edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8487] 
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 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 100(1)(c) be agreed to.
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 33 in clause 12 be agreed to.
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4194] 
5.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Can she confirm that 16862 tonnes of pork 9204 tonnes of beef 2078 tonnes of lamb and 953 tonnes of mutton were imported into New Zealand in the year to December 2002; if so is there any requirement that any of this meat be labelled so that New Zealand consumers can know whether they are buying New Zealand or imported meat? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 No I cannot confirm exact import figures. However I am advised that although there is no requirement to label the country of origin imports are accepted only from countries that have comparable quality assurance programmes to our own. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree it is a fundamental consumer right to know what is in food and where it comes from and that it is deceptive and misleading for imported meat products to be unlabelled or to claim as this item does that it is made in New Zealand when in fact the pork is imported from Canada? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Country of origin labelling in New Zealand has not been accepted as mandatory because we have fair trading laws and I would suggest that anybody who brings in a substance and then claims it to be a New Zealand - made product would want to look to the fair trading laws. However when one does look at imported product and country of origin labelling it is rather confusing as to how that product would be labelled because one could have part of the product that comes from another country whilst most of it comes from New Zealand; how would that product then be labelled? 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why are New Zealand officials vehemently opposed to mandatory country of origin labelling and even threatening to opt out of Food Standards Australia New Zealand on this issue to avoid introducing it in New Zealand when it is such a basic consumer right? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have already addressed that issue. New Zealand has fair trading laws that are different from those of Australia. All products in New Zealand are covered by our fair trading laws so we do not believe that we need country of origin labelling because it is not a food safety issue. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What is the basis for the Government stating in briefing papers that “New Zealanders have no interest in country of origin labelling” when a 2002 Food Standards Australia New Zealand survey found that New Zealand consumers do want country of origin food labelling and will she require her food safety department to undertake a wide-ranging public consultation and nationwide survey on country of origin labelling before making a final decision in a few weeks’ time on this issue? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In January this year a discussion document was issued by Food Standards Australia New Zealand to examine the issue of country of origin labelling. It has been open to Australian and New Zealand people to make submissions. It will be considered in April and at that time we will look at what evidence is provided. If I remember correctly there were 18 submissions made.
Clark Helen: Personal Explanations — Question No. 4 to Minister 
Clark Helen: Personal Explanations — Question No. 4 to Minister 
[Volume:608;Page:5648] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 In response to a question relating to changes to the definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Bill I stated that “I personally have no recollection of either MPs or officials drawing my attention to them at the time.” Later in response to a supplementary question I stated that “I can find no evidence whatsoever that my permission as Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage was ever sought by officials on that matter.” I made those statements on the basis of my own recollections and a thorough perusal of the official files relating to the matter that my office had requested the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to forward to me yesterday in their entirety. The files forwarded contained no references whatsoever to the wording changes referred to. 
This evening a further document from the ministry was drawn to my attention. This was a briefing from the ministry dated 2½ years ago in September 2000 that sought my approval for the content and recommendations of the historic heritage provisions in the draft officials report to the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill. That briefing did contain reference to the proposal to include references to cultural and ancestral landscapes and to spiritual values. It is clear I signed off that report. While I stand by my earlier statement that I had no recollection of that brief I had no intention of misleading the House and apologise if that was the effect of my answers.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10470] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10629] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Fisheries 
: I move  
That the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by Monday 1 March 2004 
.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:624;Page:19303] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 29 March and Thursday 31 March when there are State luncheons for the Prime Ministers of Bahrain and Malaysia. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There being no objection that course will be followed.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16674] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Muriel Newman to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after the words “On an application made to it for the purpose by an eligible person” the words “having taken into account the default position of rebuttable shared parenting”.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
[Volume:607;Page:4291] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the nine Green members the wider Green Party and the thousands of New Zealanders who have been calling for peace and reason over recent months I want to record our grief and our anger at the attack on Baghdad that has just begun. Our first thoughts are for the Iraqi people weakened from two wars and from many years of sanctions that have denied them even the basics of life. None of us and none of those planning this war have ever experienced the horrors they are about to inflict on others. It is not within the power of the Iraqi people who will suffer from this attack to cooperate or to not cooperate with the weapons inspectors. 
Our second thoughts are for the systems of international law and agreement that are so seriously undermined by this action. The charter of the United Nations which holds that force must be the very last resort has been undermined. In its place we have a new doctrine of first strike without any immediate threat and without international agreement. I fear we are entering a new dark age in international relations which may undo what has been achieved with such difficulty and so tentatively in the last 50 years. I call on the Prime Minister to ensure that our frigate does not assist in any way with the US-led war. I would also like her to make our grief and our anger known to the diplomatic representatives of the United States the United Kingdom and Australia and to play our part in initiating a special session of the United Nations General Assembly to condemn this “coalition of the killing”.
