edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tisch Lindsay: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3972] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I just want to take a brief call on clause 40 and give a little background to how clause 40 runs into clause 43 and then later on through into clause 48. If we go back to the Racing Act of 1971 section 38 talks about win betting place betting double betting and so on. An important amendment was made back in 1992 to the Act and provided for totalisator clubs to use totalisators as they saw fit for the purposes set out in this new section 38 which is including win place double and forecast betting and so on. However under the Racing Bill that has gone. There is no equivalent to the old section 38 as originally set out in 1971 or in the 1992 amendment. Instead there is a structure under the board committee to determine and allocate racing dates which is clause 40. Once the dates allocation and conditions have been determined the board is to issue betting licences to the racing clubs for which dates have been allocated and that is clause 43. 
It is an important point to note Madam Chair that the actual conduct of betting is now in the hands of the board either by itself or by means of racing clubs or agents appointed. That is clause 48. It is not with the clubs as in the earlier position. I just make that point now that the board will be a very important part of this new legislation. Also that both on-course and off-course totalisator betting will be completely under the control of the board whereas under the 1971 Act the on-course totalisator betting was the domain of each club once licensed. 
That is the difference that I bring forward. I am not arguing against it. I am just saying that there is a difference between what has happened under the 1971 Racing Act and what is proposed here under this Racing Bill. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of the Hon Annette King be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Donna Awatere Huata to clause 42 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
42Unlimited restriction on racing days 
Racing will be permitted without exception every day of the calendar year.
Donald Rod: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Donald Rod: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3837] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 That speech on the title was unfortunate for two reasons. First what Mr Hide was saying about spouses missing out on entitlements because of losses on the sharemarket is totally untrue. As the one person who has campaigned against the Government Superannuation Fund being invested on the sharemarket rather than staying in Government stocks I have always made it very clear to any beneficiaries of the Government Superannuation Fund—whether a retired public servant or a spouse of a deceased public servant—that their entitlements are not at risk. As taxpayers everyone in this room and everyone listening in this country will have to make up for that loss. But there is absolutely no risk of the Government’s ridiculous investment policy affecting the beneficiaries of the Government Superannuation Fund. 
The second unfortunate point about Mr Hide’s speech on the title is that he was not prepared to listen to my concerns back in the year 2000. He actually voted for the change in investment policy for the Government Superannuation Fund. I congratulate him on waking up 2 years after the event but I do wish that he had joined the Greens at the time in pointing out what a ridiculous strategy it was to take money out of Government bonds and gamble it on the international sharemarket. 
I do not think there are any grounds at all for Mr Hide to call for any of the changes to the title that he was asking for. In hindsight it might have been better to have a clearer title that read: “Government Superannuation Fund (Spouses Annuities and Children’s Allowances) Amendment Bill” as we would have then had a much narrower title debate. But given the nature of the title I simply take the opportunity to say that the partners of deceased public servants whom this bill benefits do not need to worry about future entitlements. They are entitled to be concerned about their deceased partners’ hard-earned savings being squandered on the sharemarket but they can rest assured that the fact that the Government Superannuation Fund has lost $380 million over the last 14 months on the sharemarket— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come to the title. 
ROD DONALD 
: —I am coming to the point—will not in any way affect their expectation of benefits under this bill. I look forward to this bill becoming an Act in the very near future. I am happy to leave the title as it is.
Benson-Pope David: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3713] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in this discussion and I would like to compliment the previous speaker on her very moderate and rational discussion of the issues. There are some substantial issues here. It is interesting to note—and it is an acknowledged fact—that both employers and employees find the current Holidays Act outdated and difficult to understand. Interestingly the National Opposition is again out of step with its normal backers in Business New Zealand who consider the bill to be “more streamlined than the current legislation” and “simpler and more coherent than existing legislation”. That is an extraordinary situation and we welcome it. I am pleased to support the referral of this legislation to the select committee which I am sure will make any necessary improvements should there be any.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of Ireland—Minister of State 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of Ireland—Minister of State 
[Volume:624;Page:19147] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Conor Lenihan TD Minister of State from the Republic of Ireland is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Conor Lenihan accompanied by the Minister of Communications entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Chadwick Steve: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9781] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I am amazed at the line from the Opposition spokeswoman especially as this is way beyond 1999. It is 2003 and Labour is in coalition with United Future which is delighted with this Commissioner for Children Bill and has also supported its stand-alone position. The bill also strengthens the role of the Commissioner for Children. 
