robertson H V Ross: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20994] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. As I am in the Chair at the moment I will take his arguments into consideration when the calls are given.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13165] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18853] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 11 be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Brown Peter: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Brown Peter: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9691] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am challenging whether you are administering the speaking slots in proportion to the party size. I believe that New Zealand First got two calls on Part 2. I got both of them but my colleague did not get a call. I believe that other parties are getting a bigger slice of the cake so to speak than we are. I am asking you to administer the calls proportionately and I wonder whether you would confirm whether I am correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That was carried out. 
PETER BROWN 
: Can you tell me how we stacked up compared with the other parties? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the closure was given correctly in terms of the Standing Orders. The member can have a look if he wants to.
Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17494] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This part is the part that actually does the damage. This is the part that creates this pantomime of marriage where the intention is clearly to invoke a State blessing for a relationship without defining the relationship or setting out what the relationship should contain. When the select committee was working through this part we seriously looked at—in fact we asked for some drafting on—what a civil union might be. 
We fiddled around with the solemnisation as it is called and now have the words which I do not think are going to become immortal words that must represent the vow. Clause 15(2) states: “During the solemnisation in the presence of the civil union celebrant and at least 2 witnesses each party must make a clear statement to the other that—(a) names both parties; and (b) acknowledges that they are freely joining in a civil union with each other.” That is all it says. What it is doing is trying to hitchhike on those sonorous words that bring tears to the eyes of mothers every weekend. There is a variance of words but they are words such as: “Forsaking all others till death do us part for better for worse in sickness and in health for richer for poorer.” Those are the words that have created the respect for marriage. Those are not in any Act. Those words have been negated by a series of Governments that decided they could make these promises unenforceable. They have been negated to the point where the institution of marriage itself is not something to be looked up to and respected as far as it extends to law. 
What the select committee briefly discussed but did not get to doing was looking at what Richard Worth eventually has said. He said that all we should be doing is saying people can opt in to being treated for legal purposes as a couple wanting next-of-kin rights and wanting the superannuation entitlements.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5588] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 46 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19687] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will be aware that we set down an urgent question for your consideration today but on the balance of things and on the advice you have received you have decided that it should be turned down. However we believe that it is a matter of particular importance. It relates to a ministerial action that has possibly led to a breach of a suppression order. We therefore seek leave to ask an urgent question in the House this afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the urgent question. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. The urgent question will not be put.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16311] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Communications 
: What explanation can he give for the Commerce Commission reporting that cellphone users in New Zealand are paying twice what is charged in Australia? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Communications) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Communications 
: The Commerce Commission has not said that cellphone users pay twice what is charged in Australia but it has said that there are some pricing issues that need to be addressed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Referring the Minister to the Commerce Commission report is it not a fact that the reason the Minister has done nothing to prevent Telecom’s dominance and monopoly of telecommunications in New Zealand enabling it to make huge profits at the expense of New Zealanders is that Telecom has made generous donations to the Labour Party—and what does one call that? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I would observe that the company the member has mentioned does not hold a dominant position in the mobile services market which was the subject of his initial question. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What process will be followed now that the Commerce Commission has issued its draft report? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The commission’s draft recommendation is that the wholesale price of mobile termination be regulated that the initial pricing principle be benchmarking and that the final pricing principle be efficient cost-based. The commission is now following a public consultation process following which it plans to make a final report on the matter to the Minister of Communications in the new year. The Minister can then accept the report reject the report or send it back for further work.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:624;Page:19353] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns the handling of questions for written answer in this House and particularly the performance of the Minister of Police. I have had a question with the Minister of Police for some time. The answer was due on 17 March. Through constant emails and questions my office has been asking the Minister’s office for a reply. To date there has been no response to that request. I notice that on today’s Order Paper there is the publishing of some questions from Marc Alexander. He furnished those questions back on 21 February and the answers from the Minister of Police’s office are being published just today. I think members of this House have a right to expect the time frame that is set down for questions for written answer to be adhered to and I would ask that your office intervene. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member will give me the details of his complaint about questions for written answer I will look into it and get back to him as quickly as I can. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Once again the issue that has been raised is one that I raised personally with the previous Speaker the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt about this very Minister. Following my correspondence in the subsequent correspondence that I received back from the previous Speaker we in New Zealand First were assured that all possible steps had been taken. Can you Madam Speaker on behalf of Parliament and in particular of the Opposition parties advise us as to what powers you have as the Speaker of this House and the protector of MPs to ensure that reluctant lazy Ministers who do not comply with the Standing Orders are brought to account. If there is a shortfall in the Standing Orders such that they do not assist you can you advise us of the amendments that would be necessary so we could progress the issue by making such amendments to the Standing Orders. Continued performances such as this make a mockery of the House the democratic system and the Minister himself—although he seems to be happy to live with that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member would like to put his complaint in writing to me I will look at it investigate it and get back to him as quickly as possible.