Prebble Richard: Debate on Iraq 
Prebble Richard: Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:607;Page:4125] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I move  
That this Parliament recognises the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose to international peace and noting the UN Security Council on 8 November 2002 in resolution 1441 unanimously voted that Iraq has not complied with previous UN resolutions and was in material breach of its obligation and gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations or  
“ 
face serious consequences 
” 
 further notes the report of the UN arms inspectors that Iraq has not provided an accurate full and complete disclosure this House disassociates itself from the New Zealand Government’s position at the United Nations to oppose a second UN Security Council resolution and deplores the announcement of France to veto any such resolution and this House records its support for the United States of America Great Britain and Australia’s preparedness to enforce UN Resolution 1441 and calls on the New Zealand Government to offer all practical support to the “coalition of the willing” 
.
Hughes Darren: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12130] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the bill. It comes from the work the Government has been doing on the Review of the Centre to make sure Government services work more efficiently together. The key driver in this bill is to bring all the people who are working on early childhood education together in order to implement the Government’s very good strategic plan in that area:  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
 a 10-year strategic plan for an area of the education sector that this Labour-led Government takes very seriously indeed if we are to give all children a good start. I support the bill. It is about getting the structure around early childhood education policy right and I look forward to its speedy passage through the House.
Ririnui Mita: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12734] 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was on the end of the list for the Labour Party members and I would be more than happy to stand down from that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That resolves that matter. The list will be adjusted accordingly so that Mrs Turia will speak in the 12th slot.
Hutchison Paul: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3969] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I want to take just a very short call on Part 3. My comments are in relation to clause 20A “Racing codes must prepare statement of intent and business plan”. Undoubtedly National concurs absolutely with that. It is vital to be accountable and to have a clear business plan in mind. What I do think of huge concern however is the lack of ambition and vision that has been encapsulated in this bill and once again the lost opportunity that the Government has caused by not taking notice of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report and the subsequent working-group report. One of the points they did make was that whatever is done with the racing industry in New Zealand it is extremely worthwhile to go from the current 33.5 percent across all codes in terms of the amount that comes back to double that amount in dollar terms; or in other words to increase stake money from about $50 million to $100 million a year. While we absolutely agree with the requirement for the racing codes to prepare statements of intent and business plans it does seem a hugely lost opportunity not to have some objective purpose in terms of what we can reach. That as I said is one of the great lost opportunities that the Government has caused by not using the very useful advice of the working-group on this bill.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18373] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a New Zealand Qualifications Authority circular dated 26 January that promised schools their provisional results and interim statistics in late January. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mackey Janet: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mackey Janet: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17572] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I think there is quite a simple solution to this. It seems to me that the House recognises votes that are either cast in person or by proxy. I think that the Standing Order refers to people sitting in this Chamber and not declaring themselves for against or as an abstention. I believe that the House does recognise a proxy vote as being the same as the member having voted.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6449. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Bradford Sue: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15397] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation in response to something Mr Prebble said during his speech. He said in one statement that I have never worked. I take offence at that statement as I have worked for all my adult life both in paid and in unpaid work. If the member is referring to paid work I say I worked for 12 consecutive years in paid employment prior to coming to Parliament and I also consider that since being in Parliament I have been in paid employment.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Question No. 3 to Minister—Comment 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Question No. 3 to Minister—Comment 
[Volume:615;Page:11519] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to share with the House a slight dilemma that I have. I heard your comment after I left the Chamber that you did not hear me making a particular comment. I have checked with the junior Government whip. I have listened to the tape which has a number of my interjections quite clearly on it but not the one complained of. My problem is that it is the view of both Mr English and Dr Cullen that I made a remark. I have no recollection of that; if I did I withdraw and apologise. I think it is also worth saying that I was probably unfair on Mr English in some of my comments and I apologise for that too. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and there that matter rests.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17183] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7932] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just to clarify it would be a wide-ranging debate on clause 1. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Just to clarify that would be instead of a clause by clause debate?
Simich Clem: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Simich Clem: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14192] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Green Party members are next and they wish to have two speakers with 5 minutes each. The bell will be at 4 minutes.