There is another very salutary aspect of this bill and that is the position in terms of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This bill will explicitly strengthen the powers of the Commissioner for Children to deal with the findings of the United Nations report. It is amazing that the Opposition does not seem to understand that. This bill is a demonstration of this Government’s commitment to the rights of children. It is very poor form to have a slash at the Department of Child Youth and Family Services when we are celebrating the second reading of this bill and when we also have it in conjunction with the recommendations of the baseline review. I am proud to be part of a coalition Government that is pushing through this bill to heighten the explicit powers of the Commissioner for Children. I am proud to support the bill.
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5157] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 84 
Noes 32 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9 United Future 8 Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Shane Ardern to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 4(1) by omitting the words after the word “payable” and substituting the words “to workers defined in order of reference to the age of workers excluding those undergoing training or instruction”.
Tizard Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6505] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Mr Power did bring this matter to my attention. I sought advice from the officials and they were able to provide me with a copy of the legislation including section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act. I have also provided the copy of the legislation from the Government caucus room which is indeed correctly annotated. So although there is obviously some mistake in the annotation of the statute book held in the Opposition lobby I have at least two copies of the correctly annotated amendments that were made to the Customs and Excise Act. I have also laid a copy of those on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions. Hard copies of statutes are annotated from time to time. If there is an error in a particular volume it is unfortunate and it will be investigated but members have had notice of this Committee stage since Thursday and have had an opportunity to conduct research. There is no reason that the Committee stage cannot continue.
Turei Metiria: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
Turei Metiria: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
[Volume:626;Page:20907] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 106 and Speakers’ rulings I want to correct a misrepresentation by Mr Mapp of what I said in a previous speech. Mr Mapp said in his speech that I had called Mr Peters a racist. In fact in describing a number of comments made by Mr Peters I used words such as “xenophobic” “extremist” “intolerant” “vicious” and “derogatory”— 
Dail Jones 
: Mr Speaker the member is abusing the privilege. She did not say he was a racist and that is where the matter should end. Instead the member is abusing the system. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No the member may make a correction. This is similar to the issue we are debating in the House now. The member may not repeat what was said but may simply give her explanation for it. The member may indicate what her explanation relates to and then refute it and give the correct version. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That is what I was doing. The correct version of my description of Mr Peters’ statements included the words “xenophobic” “extremist” “intolerant” “vicious” and “derogatory” but did not include the word “racist” which he himself used in an interjection.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8159] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Noes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of Hon Annette King to Part 6 be agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17351] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16147] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For the sake of clarification I want to confirm that this amendment relates to the issuing of a certificate of exemption on grounds particular to different organisations. Is that correct?
Brownlee Gerry: Motions — Academy Awards—Achievement of New Zealanders 
Brownlee Gerry: Motions — Academy Awards—Achievement of New Zealanders 
[Volume:615;Page:11417] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party Opposition joins with the Government in this expression of support. Our congratulations to Peter Jackson and all who were associated with  
The 
Lord of the Rings 
 trilogy. I also congratulate Keisha Castle-Hughes who has been a wonderful role model for young New Zealanders. Seeing her in the last couple of weeks particularly in the last couple of days behaving in such a natural manner and appearing to be quite underwhelmed by the circumstances she found herself in has been somewhat inspirational. Peter Jackson is a man with great vision enormous passion and determination who has undoubtedly changed a lot of things for New Zealand and has exposed this country to many opportunities that I am sure we will see younger New Zealanders avail themselves of in the future. We are very very proud of them. They deserve our congratulations.
Paraone Pita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20260] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of New Zealand First and—as people tend to forget—on behalf of the only non-politically aligned party in this Chamber to support the speaker from the National Party who led off in the debate on these clauses and to speak particularly to the title clause. 
