edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3763] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 2 be agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14030] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Horomia Parekura: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16908] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Worth Richard: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Worth Richard: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4528] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Part 1 contains the substantive provisions although of course it is not the only part. The primary changes that have been introduced by this bill are well set out in the contents section. I would have wished that this particular part might have gone much further because there are a number of issues that war veterans would wish to see included in legislation of this type not the least of which is the introduction of something that was important and credible National Party policy at the time of the last election. I refer to the introduction of a veterans’ gold card which the war veterans’ community has sought now for a significant period of time. The current position of the Government which is that it is simply not prepared to acknowledge such concerns is a great shame.
Hawkins George: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18116] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Government Administration Committee consider the Gambling Amendment Bill 
referred to Government Administration Committee 
 and that the committee report the bill to the House on or before 1 March 2005 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Urgent Debates Declined — Tariana Turia—Ministerial Dismissal 
Prebble Richard: Urgent Debates Declined — Tariana Turia—Ministerial Dismissal 
[Volume:617;Page:12554] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am curious about a matter. We have to accept your ruling but you kept referring to the member’s resignation. We have learnt today that this was not a resignation. Maybe firings are now day-to-day affairs but when I was fired it was the first in 150 years. So I am a little surprised that you think a firing is now a day-to-day matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member listened to my ruling very carefully he would know I talked about dismissal. I did not talk in relation to this case about resignation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to proceed. I have ruled on this matter.
Mackey Moana: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Mackey Moana: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10305] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8446] 
6.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Corrections; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because they are both hard-working and conscientious Ministers. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the Prime Minister possibly expect the victims of crime to have confidence in a Minister of Justice who does nothing to prevent class A drug dealers and killers to avoid serving their prison sentences by allowing them to gain home detention or her Minister of Corrections who allows those same people on home detention to live the life of Riley—going to the gym family outings shopping rugby participating in community activities gambling smoking and taking recreational drugs—all whilst they sit on the dole on home detention? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand home detention goes back many many years. No doubt the whole issue was looked at again when the sentencing and parole legislation was before a select committee which it was for rather a long time. I am not satisfied that there needs to be changes at this point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister have faith in a Minister of Corrections and a Minister of Justice who have said: “Home detention is designed to accommodate low-level offences warranting a sentence of less than 2 years and seen to be a low-risk to the community” when just in the last 2 days we have seen a convicted killer and class A drug supplier join the for ever growing list of violent and dangerous home-detention criminals; why is she satisfied that no changes need to be made now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that both have made application for home detention. That is quite a different matter from getting it agreed to. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Prime Minister explain why the Government has bothered to put out a 19-point methamphetamine action plan aimed at controlling supply reducing demand limiting harm and improving treatment services—all in response to the devastating and dangerous effects of the class A drug—whilst a New Zealand celebrity gets a slap on the hand and is able to avoid a prison sentence by swanning off on home detention? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that is what he is applying for; it has not been granted. The Government views P in very very serious terms indeed. It is an extremely dangerous drug and that is why the police have been given more resources through the Budget process to combat it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does the Prime Minister view P as a dangerous drug but is happy to support the decriminalisation of cannabis? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Clearly cannabis and P are quite different kinds of drugs. For the record from the time I was Minister of Health I have received advice that partial decriminalisation of cannabis should be considered by the Government. I did not action that as Minister of Health but there are plenty of credible people in public health who would make that recommendation today.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5184] 
12.  
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What comments and reports has she received on child nutrition? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports including the Ministry of Health’s public health legislation discussion document the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action strategy and a report in the  
Sunday News 
 last week in which Nick Smith claimed that this Government intends to change the law to ban hamburgers for children and to restrict the number and size of fast food outlets. His report is absolute twaddle tarted up to sound like fact when it is mere fiction. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Is it the Government’s intention for the Minister of Health to decide what a child can or cannot eat? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it is not the intention that the Minister of Health will tell parents what to feed their children any more than it is her intention to tell Nick Smith what to put in his sandwiches. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given that up to 40 percent of advertisements shown during children’s television viewing times are for food and that most of those promote unhealthy high-fat high-sugar high-salt foods that contribute to obesity when will the Government implement its 1999 pre-election pledge to “promote as a priority the elimination of advertising around children’s programmes”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Government has no policy or plans to ban the advertising of food during children’s viewing times. However there was a proposal that we look at a range of measures in the Ministry of Health’s discussion document but that has not been accepted by the Government as policy.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21145] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the transcript of the Television One news on Monday night when Dr Hutchison said that National’s new policy would be to have a list of people requiring surgery. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is.