Cosgrove Clayton: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20350] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill in its second reading. This bill is about transparency and accountability. The authority is a very important institution for this country. The bill is also about strengthening the public’s confidence in this institution especially in respect of investigations. The panel will be strengthened as other speakers have said. It will be chaired by a judge with two additional persons on the panel. The authority will have an independent investigation unit. As others have reported its line of reporting will not be to the Minister of Police. All these measures are not an expression of criticism of the current Police Complaints Authority; they are designed to strengthen transparency and public confidence in the authority. Some very very high profile cases have as Judy Turner mentioned been referred to the Police Complaints Authority. I think that with any institution there must be a perception of strong public confidence in respect of its independence. 
As we are speaking about the police I want for a moment to indulge the House to pay tribute to one long-serving police officer in my area one Senior Sergeant Geoff Kenna who this month after 35 years— 
Shane Ardern 
: Does he vote for the National Party? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not know how Senior Sergeant Kenna votes. I do not care; he is a fine New Zealander and a fine policeman. After 35 years he is retiring. This man has an eminent record of 11 years as Papanui sub-area commander. In 2001 he was appointed officer in charge of the district highway patrol and he was instrumental in huge reductions in the injury and death rates in respect of that area. Sadly because of his highway patrol role he is another policeman who has come under attack of course from members opposite including one member who occasionally resides in my area Mr Ron Mark. But I transgress just briefly to pay tribute to the wonderful work that Senior Sergeant Kenna has done. He was also initially responsible for the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill which was passed through this House. 
I simply want to commend the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill to the House. It is good legislation. It builds on the authority’s independence and transparency in the 14-year period that the authority has existed. The bill will strengthen public confidence in the authority. As it goes forward to investigate further complaints that may arise it will do so as robustly as it has done in the last 14 years. I think this is a good bill. I think it is supported generally across the House but I do not hold my breath to hear the speeches from certain members who will speak after me who will of course indulge in petty parliamentary politics and not rise to the occasion.
Yates Dianne: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11269] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 184 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Power Simon: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
Power Simon: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10744] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Following that contribution I seek leave for an extension of time for Mr Adams to complete a speech that was obviously cut short. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member cannot do that. It is against Speakers’ rulings.
Smith Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17423] 
2.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Is the Government intending to introduce legislation to allow same-sex couples to adopt children; if so why? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No no change has been considered at this time. 
Murray Smith 
: Is it the Minister’s view that those who adopt children should be in a stable relationship and if so does he believe that a civil union would be akin to marriage in that respect? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do believe that those applying to adopt children should be in stable and responsible relationships but there are a number of inconsistencies in our current adoption law that do need to be addressed at some time. 
Moana Mackey 
: Will the Civil Union Bill or the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill have an impact on who can adopt a child? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill contain no references to and therefore do not change who is legally eligible to adopt a child. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware of the statement by Labour MP Georgina Beyer that she wants new laws to specifically recognise transgender people and not just men and women in New Zealand; and is that the next stage of social engineering that we can expect from this Labour Government? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am aware of my colleague’s statement. This Government however is not involved in social engineering. I would say though in regard to adoption that substantive reviews of New Zealand adoption laws were initiated but discontinued in 1979 1987 1988 and 1990. One day we may be able to address that issue responsibly. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister seriously trying to tell the House that in the event of the Civil Union Bill being passed those parties—men and men and women and women—will not rely on the new legislation to try to convince a court that their status has been approved by Parliament and that that gives them a better opportunity to adopt children? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. 
Murray Smith 
: Why has the Government not considered the issue of adoption given the Government’s commitment to amend all remaining laws that cause unfair discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Our predecessor in Government National did ask the Law Commission to do some work on this matter and subsequently the Government Administration Committee has also addressed the issue. That work however is not on the Ministry of Justice’s 2004-05 work programme and nor has it been considered by Cabinet.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:607;Page:4838] 
Voting 
Correction 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The National Party wanted to vote one down on the last vote. Is it possible to correct that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take the leave of the House. I am sure no one will object. Is there any objection? There is none. There will be one less vote recorded for the National Party which will mean the result is the Ayes are 108 the Noes are 8.
Catchpole Brent: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6846] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: New Zealand First agrees with the bill targeting pyramid selling and with it broadening the target to incorporate the new forms of pyramid selling schemes that have developed since the Fair Trading Act was implemented. Such schemes include those whereby participants buy or sell an investment opportunity and use agents provided by the scheme’s operator to recruit other participants on their behalf instead of having to recruit new participants themselves. We also welcome the updates to the penalties. New Zealand First however has already expressed its concern about clause 14 in earlier speeches— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I draw the member’s attention to the fact that we are debating Part 1 which is fairly narrow. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Are we on Part 1? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes and it is the preliminary provision for the commencement. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I beg your pardon. I will take a call on the other part.
Simich Clem: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15139] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Any member may seek leave for anything. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.
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:6301] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “trade unions” wherever they occur in this clause.