Tisch Lindsay: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19379] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I notice that the Minister’s motion states that the committee can meet on a Friday. The report-back date is Thursday 31 March and Friday is 1 April the following month so I would suggest that 
the Minister’s motion is out of order.
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21190] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 At the second reading and also in the Committee stage I expressed my apprehension that the Commerce Committee in its examination of the bill may not have taken steps to completely satisfy itself that the beneficiaries of trusts administered by New Zealand Guardian Trust will be protected following the passage of this bill by Parliament tonight. I must say that on both occasions I invited either members of the select committee or the member in charge of the bill Judith Tizard to try to allay my apprehension in that regard. No one endeavoured to do that and that only increases my apprehension. 
So I think that at this late stage of the bill all I can do is add my voice to that of the National Party and of Lindsay Tisch in particular and say that it is time for the Minister of Justice to undertake a review of the statutory regime for companies in respect of the naming of current parent companies in trustee legislation in general. From my point of view that review now takes on a measure of urgency. It has been promised—it was promised by mid-2003. The promise has not been fulfilled; we are now 2 years past that date. I believe that unless and until that review is done this Parliament remains exposed to the possibility that we have failed to protect the beneficiaries of those trusts. 
Bill read a third time.
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
[Volume:620;Page:16180] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling but I am concerned that you said that the difficulties with the voting was discovered on Sunday. In fact it was on a conference call not until the Monday evening and a press release after midday on the Tuesday that that occurred. Having said that I seek leave of the House given the seriousness of the issue for there to be an urgent debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to have a debate. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I simply want to draw to your attention one matter in relation to these requests for urgent debates. Clearly there is nothing in Standing Order 373 that requires the application to be made on the first sitting day following the event that has occurred. There is nothing there that requires that. The relevant Speaker’s ruling appears to be 153/2. That Speaker’s ruling suggests that if the matter is not raised at the first opportunity the matter may not be of sufficient importance or urgency to qualify. But that Speaker’s ruling goes on to state that it is not automatically ruled out in such circumstances. So Speaker’s ruling 153/2 which is the most relevant one makes it very clear that a matter is not ruled out just because it is not raised on the first occasion. 
The reason why it is relevant to this case is that when this matter first surfaced it appeared that there would be a delay of a day or so and the matter would be sorted out. It was not until a subsequent date that it became clear that the matter would not be resolved for some considerable time and that the issue was of far greater significance than appeared to be the case on the first day. That is why that Speaker’s ruling is worded the way it is and I am concerned that you do not appear in your ruling to be taking due consideration of both the Standing Order and that Speaker’s ruling. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising what is a valid point of order and in the circumstances I want to give this matter some consideration. I certainly do.
Hartley Ann: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16464] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I put that motion I have an amendment in the name of Stephen Franks. The amendment is to the Minister’s motion to commit the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and is to omit all the words after the words “Maori Affairs Committee”.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5070] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendment agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20116] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Ryall Tony: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
Ryall Tony: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11058] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and indeed the National Party caucus will support the progress of this bill. There are a couple of points I would like to raise with the Minister of Justice that he might be able to reply to by way of interjections or maybe some comment later in the House. 
It is clear that the purpose of this bill is to ensure that New Zealand police officers and civilian personnel engaged in these overseas operations which include peacekeeping the maintenance or restoration of law and order or the functioning of governing institutions or other activities are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of New Zealand laws for offences against our laws committed overseas unless there is a good reason for them not to be subject to that jurisdiction. It is worth noting that this bill will have retrospective effect from 24 July. 
Members will be aware and this is the point I want to raise with the Minister of Justice that the United States has military personnel serving in Japan under an agreement that sees jurisdiction of their prosecution rest with the American Government. However some years ago a number of those personnel were involved in allegedly at the time quite serious sexual offences against young Japanese women. There was a major furore in Japan about the fact that those military personnel would be removed from Japan and be tried under American law. Subsequently the American Government waived its right to apply its jurisdiction to those military personnel and as a result they were tried under Japanese law. The point the National Party would like to raise with the Minister of Justice is that if a jurisdiction does require that New Zealand waive its right to have extraterritorial control of a person’s criminal proceedings is there enough flexibility and facility within this bill to allow the New Zealand authorities to waive that power? It appears to me there may be cases when a country would want to prosecute an offence committed by a New Zealander and the pressure may be such that New Zealand accepts that that jurisdiction should prosecute the offence. The offence might have happened while the person was on active duty—it was suggested that the American personnel in Japan were on active duty. We would want to make sure there was sufficient flexibility so that if New Zealand wanted to waive the right to have extraterritorial effect on those personnel it would be able to. 
We look forward to a response from the Minister of Justice on that point. The National Party is prepared to facilitate the swift passage of this bill at a later date.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17143] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20075] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 89 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Bill read a third time.
Ryall Tony: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14169] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to vote separately on two amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230. One is to clause 6A to delete new section 15A(1) and the other is to clause 20.