Benson-Pope David: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5290] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 Just very briefly I would like to contribute on two matters. First I would like to draw to your attention to Standing Order 90—for your consideration after this evening—which is a quite unequivocal consequence of the refusal we saw from Mr Prebble to leave the House when directed to do so by you and even after having been named. I must also for the record comment on the extraordinarily unparliamentary language that was used by that member in calling you a liar and a little Hitler and also in calling at least two of my colleagues fascists. Having made that point for the record can I contest what Mr Carter said. In fact neither Mr Carter who was on the telephone nor Mr Prebble who was reading the newspaper did call. You quite properly put the vote. The vote was commenced and could I ask please that we continue that vote so the House can rise for the evening.
Visitors — Japan—Parliamentary Delegation from the House of Councillors 
Visitors — Japan—Parliamentary Delegation from the House of Councillors 
[Volume:620;Page:15653] 
Wednesday 15 September 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Japan—Parliamentary Delegation from the House of Councillors 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the House of Councillors Japan led by Mr Hirofumi Nakasone is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8167] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to omit paragraph (b) of the definition of “relevant enactment” in clause 214A(1) be agreed to.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8948] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the alternative amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new section 42A in clause 20 be agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18651] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 325 and 326 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11057] 
A party vote 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16147] 
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 section 32(1)(ca) in clause 11 be agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18919] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I want to pick up the points that Richard Prebble made. I say to the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui that he can solve this really really quickly by standing up not giving the speech he just made and just answering the question. The question is quite simple: did the select committee write an English text and send it away to be translated or did it write a Maori text and send it away to be translated—I suspect it did not do that—or did it and this where I pick up on Mr Prebble’s comments write two texts? They might be as close to the same as they could be made to be at that particular time but did they write two texts? We will get into a great deal of difficulty in the future in this House if one select committee does as is its right report back a bill with both a Maori and an English text and the text is not done as a translation but is done as two separate texts and we have to rely on that. So I ask that question of the Minister as he was on the select committee. I was hopeful that the chair of the select committee would take a call but she is unable to at present. Could the Minister inform the Committee whether—and I think Mr Paraone is the only other member here who sat on the select committee—it is a translation from English or from Maori or whether two texts were written.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14479] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my address to Local Government New Zealand earlier in the week which shows that the statement attributed to me by Dr Smith is a fabrication. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9146] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Do not bring the Chair into the debate. 
RON MARK 
: I did not say Lianne Dalziel did. However large numbers of Labour Party people were actively involved in organising those demonstrations. Large numbers of Labour Party people had a different view of defence in those days. But today this Government and many of those people are waking up to the realities of the world and that is a good thing. It is a shame that it takes events like September 11— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s a shame you can make up nonsense. 
RON MARK 
: She really has lost her rag today. The  
Holmes  
show must have been quite bad I gather. 
Peter Brown 
: It was terrible. 
RON MARK 
: There we go; that explains it. It is good that the bill is here and it is good that it follows on the heels of the Terrorism Suppression Bill. Once again I remind the House that other terrorists who reside in this country need to be dealt with in the same way. They wear gang patches. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Who are they? 
RON MARK 
: Mongrel Mob Black Power Highway 61 and the Filthy Few. Does the member want me to keep going? How long does he want me to keep going? [ 
Interruption 
] Clayton Cosgrove is such a silly lad. He deserves to be ignored. The bill has— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That member was in Government for 2 years and did nothing. 