I originally had the intention of putting forward an amendment on a Supplementary Order Paper suggesting that the title should be all in te reo Maori. However I was taken aback by the decision yesterday by the Minister in the chair at the moment the Hon Mita Ririnui to decline the opportunity to support an amendment to recital (32) reflecting the amendment put forward by the Government in its Supplementary Order Paper to the English recital. I had hoped that in keeping with balance and the desire on the part of the Crown to ensure an enduring settlement with any claimants the Government would have the good faith to support the amendment that I wanted to make. But obviously that was declined so I will not put forward an amendment suggesting that the title be changed to include the Maori wording for “Bay of Plenty”. So I am obliged to support the title. 
I think it is important that the titles of these sorts of settlements reflect and identify the claimant groups that the settlements are all about. In this case we are talking about Ngati Tuwharetoa. As we all know Ngati Tuwharetoa is one of the major tribes of New Zealand. Under its present leadership and previous leaderships it has become well known not only in New Zealand but also on the international scene. The bill is appropriately named although I would have liked to see the full Maori wording for “Bay of Plenty” in the title. Given that the Minister in the chair represents that area—and I note that his electorate does have a Maori title—I would have thought he would be quite supportive of the extension of the Maori language. Unfortunately he is not so we in this Chamber are obliged to stick with what we have. 
In conclusion I think that the bill is appropriately named. It identifies which part of Ngati Tuwharetoa this settlement is all about—the group that is resident in the Bay of Plenty. We will support these clauses.
Mapp Wayne: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12809] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would help from the point of view of members on this side of the House if we knew whether the strangers apparently at the invitation of the Minister were here for this bill or for the next bill. In other words we do not know their status and that has been precisely what has motivated this point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. That is a matter for the Minister. The Minister does not have to communicate his invitation to the Opposition. The Speaker has to be satisfied that officials are properly here. The Speaker is satisfied.
Hughes Darren: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17752. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Points of Order — Upper Hutt Premier Rugby Team—Swindale Shield 
Points of Order — Upper Hutt Premier Rugby Team—Swindale Shield 
[Volume:627;Page:21945] 
Points of Order 
Upper Hutt Premier Rugby Team—Swindale Shield 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move without debate Government motion No. 3. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Points of Order — Official Information Act Requests—Questions to Ministers 
Points of Order — Official Information Act Requests—Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15543] 
Points of Order 
Official Information Act Requests—Questions to Ministers 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have raised this matter with you and I would be interested in your consideration of it. I have asked the Associate Minister of Education a series of parliamentary questions relating to a recent decision of the Government about funding for Auckland University. The response I have had is that he will not answer the questions because there is an Official Information Act request on that matter. I know for sure that it was never Parliament’s intention that the Official Information Act would replace the parliamentary question process. They have different purposes and elicit different sorts of information in different ways. I would be interested in your ruling as to whether a Minister can quote the Official Information Act as a statutory barrier to answering parliamentary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member wrote to me this morning. I got the letter and I have actually already replied to it and I have asked the Minister for an explanation. I will most certainly look at this; I regard it as a serious issue.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
[Volume:620;Page:16100] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members can get an urgent debate on only a particular occurrence not a continuing issue. We are about to enter into a general debate where I notice all parties will be represented. They can speak about whatever they like.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19307] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 Actually what we have here is a member raising a point of order—which he or she is entitled to do; members are entitled to have a point of order heard by everyone including the Speaker—and the Speaker deciding even though the person raising it was a leader of a party to rise in the middle of a point of order and then push the member into a position whereby the right to raise a point of order has now been deprived of an Opposition party member. That has not been done by this Speaker to any Government member. Government members have been raising bogus points of order as was pointed out by Mr Hide yesterday which actually deprived our party of questions that we wanted to ask. That was not interrupted by the Speaker. However you have got up now and have created perhaps unintentionally the impression that the Government is going to be protected from being asked question No. 6 which asks why its Ministers are seen to be asleep on the job.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13740] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be amended by omitting all the words after the word “House” and inserting the following words: “has no confidence in the Labour minority Government and records with regret that this Government has failed to provide leadership and policy to enhance New Zealand’s export performance and per capita incomes has failed to address New Zealand’s burgeoning balance of payments deficit has failed to deal with escalating crime has failed to provide sufficient numbers of police has failed to deliver a First World health system has failed to curb the burgeoning Treaty of Waitangi industry has done nothing to stop excessive immigration and does nothing to lay the foundations for building a better more prosperous nation for future generations of New Zealanders.” 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17939] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6B as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 6B as amended agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Personal Explanations — Hemana Waaka—Commentary 
Shirley Ken: Personal Explanations — Hemana Waaka—Commentary 
[Volume:609;Page:6329] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you asked if there was any objection to the member from ACT seeking leave I heard John Tamihere say “Yes”. I am not sure how that matter was resolved. One member can deny leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The matter was resolved by that member withdrawing that objection.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:606;Page:3638] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold my question over until such time as the Minister in charge is here to front up.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to do that; is there any objection? Please ask the question.
