edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17546] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander (P) 
Franks (P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich  
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field (P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Beyer (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully (P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 8A be agreed to: 
to omit the words “entering into a civil union” wherever they appear in this clause and substitute the words “registering a civil relationship”.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 83(5) be agreed to.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12726] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party does not support this bill. It should be obvious by now that many thousands—[ 
Interruption 
]
Peck Mark: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Peck Mark: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10320] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16693] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18723] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Could I speak to that point of order before the member does that because I may be able to help. Far from this bill creating hapu I think when we get the opportunity to have a sensible debate on what I think is a genuinely intended but I would suggest an erroneous Supplementary Order Paper from the member that will be a matter for fair debate. But far from it being the case that this bill creates the hapu they actually exist in the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act. It is my understanding that they exist already in that Act.
Hunt Jonathan: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4527] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is not. I return then to the vote on the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14867] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16803] 
2.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Sevices Committee 
: When is the Charities Bill due to be reported back to the House and will she extend to all original submitters the opportunity to give further evidence? 
GEORGINA BEYER (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee) 
: 
 The Charities Bill is due to be reported back to the House by 10 December 2004. The opportunity for all original submitters to give further evidence is a matter for the committee to decide. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: How many of the more than 700 original submitters are being invited to take part in further consultation on the rewritten Charities Bill and what criteria will the Government be using to select those organisations? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as this relates to what the member as the chairperson of the committee can do the member may answer—not the Government the committee. 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: As the deputy chairperson will understand these are indeed matters for the committee yet to make decisions upon.
Tizard Judith: Evidence Bill — First Reading 
Tizard Judith: Evidence Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20416] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Epsom who with his indomitable determination to wring every last word out of every issue must have cost his clients a great deal over many years. In his own words he is “no well-tuned cymbal”; however I think he is a symbol of much that needs to be changed in the legal system. It is probably good that he is in Parliament bringing his undoubted experience in the padding and obfuscation of the law. 
It is a great pleasure to follow my colleague the Minister of Justice the Hon Phil Goff who is bringing in yet another profoundly researched piece of legislation following a great deal of work done by the Law Commission. 
It is absolutely vital that New Zealanders have access to the law in the simplest most accessible and cheapest way possible. Yes many cases are extremely complex but it is unconscionable that so many New Zealanders do not go near courts because they fear the cost and they fear the complexity—often when they have a very good case. Every electorate MP worth his or her salt will have any number of cases where constituents have come to them with perfectly just cases that should have been resolved in our courts but have not been because of the complexity the inconsistency and the cost of almost every case. 
This is a vital piece of legislation that has been reviewed over many many years by the Law Commission. Indeed more than 10 years have been spent researching and consulting on this legislation. I think we all recognise that although common law is one of the great strengths of the Westminster system it is also very piecemeal and legislation has to bring it up to date and reconcile it on occasions. I am delighted to follow my colleague Phil Goff who has yet again demonstrated his profound interest and rigorous approach. 
I think the Justice and Electoral Committee will be able to call for submissions on this. I am sure there will be many interminable submissions on the lines of Dr Worth’s recent peroration. I look forward to this bill coming back to the House representing an improvement that will clarify existing law by addressing ambiguities and inconsistencies. It does fundamentally change the current law in some areas so it needs to be well examined. The bill is the next step in a lengthy process and I do hope it will result in better access to and clearer understanding of the law and the right to justice for all New Zealanders
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8749] 
5.  