RON MARK 
: They really do lose their rag do they not. It has been a bad day for the Government. It has been a bad month for the Government. At a time when I am trying to compliment Government members—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I am responding to the interjections which I am permitted to do. As long as those members wish to fuel the fire they will wear the heat. It is as simple as that. On a day when the Government is—
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14880] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Putting aside that last point which is completely nonsensical because Ministers do not answer questions in Parliament in the United States for a beginning the point is not that the sale is going to the Overseas Investment Commission particularly; it is that it is coming to me. I have to make the decision and in that case I am not going to comment on the factors I am going to be taking into account in the making of that decision. Furthermore the member should read the Speakers’ ruling again: “An answer to a question ought to be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest;”. In the end it is for the Minister to determine whether it is in the public interest to give the answer; it is not up to the Speaker to determine that fact.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:622;Page:18131] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the second reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill be postponed. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4389] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15021] 
7.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will she give thorough consideration to holding a referendum at the next general election to give the people of New Zealand the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to change the official New Zealand flag? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am aware that a group is pursuing a citizens initiated referendum on the subject. I am not presently convinced that it is possible or desirable to address the issue in the time frame suggested by the member. 
Rod Donald 
: Does she agree with the New Zealand Chef de Mission in Athens Dave Currie that “our uniforms identify who we are but our flag doesn’t” and is she concerned that it was hard for overseas Olympic watchers to distinguish between the New Zealand and Australian flags behind Sarah Ulmer and that only the Union Jack was clearly visible behind the Evers-Swindell twins when they were presented with their medals? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The flag of course would be only one of three elements at such a ceremony that state which country the athletes represented. The national anthem would be played and it clearly is a New Zealand national anthem. The athletes would be dressed in a distinctive New Zealand uniform. Then there is also the flag which of course bears marked resemblance to the Australian one but none the less with the colour configuration is distinctively New Zealand. 
Rod Donald 
: What have been the significant societal and constitutional developments in New Zealand since our flag which incorporates the Union Jack was adopted in 1902 particularly with regard to our relationship to Great Britain? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In 1902 New Zealand would probably have been correctly described as a compliant if not somewhat subservient Dominion. Today we would regard ourselves as proudly independent—at least this Government would. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that a country’s flag is a potent symbol of its national identity and would she like to see New Zealand adopt a new flag that is as distinctive and iconic as the Canadian flag introduced there 40 years ago? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The flag is certainly a symbol of identity; whether it is potent is a matter of opinion. I welcome debate about the flag and as I said at my press conference on Monday no doubt the time will come for formal consideration of whether the flag we have represents the contemporary reality of New Zealand. The Union Jack in the corner of course relates to our past; it does not particularly relate to the future and at some point that needs to be addressed.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9015] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after the words “into force on” and substitute the words “1 July 2006”.
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9392] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already suggested to the member on my left that he should look at Speaker’s ruling 17/3. I am going to say the same to the member. He should look at that ruling because it basically states that members have a right to raise points of order but once the chair has made the decision then for the member to continue after having been asked to desist is highly disorderly. That leaves me very little alternative about what I can do. I will hear the member but that will be it.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13032] 
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. 
New clause 186A not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 19 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new subclause (2A).
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19384] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Question agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.
Franks Stephen: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:6034] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 No one will be surprised that the ACT party will not support this bill. We regard minimum wage law as slogan law. It is cynical and it trades on the fact that many people expect and hope the law will achieve what people claim to be its intentions even when there is incontrovertible evidence that the intentions of a minimum wage law are rarely if ever achieved. Indeed such a law is highly likely to hurt those whom it is most proclaimed to protect. The intention of Parliament of course is what the courts must try to ascertain when they are faced with a law but in looking at a minimum wage law the intention is probably not what the objective is. There is a difference between the two. The objective of the parliamentarians who promote this kind of law is to obtain votes. It is to pay off their supporters to avoid scrutiny and to avoid a real look at what the law does in this area whereas the proclaimed intention is to increase wages. 
Of course the sorts of people who might be covered by a minimum wage amendment are likely to be those who are hired last—the least attractive employees—those for whom it is most easy to substitute a machine and those for whom it is most easy to look for someone else to do the job and perhaps to pay that person a little more. So often a person on the minimum wage is actually under training. There is a concession or there may be a genuine feeling of public interest—altruism—by an employer who wants to give someone a chance. A minimum wage simply interferes with that prospect. 