Prebble Richard: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5115] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that we have a bit of an energy crisis but the lobby is now in darkness. I wanted to have a look at the Official Information Act—I wanted to read it—but I cannot actually see in the lobby to be able to find the volume. It is a serious question. Turning the lights down so far that the lobby is in such darkness that members cannot get access to Acts is ridiculous— 
David Parker 
: Use the switch. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says to use the switch but they have actually been switched off. I think that the lobby lights should be turned up a bit so that I can actually find the Act I am looking for.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20659] 
4.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still stand by her intention to develop policy and actions designed to boost participation in the workforce particularly in respect of women; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because there are currently many barriers facing women that restrict their choices about whether to join the paid workforce. 
Judy Turner 
: Does she agree with a recent Treasury report that states that getting more people into work means less time for raising children and that Government policy should actually take into account the importance of time spent with them; if so why was that report removed from Treasury’s website only hours after it was posted? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously those parents who choose to go to work have less time at home with their children than those who do not but that is a value judgment each family must make for itself. With respect the second part of the question was answered in a written question to the Minister of Finance a couple of weeks ago. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the surge in the number of under-ones going into childcare this year the kind of outcome that her speech favoured despite the fact that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs’ own research released last October indicates significantly worse outcomes for children who go into dawn-to-dusk care from such an early age; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Each family must make for itself the decision whether it wishes its members to enter the paid workforce. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of any adverse reaction to her speech from parents who interpreted it as an attack on their choice to stay at home when they would argue that their work is very valuable and contributes to the country even though it does not register on clinical economic indicators; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: All women’s work is valuable whether or not it is counted in official economic statistics. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the most recent population statistics that show that the number of births per woman has declined further and that women are having children later; if so does she agree the biggest challenge to future growth that faces the Government is how to support an ageing population with fewer workers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The trend to smaller families is a long-term one. If we go back to my great-grandparents’ generation it had rather large numbers of children and the number of children per family has been falling very very steadily. As everyone knows all Western societies face the challenges of ageing populations and we need to have policies that can support older citizens with a reduced taxpayer base.
Yates Dianne: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11273] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13449] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 29 
New Zealand National 24; ACT New Zealand 4; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8110] 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the ability of all her Ministers to be responsive to the needs of all New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes but that does not mean that Ministers are expected to agree with everybody all the time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that answer does she hold herself in the same regard as she holds her Ministers; will she admit being the first culprit responsible for the hundreds and hundreds of victims who were infected by hepatitis C and HIV from getting unclean unscreened bad blood when she was the Minister of Health between 1988 and 1990 or is she just washing her hands of that as well? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Certainly not. The member will be aware that the police have just concluded a lengthy investigation following complaints being raised against two former Ministers of Health and found that there was no case to answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister think that that is an adequate standard of public responsiveness and duty of care which she did owe as Minister of Health from 1988 to 1990 when hundreds of people had either truncated or miserable lives or lost their lives and given for example that in Germany in identical circumstances two people who were responsible went to prison and that the Minister in France in identical circumstances went before the higher court; is that her idea of public responsiveness? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There are a number of unsubstantiated allegations in that question. The only thing I have ever been guilty of with regard to duty of care is caring rather too much being too conscientious and working too hard.