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What progress if any has been made in engaging ethnic communities in conservation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Excellent progress! For example my department is working closely with the Chinese Conservation Education Trust. It now has over 600 members and is making a huge practical contribution to conservation. In addition the Department of Conservation is in partnership with the Pacific Island community’s Tapa Trust which targets conservation work in New Zealand and in the Pacific Islands. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What have been some of the outcomes of this engagement? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: A much greater awareness among Asian and Pacific communities about the reasons for restrictions on trade in endangered species and the importance of border biosecurity financial contributions towards pest control and hands-on involvement in nature restoration projects such as that on Motutapu Island. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What efforts have been undertaken to protect the rare and endangered nocturnal green parrot? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not sure whether the Green Parrott is under threat from new ethnic minorities although I could mention that there is at least one member of this House who seems to spend a great deal of time there in the early hours of the morning. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is being facetious. [ 
Interruption 
] There are a number of people who sometimes enjoy that place. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given your concern for we people of short stature and the derogatory epithets that may be cast upon us I ask whether you are going to seek the same assurance that aspersions will not be cast upon people whose faces appear in photographs down at the Green Parrott such as your good self former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Mike Moore and the Hon Annette King and whether those disparaging comments were not in some way intended. I ask whether you will seek the same assurance from this member that he is not casting dispersions—aspersions or even dispersions—dispersing aspersions on honourable members and if he refuses to respond whether you will chuck him out of the House just like you did previously with Mr Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have dealt with that issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect I do not think that issue has been dealt with. Notwithstanding the difficulties that Mr Mark might have got into over the enunciation of his point— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not worry about that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Good. Well the real point is whether this Minister set out to cast aspersions on other members of this House. I do not think it is unreasonable that he be asked whether that was his intention and if it was he should be treated the same as Mr Peters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did rule his reply out of order but I now suggest that he withdraw and apologise to the number of members concerned. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Burton Mark: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee 
Burton Mark: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20252] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part.
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19641] 
8.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What recent reports has he received relating to suicide and what do these indicate? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received two reports which I have publicly released today. The first is the Ministry of Health’s report  
Suicide Facts—Provisional 2002 
All-ages 
Statistics 
. The second is a review  
Suicide and the Media: A study of the media response to Suicide and the Media: The reporting and portrayal of suicide in the media 
 which is another Ministry of Health publication. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The first shows that the number of New Zealanders taking their own lives continues to fall which I am sure all members of the House will see as good news. The Ministry of Health’s report  
Suicide Facts 
 shows that a total of 460 people died by committing suicide in 2002 compared with 507 in 2001. Of course no complacency can be offered with regard to the number of deaths—they are all tragic. The suicide rate has declined by 25 percent since reaching a peak in 1998—from 14.3 to 10.7 deaths per 100000 people over the last 5 years—and is now at its lowest level since 1985. The second report recommends that the Government needs to work more closely with media organisations in relation to reporting suicide. Those reports can be found on the Ministry of Health’s new suicide prevention web page. 
Moana Mackey 
: What action is the Labour-Progressive Government taking to ensure that the downward trend in our suicide rates continues? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The youth suicide prevention strategy has now been in place for around 6 years and has had encouraging evaluations and results. The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Youth Development are currently leading the work on developing a new national strategy that will incorporate those results and that will address suicide and suicide attempts across all ages. It is not commonly recognised in New Zealand that although the youth suicide rate—that is from ages 18 to 24—has been very high 80 percent of all suicides happen outside that age range; in other words in older New Zealanders. So that is why the strategy has now been widened to cover all ages in the community. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What further work has been done in the area of suicide and will there be public consultation on the new suicide strategy? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The answer is a considerable amount particularly with regard to the period post suicide attempts and regarding assistance for families where there has been a suicide. The strategy for all ages which I referred to earlier will be released for public consultation next month.
Barker Rick: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17117] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16774] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
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 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.
Shirley Ken: Maritime Security Bill — Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Maritime Security Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12221] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is always a delight to listen to our parliamentary colleague merchant seaman Brown reminiscing about his life at sea often with fond memories of the antics that he and his former colleagues used to get up to— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was not just a merchant seaman; I am a qualified ship’s captain and I think I am entitled to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that is not a point of order. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I think this is one of those rare occasions where there is unanimity across the House. All parties have indicated their support for this legislation because we all appreciate the imperative need for it. It is a matter of security and of harmonisation with our international trading partners to ensure that our ships and ports meet required standards of security in this dangerous world that we live in. I listened with interest to the Green spokesperson Mr Locke in the debate. Indeed I concurred with many of the sentiments he made; I also cherish individual rights and civil liberties and freedoms. But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance; we do know that. There is a need for this legislation as part of the vigilance required in the modern world and for the maintenance of security. It is an incredible irony that without freedom there can be no security but without security there is no freedom. I think this bill epitomises that situation as other speakers have commented during its passage. We would prefer that we did not have to have these measures—these constraints and restrictions—but I think we all accept that they are an imperative in the situation we face. With those few comments I again indicate that ACT New Zealand will certainly be supporting this bill.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21421] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to.