This bill is likely to be an “Anti - Scruffy Person Bill” or an “Anti - Inexperienced Person Bill”. It will be a bill that achieves more unemployment for people who need a first job and it will achieve less job training and more frustration by employers. This bill by imposing a one-size-fits-all approach across the country states that the employer cannot now take the most simple way of reflecting the fact that the law has also taken away other abilities. How many employers can actually enforce the expectation that when they take on someone and that person spends 3 or 6 months learning the job they will at least get a couple of years out of the person? 
Debate interrupted.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5312] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 On Thursday on a matter relating to my question to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee you said that you would look into the question of what happens when the chairperson is not in the House. In this case today was the third time I had put the question down. I was not able to ask it on Wednesday or Thursday because the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Mr Peter Dunne was not in Parliament and the House did not allow anyone else on the committee to answer it. Is there any obligation on the chairperson of a select committee to make himself or herself available in the House to answer a question or can the chairperson simply boycott it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The short answer to the member’s question is no. The Standing Orders Committee can look at it but I personally rang Mr Dunne and ascertained that he would be here on Tuesday.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10008] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendment which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor is to clause 8 and it is out of order because Ms Chadwick’s amendments have been agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to new section 23A(1) in clause 8A be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Referral to Privileges Committee Apologies in the Chamber Question Time 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Referral to Privileges Committee Apologies in the Chamber Question Time 
[Volume:612;Page:9035] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the draft agreement on policing functions within the parliamentary precincts to be referred to the Privileges Committee for its consideration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Copeland Gordon: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9916] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a new point of order Mr Speaker. I do not dispute what you have just said about the National Party being the only party seeking the call but I believe that thereafter you could have gone to the Green Party so that we go back to the sequence of calls agreed between the parties at the Business Committee—after much deliberation and discussion I might add. I would like you to reflect on whether you could have then gone back to the Green Party to restore the order to that which had been agreed by the House. As I pointed out it is a perverse outcome that we get dropped down one stage when we are just an innocent party to the whole thing. I do not feel that you have actually reflected on that point.
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17801. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 To give an answer the matter is quite complex. I understand that there was a court decision some years ago that confirmation by bill could rule out any other form of challenge. In this case this legislation is intended to make sure that it does not extend as far as that. It is purely and narrowly confined to the confirmation of the actual orders to lift the rates of New Zealand superannuation and benefits etc. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12318] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18852] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 8 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 8 agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9011] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pillay Lynne: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4258] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 This is a good bill. The reforms outlined in it are the result of many years’ debate amongst woolgrowers on means to improve the returns from wool sales. It also recognises the contribution that a profitable and vibrant wool industry can make to the growth of our economy. This bill is good for New Zealand and I am proud to stand in support of it.
Carter John: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14277] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Despite the instruction given by the House I seek leave of the Committee to have one wide-ranging debate and take the bill as one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Is it also the wish of the Committee to take the votes on the provisions of the bill as one question but with separate questions on members’ amendments? Leave has been sought for that course. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Notices of Motion Nos 6 to 10 Shane Ardern 
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Notices of Motion Nos 6 to 10 Shane Ardern 
[Volume:611;Page:8821] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave after the close of question time to move with debate notices of motion Nos 6 to 10 standing in my name on the Order Paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Hughes Darren: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12155] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 The House is considering the second reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and the report of the Education and Science Committee. It seems to me that this is quite a useful bill that clarifies the role of teachers as employees the role that boards of trustees have the role of the Secretary for Education and how the unions that represent teachers fit into the very unique employment arrangement that teachers have. I think this will be a useful bill for the sector and I support its passage through the House.
Hodgson Pete: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16024] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 2) the Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 3) the Gas Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 242 
.
Tanczos Nandor: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4518] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to take that vote again. It was my intention to vote against it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that? There is.
Hughes Darren: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18404] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call in support of the first reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill another piece of legislation that has come before the House to give effect to treaty settlements that the Crown has entered into with iwi and hapu groups around the country. I particularly acknowledge the hard work that Nga Rauru Kitahi have done in bringing their claim forward to this point and the work done by the Crown led by the Hon Margaret Wilson and the Hon Mita Ririnui along with officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements to come to an arrangement with Nga Rauru that can now be considered by our Maori Affairs Committee of this House. This is one of the good things our Parliament often does—the discussion of these matters and the fronting up to parts of our history—and we do it in quite a formal proper and professional way. I know that that is the way this matter has been dealt with since the negotiation settlement began in October 2000. I think it is appropriate that our having just marked the commemoration of Waitangi Day one of the first bills the House deals with after our formal business with the Prime Minister’s statement is this settlement bill. I support its first reading.