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18787] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The vote we have just completed— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There were two votes. We have completed one of them. The second one is that the bill finally be reported to the House by 3 June. We have completed the vote. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate Interrupted.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17144] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of MetiriaTurei to schedule 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the item relating section 4 of Te TureWhenua Maori Act 1993.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17053] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 21 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(1B) If a holder of customary rights order or a territorial customary rights order makes a written application to the Minister of Conservation and to the Minister of Maori Affairs those Ministers may to the extent that they consider it necessary to protect the relevant wahi tapu by notice in the  
Gazette 
 prohibit or restrict access over any area of the public foreshore and seabed.
Cullen Michael: General Debates 
Cullen Michael: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8538] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 First of all can I deal with the facts of the matter. It cannot possibly be true that every week Mr English gets up and leads the general debate because the National Party leads this debate only 1 week in 4. There is a rotation. 
The fact that Mr Speaker tends to leave the Chair after question time is irrelevant. Much more important is the fact that in this particular context during that speech there was an orchestrated series of interjections by National Party members themselves. There was a series of rhetorical questions from Mr English and a well-orchestrated series of responses from his back-bench colleagues. There were at least 20 interjections in unison from the entire National Party caucus present in Parliament so Opposition members can scarcely complain when they receive a reasonable amount of return interjections from this side of the House.
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14317] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member has not been denied a party vote. We were just in the process of proceeding to a party vote when points of order were raised about the calling of the voice vote.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17776. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 322 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 2 be agreed to.
O'Connor Damien: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15288] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:621;Page:17184] 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This is a totally different matter which has to be resolved before the House rises. I seek leave for the time by which the Social Services Committee must finally report the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill to be extended to 31 March 2005. The bill is due to be reported back next week and the select committee members this morning I understand unanimously resolved that they would like more time to consider the bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is not.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6716] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Noes 8 
United Future 8. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Motion as amended agreed to. referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3761] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 67 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to omit clause 10 and substitute new clause 10 be agreed to.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19828] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3Amendment to Copyright Act 1994 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 356 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 10 be agreed to.
Points of Order — Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Presence on Order Paper 
Points of Order — Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Presence on Order Paper 
[Volume:626;Page:21243] 
Points of Order 
Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Presence on Order Paper 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to raise with you a point of order about Government notice of motion No. 2 which has sat on the Order Paper for something in the order of 6 months. I note that a member of this House can have a notice of motion on the Order Paper for only 1 week before it is removed or debated. Can I through you ask the Leader of the House when that motion will be debated and for an assurance that in fact it will be debated before the election. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At the request of the Hon Jim Sutton the notice of motion was removed from the Order Paper last week and does not appear on the Order Paper today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The matter has been removed. It is not on the Order Paper at this stage. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can we take it from the Leader of the House that the Hon Jim Sutton is not prepared to have that debate with Gerry Eckhoff and that once it was drawn to Mr Sutton’s attention that a debate would be called he quickly removed the notice? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Urgent Debates Declined — Report of Auditor-General—Dr Ross Armstrong 
Urgent Debates Declined — Report of Auditor-General—Dr Ross Armstrong 
[Volume:615;Page:10880] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Report of Auditor-General—Dr Ross Armstrong 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Murray McCully seeking to debate under what is now Standing Order 373 the report of the Auditor-General on expenses incurred by Dr Ross Armstrong as chairperson of three public entities. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The report was released on 19 December 2003. This is the first day on which it can be considered and it involves the ministerial administrative responsibility of the Government. The inquiry was initiated in November 2002 following Dr Armstrong’s resignation on which the House held an urgent debate. There are implications in the report for corporate governance in general that the report identifies though it does not address. I consider those issues can be considered by Parliament in a number of ways—in particular through the financial review process. I do not consider that a report on an inquiry into events that occurred as long ago as 2002 requires the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. The application is accordingly declined.
By-Election — Te Tai Hauauru 
By-Election — Te Tai Hauauru 
[Volume:618;Page:14293] 
By-Election 
Te Tai Hauauru 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to section 185 of the Electoral Act 1993 that the name of the member elected to the House of Representatives for the Te Tai Hauauru electoral district is Tariana Turia. I understand that Tariana Turia is present and wishes to affirm. Would she please come forward to the chair on my right.