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:6305] 
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.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20286] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21722] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 19; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 6 and the following amendments in his name to Part 6 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) of clause 19 after the expression “subsections (1A)” the expression “ (1B)”;  
to omit from paragraph (b) of clause 20 the word “Section”; and 
to omit from paragraph (b) of clause 20 the word “Sections”. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Clark Helen: Motions — Academy Awards—Achievement of New Zealanders 
Clark Helen: Motions — Academy Awards—Achievement of New Zealanders 
[Volume:615;Page:11417] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move 
 That this House place on record its admiration for and pride in  
The Lord of the Rings 
 team’s achievement in gaining a record-equalling 11 Oscars; congratulate in particular Peter Jackson on winning the Oscar for best director; note the contribution that many New Zealanders have made in respect of these achievements; and congratulate Keisha Castle-Hughes on being the youngest-ever nominee in the category of best actress in a leading role 
.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20280] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 96 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new clause 13A be agreed to. 
to insert after clause 13 the following new clause: 
13A – Amendments to lump sum compensation eligibility 
(1)Section 36 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (4). 
(2)Section 37 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (5).
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14676] 
11.  
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Has he been advised of the complaint relating to Project Protector and the acquisition of the multi-role vessel made to the Office of the Ombudsmen; if so what is the nature of the complaint? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I am not aware of any such complaint but I am aware that agents acting for one of the interested parties that did not make the shortlist has made a complaint regarding process to the Office of the Ombudsmen. As I am not a party to that complaint I am not aware of the details. I can only suggest that the member discuss the matter with his former law firm colleague and former fellow naval reservist Mr Michael Stephens who is advising the agents who laid the complaint and who incidentally is also acting for one of the disappointed shortlisted companies. 
Richard Worth 
: Why has the Government chosen a conventional roll-on roll-off vessel that will not be able to land men and material in sea states above sea state 2 when the likely area of operation of the multi-role vessel will be an offloading requirement in the deep waters and associated swells of the Pacific—conditions far different from the millpond of sea state 2? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The contract as signed with Tenix is compliant with the documents issued inviting tenders. 
Richard Worth 
: What is his view of the New Zealand defence officials who in analysing the tender registration bid of Hyundai the biggest shipyard in the world incorrectly recorded the capital base of Hyundai as $26 million instead of $26 billion so that Hyundai which in fact had a history of building a ship in New Zealand missed out and was not able to enter the bid round? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I will not in any way contravene the appropriate commercial processes in the tender process. I suggest the member talks to his former legal and reservist colleague on the matter.
Heatley Phil: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7126] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 On behalf of my National Party colleagues particularly Shane Ardern and the Hon David Carter and my former colleague the Hon John Luxton I commend this bill to the House. We will be supporting it. Obviously we have voted for it through all its stages and will be doing so now. It is enabling legislation. This bill when passed very shortly will require the Wool Board to present a restructuring plan to the Minister of Agriculture. The restructuring plan will have to be sound. I trust the ministry and the Minister to give it fair scrutiny and to address issues and concerns raised by other members of the House who are less confident about the future under the current proposals. 
Fledgling companies such as Canesis those on the horizon and some developed ones such as Ovita and Covita have opportunities in research and development and the promotion of new products as does the industry as a whole. If some of those companies come to pass I wish them well as well. 