Tamihere John: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
Tamihere John: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12734] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to allow Tariana Turia at the conclusion of this time-limited debate on the first reading to have the right of a 10-minute speech. Before the motion is put I would be grateful to ask colleagues across the other side of the House to acknowledge that this is a great Parliament to acknowledge that this is one of the few places that our people have a right to express their views to acknowledge that Tariana Turia has made a significant move in recent times on the basis of this bill and under our culture it is important—kai a te rangatira—that she has a say. I am just asking colleagues— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has put the point—
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9468] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to schedule 1A be agreed to: 
to insert in Part 2 in the appropriate place the words “Peeping and peering”.
Vote: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19866] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 1 agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7638] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Do not push your luck. Carry on with the point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
:The situation is this. I cannot say that I have read the whole report—we got it only at 1 o’clock—but I have read the conclusions and the Solicitor-General’s advice. Mr Duynhoven is in clear breach of the law. The seat became vacant on 11 June. So Mr Duynhoven is outside the law and we understand that the Government is proposing legislation to put him back inside the law retrospectively. We also understand from the law that since 2002 you have had a statutory duty in such circumstances to declare the seat vacant. My question to you is whether you will not exercise that duty until some legislation has been prepared and how come you yourself are not following the law in terms of the Electoral Act?
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17142] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We now move to clause 113 with an amendment in the name of the honourable member Metiria Turei to subclause (2)(b)(iii) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. I have just been instructed that that amendment is out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision on the amendment. 
The question was put that the amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen set out on Supplementary Order Paper 304 to the amendments to clause 107 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in his name be agreed to.
Parker David: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18043] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of the Securities Legislation Bill which makes amendments to the Securities Act the Securities Markets Act the Takeovers Act and the Takeovers Code which is enforced under the Takeovers Act. It does so with the intention of improving the regulation of the financial markets and the intention behind that is to give people confidence in investing in New Zealand’s markets and so to improve our economy. Amongst other things the bill aligns our insider-trading laws more closely with those of Australia and it makes some simplifying changes with regard to substantial security holders’ disclosures. I commend the bill to the House.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6556] 
8.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What were the key developments relevant to New Zealand’s interests at the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 An attempt to overturn the moratorium on commercial whaling was defeated. The proposed South Pacific whale sanctuary was co-sponsored by a record number of countries and received 58 percent majority support. Sadly it fell short of the 75 percent required for its establishment and a Conservation Committee of the International Whaling Commission was established. 
David Parker 
: How will the conservation committee assist the preservation of whale species? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The conservation committee will be proactive in addressing the many threats faced by whales that have not been adequately tackled by the International Whaling Commission to date. Those include pollution boat strikes entanglement in fishing gear and developments that impact on whale breeding grounds feeding grounds and migration routes. 
Rod Donald 
: What is the New Zealand Government doing to protect whales in New Zealand waters threatened by activities such as crayfishing and marine farming given our strong advocacy for the cessation of whaling and our support for the establishment of a South Pacific whale sanctuary? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: My department is working with the fishing industry and the Ministry of Fisheries to develop fishing practices that will not imperil marine mammals. The impacts on marine mammals are key issues to be addressed when areas suitable for marine farming for example are identified.
Scott Lynda: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Scott Lynda: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9230. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 We were listening before to speakers telling us about the good old days. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I note your attempt at adherence to proportionality. However I have been calling consistently. Since I have been here the National Party has had four calls. You have not called ACT once since I have been here. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8488] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clauses 75D and 154B be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction  
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction  
[Volume:616;Page:12432] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Anybody can make submissions to me at any time but as Speaker this is my job and I do it in this way. I am entitled to do it and I will.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6285] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following the amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “1 July 2003” and substitute the words “1 July 2006”.