Fairbrother Russell: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17089] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 Customary rights orders are not defined as people who listened to the last speaker would believe by the existence of other customary rights orders; customary rights orders are defined by the practice of a group. Under this part a group is a group that shares a distinct community of interest. This area of customary rights is not a development of aboriginal customary rights but a natural consequence of the codification of the law as a whole. This Parliament cannot try to guess who may have that distinctive community of interest who may have held it since 1840 and what practices are integral to the distinctive cultural practice of the group. That is not the point. The point is that when we codify the common law we seek to bring consistency. 
The applicants under this issue need not be Pakeha. They could be Maori if they wanted to align themselves in that way. This measure provides an alternate and a logical extension in a multicultural society to the aboriginal customary rights that this bill codifies. No one at all needs to feel threatened by it because if there are no groups that seek to be included there is no problem; if there are groups that seek to be included then of course there will be no problem because they can be so accommodated. It would be totally unfair to present this bill as one that panders to just one race. The aim of this bill is to codify the law in respect of customary practices and rights as they relate to the foreshore and seabed. 
So it is not appropriate to say that because this measure may not apply to Maori it should not be in the bill. It is in the bill in order to achieve a consistent codification a logical examination of all options so that when an option is put to the court that reflects the growing diversity of culture in this community and the recognition of those practices then any group no matter what its racial background will find a space within the bill to give expression to that laudable aim of a maintained historic customary right—not a new one but one that is currently in existence; not a recent invention but one that has been in existence since 1840. So the tests that apply to customary rights orders under this part of the bill are similar in many regards to those taken from the aboriginal rights that give rise to the customary rights orders that we have dealt with in Part 3. 
This simple measure gives completeness to the bill. It makes it a bill and ultimately an Act that applies to the face of New Zealand as we all know it—a multifaceted multicultural varied face that no one in Parliament should endeavour to prescribe or exclude. It is as simple as that. It is a nice elegant addition to the common law. It will present no complications and all speakers in this Chamber should endorse it.
Gallagher Martin: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16376] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I was fascinated by Mr Eckhoff’s contribution. I learnt why ACT is at 2 percent in the polls—his speech reinforced that today. I find it absolutely amazing that members on the opposite side of the House are so dismissive and sneering of the New Zealand Veterinary Association the SPCA and other organisations that have considerable involvement in and knowledge of the whole area of animal welfare. I found it absolutely amazing that members opposite are quite happy to ignore the experience of state legislatures across the Tasman. They are hardly radical politically correct groups of people. One could hardly accuse the New Zealand Veterinary Association of being a radical politically correct group as members opposite would perceive it. One could hardly say that of the SPCA let alone the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. 
I take this opportunity to support my colleague Dianne Yates. I believe this bill should go to the Government Administration Committee for a thorough analysis. I note the presence of Barbara Stewart and convey my admiration to her leader Winston Peters because at least the New Zealand First caucus is prepared to keep an open mind and let this bill go to the select committee. I find the split voting of some of the other parties somewhat curious. I acknowledge the contribution that the Green Party made. 
Frankly I have said all that I need to say on this excellent bill. It should go to the select committee so that all points of view can be considered. Ultimately we are talking about a realistic sensitive approach to animal welfare in this country. I acknowledge the great work done by the New Zealand Veterinary Association the SPCA and my colleague Dianne Yates the member for Hamilton East.
Simich Clem: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15074] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that process to be followed. Is there any objection? There is none.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16693] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Standing Orders 
Cosgrove Clayton: Standing Orders 
[Volume:627;Page:22362] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call. I say two things to that member: she is leaving this place and she is moving to the fourth estate. I look forward to her exposés both on Investors International and on the questions I have asked Mr Hide for 3 years about who paid his air fares to Fiji. I say to Ms Coddington: “Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black.” For 3 years I put to Mr Hide questions about his interests in travelling to Fiji and attending a conference there where hundreds of New Zealanders subsequently lost millions of dollars. To date there have been no answers. It is the ACT party of course that will not support the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill. I acknowledge the National Party’s support for it. Anything that makes this Parliament more accountable and transparent is a good thing. But I just say to the ACT party—the party of transparency the party of honesty the party headed by Mr Hide the self-confessed scambuster—that those things transparency and accountability must apply to our public service our Parliament our business people etc. They must apply to everybody—except of course to Mr Hide when his feet are put to the fire and questions are asked about him! 
I close by saying that the bill is a good bill. It is an exceptional bill. It brings us in line with many Parliaments around the world. Sadly of course this bill will not do one thing: once it is passed we will still not gain the answers from Mr Hide about why he went to the said conference about who paid his air fares about who paid his accommodation and about who paid the hospitality bill. This bill will apply only to members of Parliament who are re-elected. After the election we will not have the answers to those questions because Mr Hide will not be a member of this Chamber; neither will any of those so-called honest accountable and hugely transparent members of the ACT party. I support the bill.