I do commend this to the House. Many issues were raised and spoken about by members. The debate still has to be had and the Minister still has to address those issues. We believe that as a select committee we have been diligent. We have beefed up the requirements to report to the Minister. Those requirements need to be met and we trust the industry to do that. As I say we will be supporting this bill.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7307] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your ruling is correct and perhaps I was a bit remiss too because your ruling gave the impression to the member that she was required to ask the question whereas of course if she had sat in her seat it could not have been asked. However the point I raise is a more serious one. As members of Parliament we are entitled to assume that a question that is in Dianne Yates’ name is her question. I am left with the impression as I am sure the House is that question No. 6 which we all realise involved prostitution on which she took a strong view was not written by her. In fact I am left with the impression that the Government whips who are in favour of that legislation gave this question—which is very embarrassing to a person who was the leading opponent of the Prostitution Reform Bill—to her to ask in order to humiliate her. I would like an assurance from Dianne Yates that it was her question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was properly lodged in the way that whips lodge questions. I have just checked up and found it was properly lodged.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Independent—Disclosure of Correspondence with Speaker 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Independent—Disclosure of Correspondence with Speaker 
[Volume:609;Page:6543] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A report has appeared in the  
Independent  
newspaper today concerning a matter of privilege that has been raised with me and that is currently under consideration. Members are at liberty to release copies of their correspondence with the Speaker if they wish. Speakers have deprecated the practice in the past but this is certainly not the first time that it has occurred. However I would remind members and news media that the disclosure of such correspondence is not a proceeding in Parliament and is not protected by parliamentary privilege. This was pointed out as long ago as 1988 see  
Hansard  
Volume 489 page 4436. 
There is one further aspect of the public disclosure of the fact that a matter of privilege has been raised that I want to deal with. Where an allegation is made against a member of Parliament Standing Order 392 requires that the member be given notice of the allegation. The member has an opportunity to respond and is advised of the outcome of any consideration of the matter. Where a non-member is involved there is no requirement that that person be advised of the allegation and up till now the practice has not been to advise him or her of the result of the complaint. Whether there should be an obligation to inform other persons is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee to consider but I have decided that where a member publicly releases details of a complaint of privilege involving another person it is only fair that the Speaker should advise that other person of the outcome of the complaint. I will in future follow this course.
Simich Clem: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16358] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part. There will be one debate and two votes.
Heatley Phil: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12032] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 As the Minister said this bill ensures that New Zealand meets its international obligations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea which was amended as members will recall in December 2002 to enhance ship and port security. New Zealand’s obligations will involve assessing security risks for individual ships and port facilities and developing security plans based on those assessments. It will specify security levels at which ships and port facilities must operate maintain communication protocols for ships and port facilities prevent unauthorised access for ships’ port facilities and to restricted areas as one would expect and prevent the introduction of unauthorised weapons incendiary devices or explosives to ships and port facilities. 
The National Party agrees that such requirements would place New Zealand in line with accepted maritime security regulations and contribute to our role in combating terrorism. For that reason National is happy to support this bill. I understand that this bill was fairly low on the Order Paper so I commend the Minister for putting on pressure to bring this forward on the Order Paper so we are able to speak on it today. I believe that it will be passed through under urgency next week. Certainly that is my hope. Ports throughout the country are being required to file security plans with a designated authority. That will be the Maritime Safety Authority and we understand that. However as of today the Maritime Safety Authority has no authority at all to approve and implement the plans. That needs to be done by 1 July 2004 which is a deadline imposed by the United States and the European Union. Unfortunately the legislation before us today gives authority for the approval and implementation of the security plans but of course that has not passed. So we are in a sort of interim period where ports are quite concerned that they cannot actually move forward. 
 This has hugely significant implications for the New Zealand economy and the seafood industry for example of which I am a spokesperson. Exporters are concerned that if this legislation is not fast-tracked in time for New Zealand obligations to be met in place and implemented by July this year then we will have ships parked-up in ports all over the world having to go through long procedures in order to export their food. The European Union the United States and interestingly Australia have already got this necessary legislation in place. The question has to be asked “Why has New Zealand dragged the chain?”. In saying that I am supporting this bill and the National Party is supporting this bill so we will contribute to the fact that we will be able to trade with these international markets and that the seafood industry and other exporters will not be impeded by legislation moving slowly through the House. I commend this legislation to the House. It certainly has my blessing and the National Party’s blessing which will come as a great relief to the Minister.