Vote: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10327] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11920] 
10. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is it the Government’s intention to expand the use of the asTTle assessment tool beyond years 5 to 7; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. The assessment tool for teaching and learning (asTTle) allows teachers to assess students’ ability in core skill areas like literacy and numeracy and to compare those results with national standards. It lets parents and teachers know learning strengths and gaps. The Government has just begun the development of version 3 of asTTle. It will include numeracy for students in years 8 to 10 and will be trialled in 55 secondary schools across the country this year. Version 4 will include literacy tests for years 8 to 10 and will be available from the beginning of 2005. This is part of this Government’s commitment to achievable high standards. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What advice has he received on the value of the asTTle assessment tool? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am advised that asTTle is now becoming firmly embedded as a valuable resource for principals and teachers in New Zealand schools. It is also beginning to be used to evaluate professional development programmes and to calculate achievement gains for various teaching and learning programmes. For example asTTle will be used to gather analyse and evaluate project-wide data on student achievement in the literacy professional development project this year. It is a key part of improving standards and has gained international recognition.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5025] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: As per the leave of the Committee granted earlier the question will be put at a later date.
Copeland Gordon: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Copeland Gordon: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:625;Page:20182] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future supports the Government motion in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and the vote for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I take the opportunity to make a few brief comments about Vote Audit. 
Recently I was privileged to be in London as part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association seminar. During the time I was there a very important commission the Commission for Africa was announced. That commission devotes a lot of time to figuring out ways to reduce poverty in Africa including the write-off of debt for those nations that are now so indebted that they have no way of repaying their debts to the international community. The central issue that came out of that was the issue of governance. When I heard about that issue my thoughts immediately went back to events such as those in relation to Te Wananga o Aotearoa that we have had here recently in New Zealand. They really emphasised the same point: that governance is now a very key issue in the distribution of funds from a large entity like the Crown to smaller entities such as non-governmental organisations and in the way they apply that money. It brought home to me how important that is so I am therefore delighted to see in the draft plan for the next year that the Auditor-General intends to look very deeply and analytically at the whole area of governance and at how we can improve that in New Zealand. I think we need to take that on board. 
The second thing that emerged from that seminar for me to do with the role of the Auditor-General in particular was that we are very privileged in New Zealand to have an Audit Office with such high standards. That is not the case in many parts of the world and we do indeed need to maintain if you like our world-leading position in relation to the audit of all the Crown’s expenditure. 
This is a very key vote and with those remarks I signal again that we will support the motion.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16700] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Report adopted.
Cosgrove Clayton: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7777] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donald Rod: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading 
Donald Rod: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12271] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I draw the House’s attention to the time which is close to midnight. I seek leave that the House rises because it would be unfair on the next speaker to have his speech interrupted by the midnight adjournment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Dyson Ruth: Appointments — Deputy Controller and Auditor-General 
Dyson Ruth: Appointments — Deputy Controller and Auditor-General 
[Volume:627;Page:21810] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 11 of the Public Audit Act 2001 this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General to appoint Phillippa Catherine Smith of Wellington as Deputy Controller and Auditor-General for a term of 5 years. 
 Ms Smith graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a Master of Public Policy Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts and was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in 1979. She worked as a senior solicitor for Chapman Tripp Sheffield Young from 1989 to 1993 then moved to the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General where she was the Assistant Auditor-General Legal until 1998. She then moved to the State Services Commission where she has remained as its chief legal adviser. I commend her appointment to the House.
Newman Muriel: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Newman Muriel: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19714] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Standing Order 7 “Functions of Standing Orders Committee”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Energy Crisis—Management 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Energy Crisis—Management 
[Volume:608;Page:5105] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the management of the energy crisis this coming winter. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating a particular case involving ministerial responsibility that has already occurred not a means of debating a general forthcoming issue. As there is no particular case of recent occurrence the application is declined.
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10735] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Once. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Now you know full well that it is within your powers—and not outside the Standing Orders or any other precedent that I am aware of because I have been here a long time. I have heard lengthy debates on the Standing Orders and what they mean when there were just three parties in this House This is an open debate and it is within your power to allow a proper discussion of the report of the Standing Orders Committee which we are considering. To confine a party to one 10-minute speech when other parties have not taken their time in an open debate unlimited is by its very context wrong. If it is unlimited surely that suggests that there was meant to be more than one speech from any one given party in this House otherwise it would be limited. But it is not.