Peters Winston: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Peters Winston: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16369] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Can I ask that those who vote in the minority or abstain be named because that will cut down the process. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Hon Richard Prebble has sought leave and it is up to members now whether they grant it. Is there any objection?
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5994] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek this opportunity before the next question to seek leave of the House to table a press release from the Minister for Ethnic Affairs announcing the setting up of a language line interpreting service designed to help 300000 immigrants with no or limited English. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Student Allowances—Numbers Receiving Allowance 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Student Allowances—Numbers Receiving Allowance 
[Volume:625;Page:20162] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Nandor Tanczos requesting a debate under Standing Order 373. The member cites three releases of information as contributing to a need for an urgent debate relating to the number of people receiving student allowances. The accumulation of information in regard to an issue is not itself a particular case of recent occurrence. I refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 152/6. The application is therefore declined.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13021] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d).
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Troops—Withdrawal from Iraq 
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Troops—Withdrawal from Iraq 
[Volume:620;Page:15754] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reconsider on the grounds that there is no more serious decision a Government can make than to send servicemen and servicewomen into harm’s way overseas. Likewise whatever your view is a decision to bring the troops home and not provide a replacement is also a very serious decision for any Government to make. This decision is going to be debated up and down New Zealand and around the world. It will become debatable potentially in terms of the Australian elections and indeed the United States presidential elections. We expect in a parliamentary democracy that the Government would come down to the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member come to his point tersely. The member is challenging my ruling. It does not need to be debated in the House today. That is my ruling. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: All I am asking is: when does it get debated and under what circumstances? What we learn is from the  
Dominion Post 
 newspaper. We read about it there and we do not hear about it in this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is often the occasion. I am saying that this matter does not need to be debated in the House today.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19712] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before question time I drew your attention to the question of access to the House and the gangways and the media. I was informed during question time that the situation was more serious than that which I had raised with you—a lot more serious. I am now informed—although I have to say this information still is second-hand—that accredited members of the news media who are entitled to be in Parliament and who have accreditation from yourself were told by police officers that if they did not move themselves from parts of this building they would be arrested. 
We had the issue of police officers extensively litigated last year. It is my understanding that a police officer may not exercise authority in this House without the Speaker’s express approval. You indicated to me Madam Speaker when I raised the point of order before question time that you were not aware that there had been incidents on the gangway last night. That would indicate that police officers were acting in Parliament without your approval. If that was so I think that is a very very serious matter. 
When you are looking into that could you also inquire as to whether police officers did threaten accredited members of the news media who are entitled to be in Parliament with arrest and if they did so whether they had your approval. If they did I think members would like to know why the Speaker thinks that members of the press gallery should be threatened with arrest—even if some members may be sympathetic to that. I think we should get a report on the matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to look into that matter.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16148] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to omit words from the heading to section 59A in clause 19 be agreed to.
Power Simon: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14026] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Two speakers ago you ruled by way of a Chairperson’s ruling that members interjecting across the Chamber whilst another member was making a contribution—where that member was not part of that interchange by way of interjection—was not fit and proper. I ask for your advice and refer to Speaker’s ruling 69/4. Whilst I do not dispute that you are the judge of all matters arising in the Committee of the whole House I wonder whether you could give me some advice and guidance as to whether your ruling is now part of Speakers’ rulings or whether as it was made by a Chairperson it exists in some other fashion and applies to conduct in the Committee of the whole House. Being only a relatively new member of the House I would appreciate some guidance on how a Chairperson’s ruling stands compared with a Standing Order or a Speaker’s ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the honourable member that there are no Speakers’ rulings in relation to that. There previously has been a Chairman’s ruling made on the particular issue. The whole issue of interjecting is predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. In this particular instance neither the member interjecting on this side nor the member interjecting on that side had the call. You were interjecting against each other when the member Jeanette Fitzsimons had the call. That is why the Chairman’s ruling was made.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14358] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Health be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Vote agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:4076] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a report from the  
Hutt News 
 in respect of question No. 3 which states that Indian cricket sides are losing members who visit here who having gone for the four ball over the rope are going straight past the side screen and off into oblivion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.