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9659] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will come to the point of order tersely. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I am coming to my point. I am saying that the Standing Orders are being abused by members like Mark Peck who is in trouble in his seat and David Benson-Pope the member for Dunedin South—in fact most people in Dunedin do not know he is a member.
Yates Dianne: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11559] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barker Rick: Judicial Matters Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Barker Rick: Judicial Matters Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12863] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Judicial Matters Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20000] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Peters Jim: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17911] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In the debate on the previous part I mentioned to the Minister of Education that he was obviously waiting to put into practice those provisions relating to the actions of the present Teachers Council—a council that has reached an all-time low. But in clause 192 in this part I detect something else. 
I recently read a number of Education Review Office reports and I saw a trend developing in those reports that is completely contrary to the Education Act but allowable under clause 192—that is that a member of a board of trustees apart from the principal or staff trustee may be an employee of the board. As I understand it the Education Act expressly states one cannot. 
Recent Education Review Office reports on schools have outlined where a ministry direction has arisen surreptitiously by virtue of a board member. In one particular report express mention was made that that board member was being paid. When I searched through the Education Act and its relevant amendments I did not quite see how that could be and I am composing a letter to the Minister of Education on the very issue at the moment but now I see a sudden light in relation to clause 192. 
The provision says contrary to the fundamental Act regarding boards of trustees that such employment is possible. Not only is it possible but so long as the total value of the remuneration is disclosed and the employee is known payment is also possible under this clause. For boards of trustees that marks a significant departure and gives some legality to what was said not to be possible under the previous Act people worked with—so much so that the Ministry of Education has given advice to its advisers that they should not be on boards of trustees. 
This legislation goes far beyond that. It allows expressly for State control in the old-fashioned Labour sense. That is the problem with this Labour Government: new Labour and old Labour are all mixed up. That goes right back to the ministry having pernicious influence—almost by stealth as it were—over individual boards which now gives legality to those actions. Subclauses (1)(a) (c) and (d) in particular give that ability which is a significant departure. 
If that is so for boards of trustees and groups I know of in the education sector it will also be so for others. When we combine the trends in this legislation for State direction and control that we hitherto had not seen but that are now being compressed legally provision by provision and when we have the ability to pay in a way that before was not legally possible we really start to see—although I am not a believer in conspiracy theory at all—why this bill marks quite a departure from the past despite its ordinary everyday mundane provisions. New Zealand First will be opposing the legislation on that ground.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13520] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 28 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Report adopted.
Mallard Trevor: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12154] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a good bill and the time for its passing has come. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3846] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 48 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
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:626;Page:21056] 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Health Committee 
: Is the committee meeting to discuss the 2005-06 estimates Vote Health; if so when? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Chairperson of the Health Committee): 
 Yes on 8 June. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the committee had any advice from officials about the Minister of Health promising the committee in 2001 that the district health board deficits would be eliminated over 3 years—that is by now—and the budget forecast for the deficits to balloon out to $100 million; if so what will the committee do about it? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Not at the deliberations on the 2005-06 estimates.
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9954] 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 71 I want to move that members’ order of the day No. 1 be postponed until the first members’ day after 1 March 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are coming to the general debate now. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am aware that the Leader of the House is to move some motions a little later on that will have the impact of making some change in the order of that debate. My understanding is that as the Leader of the House his motions will take precedence over mine. If I can have your assurance that I can move this motion at a later time I certainly will do so but the reason for seeking to move it now is to ensure that the opportunity to move it is not lost. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will do it by leave now. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. We proceed to the general debate. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is just a very quick point of clarification: does that decision therefore mean that I cannot move the motion again at the time that that order of the day is called? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will consult and come back to the member on that.
Pettis Jill: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:8003] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Listening to the speeches from the other side of the House one would have thought that National during its time in Government had got the mining legislation perfect. That is hardly the situation at all which is the reason we have this bill in front of the House at this moment. This bill makes a number of amendments that will improve the management and allocation of rights to Crown-owned minerals. The mineral industry is important to New Zealand and it makes a significant contribution to regional economies. I want to say quite clearly that this amendment will not deny mining licence holders continuing opportunities to mine Crown-owned minerals and mining licence holders will still be able to apply for a mining permit under the Crown Minerals Act. I support this bill and as I frequently say the quicker we get it passed the better it is for the mining industry.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8737] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. Of course he has a perfect right to move that motion and that is provided for in that Speaker’s ruling. I am bound by the Speakers’ rulings of this House and when they go back over 112 years then I think that that indicates that there was good reason for them then and good reason for them to be continued now. That is where the matter must rest.
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6635] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say this to the member. I did not suspend the member for any reason other than his disobeying the instruction of the Chair. I did not want to name the member—I do not ever like naming any member in this House. I asked him to be seated and to cease interjecting and he did not. I gave him a second chance; he did not. I gave him a third chance and at that point I did name him. As far as the quality of the answer was concerned or anything like that that was not the issue on this occasion. I said that the Minister had addressed the question and that is it.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7337] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended stand part. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Worth Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Worth Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17175] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
:  
It is sobering to reflect on how it is that we are debating the Foreshore and Seabed Bill because it arises out of judicial activism of the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal had followed the course that has been generally followed for judges who seek substantive law change then these issues that have confronted us in urgency for the last 2 days would never have arisen. What has happened in the past where the judges have found that the law is unsatisfactory is that they have quite simply said that the law requires change and that that is a matter for the legislature. But they chose not to exercise that option and that is why with others I have expressed doubt about the wisdom of the new Supreme Court. The new court gives the judges the possibility of yielding to the temptation of judicial creativity. The law had been settled and well known for a number of years. It was crystal clear that the Crown owned the foreshore and the seabed.  
The Court of Appeal sought to meddle in that unwisely—very unwisely with the benefit of hindsight because it has plunged this House and this Committee into turmoil for almost 2½ years. So I say to members that the outcome of a process that we have embarked upon with this bill will be to raise the expectations both of Maori and non-Maori in such a way that those hopes will certainly not be realised—will certainly be dashed.  
Why do I say that? Well one looks at the threshold tests in Part 3 which we have debated clause by clause in the Committee stage. One looks at Part 4 which reeks of political correctness. This process that the Government has set in Part 4 to allow non-Maori groups to assert claims for customary rights is impossible. It is impossible of realisation. That is why as we talk about the title—the “Foreshore and Seabed Bill”—I suggest that it would be better named the “Floor Show and Seabed Bill.” because it is on any view a fiasco.  
Customary rights should have been recognised as they have been in the context of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. They should not be the subject of a process where the courts of record have to decide tricky and near-impossible issues of tikanga Maori against the background of showing uninterrupted possession since 1840. It is a wholly unsatisfactory circumstance. It has also in this Chamber pitted Maori against non-Maori. That is doubly unfortunate for no one should deny the strength and the need to preserve Maori culture and language. But we have moved on from that. We have moved on to a position of seeking to codify property rights.  
I listened with interest to what the chairman of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee Russell Fairbrother had to say on that issue. He saw this bill as simply being about the codifying of property rights. But it is far more than that. The codification process is not a process that will provide certainty. It will instead provide I think for all of us a degree of division that should surely have been avoided.
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11190] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention when this debate has concluded to recommend to the House that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. As the House is aware a Statutes Amendment Bill is a useful annual vehicle for making technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It allows minor amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all parties in the Parliament. 
This bill as introduced amends 20 Acts administered in eight different departments and the proposed amendments include: an amendment to the Conservation Act to set out approval process for the transfer or release of aquatic life into fresh water; an amendment to the Maritime Transport Act to clarify the civil liability of certain persons in relation to the pollution of the marine environment; an amendment to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act to change the name of the Residual Health Management Unit to the Crown Health Financing Agency; and an amendment to the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act to correct an omission in that Act thatdid not revoke the reserve status of a settlement site. 
I have received objection to the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act and accordingly the clauses under Part 12 will be struck out from the bill in due course. I commend this bill to the House.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:609;Page:6945] 
Business of the House 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: Earlier in the day leave was sought and granted by the House for Graham Kelly’s valedictory address to occur on Tuesday 22 July at 5.30. I seek leave to change that date to Wednesday 23 July at the same time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. It will be so set down.