Goudie Sandra: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20943] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise the fact that I have been requesting a call for some time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member will leave it to the Chairperson.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: 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:9980] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to refer you to a ruling made by Mr Speaker on 17 September 2003 when we were having a previous discussion about this bill. At the time we were some way into the debate on Part 2. You may recall that on that occasion Mr Speaker was recalled to the House over a number of issues including the way in which the bill had been drafted which is not relevant to this point of order and the nature of the debate that was to be held. Mr Speaker ruled and I quote from his ruling that “there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate.” which related to Part 2. When we discussed this bill again at our last encounter with it I raised a similar point of order. I sought an assurance both from you I think as Chair and from the Speaker that that wide-ranging debate would mean we would have a fairly lengthy debate which turned out to be the case. At that time there appeared to be some confusion because I thought that the Speaker had said the debate should be wide-ranging on Part 2 only and if you check back over the record you will find that Mr Speaker when asked to clarify that point made it clear that given the nature of this bill he felt there should be a wide-ranging debate on each of its parts. 
We are now about to embark on the debate on Part 3 which contains a number of quite significant aspects relating to the changes before us. I am simply seeking your assurance that just as you allowed about 40 calls on Part 2—I am not trying to put a figure into your head—you will be equally prescient and fair in terms of the allocation of the call as we debate Part 3. It might appear on the face of it to be a smaller part than the one we have just dealt with but it does include a number of significant clauses. In fact I have some amendments and I am sure other members do as well that we will need to tease out quite carefully. I am just seeking your assurance that the Speaker’s ruling that was given last time—affecting both parts of the bill that remained at that time—will apply to the now one remaining part and that there will be as full a debate as is possible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I ask the member to clarify whether he said the Speaker’s ruling was from 17 September 2002. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: 17 September 2003. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I was not able to recall one from as far back as 2002. I intend to follow the ruling. Part 3 is a large and important part and it does insert a new part into the bill. I intend to allow wide-ranging debate. We will see how we go.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Urgent Question to Minister of Police—Shane Ardern 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Urgent Question to Minister of Police—Shane Ardern 
[Volume:614;Page:10437] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to ask an urgent question of the Minister of Police now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member indicating the subject? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and thank you for the opportunity to elucidate the content of the question. Quite clearly it would be a question about the extraordinary expense the police have gone to in pursuing the frivolous prosecution against Shane Ardern— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did give the member an opportunity. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is.
Vote: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Vote: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:622;Page:18022] 
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 54 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Appropriation (2001/02 financial review) bill — Third Reading 
Appropriation (2001/02 financial review) bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4221] 
Appropriation (2001/02 financial review) bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
O'Connor Damien: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16508] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11514] 
1.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: How many submissions have been received by the committee on the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 At the end of the closing date for submissions which was Friday 27 February 241 submissions had been received. A number of further submissions are being processed and it is estimated that the final total will be about 320. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Will the chair ensure that submissions are not heard in the same way as those on the original Employment Relations Bill when business was heard late at night and unions were heard in media-friendly time zones during the day? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: The committee will hear submissions in the way in which the clerks organise them. Just to give the member an assurance tomorrow Business New Zealand will be at the committee along with one union between 11 a.m. and 12 midday. That shows that this committee is switched on and knows how to do it.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:624;Page:19679] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to take urgency for the week. The bills for consideration are likely to include the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill including the Supplementary Order Paper relating to Building Act matters the Gambling Amendment Bill the Railways Bill the Architects Bill the Charities Bill the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill the Public Records Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the Fiordland Marine Management Bill the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and the first readings on the Order Paper.
Vote: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17792. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
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 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17777. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion 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 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18323] 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What is a priority one emergency and in how many police districts are the police meeting their performance standard of responding to 90 percent of priority one emergency calls in an urban policing area within the target 10 minutes of being reported? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The term “priority one” indicates that based on information available at the time of the call there is a reasonable belief that an actual threat to life or property exists. Police have advised that recent provisional figures show that six out of 12 districts met or bettered the target of responding within 10 minutes. That member knows that the average response times are disproportionately sensitive to delay in reporting arrival times. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What evidence does the Minister have to back up his claim of 13 January this year that New Zealanders are dialling 111 for a priority one call-out and actually asking the operator to send a police officer in 2 days’ time? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police attend to priority one calls with some degree of urgency but sometimes things are wrongly coded and not accurate. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Was the Minister seriously saying in his press release that there are circumstances where people who are calling 111 while their homes are being burgled or their wives held at knifepoint—qualifying as an emergency—are whispering down the phone that the police should not come for 2 days? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: People who make 111 calls should expect to get service. That is why the Commissioner of Police has a review being undertaken at the moment. The independent communications centre review panel will probably report in March. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister explain why latest statistics show that the average times for police to respond to priority one emergencies in rural areas have increased by almost 40 percent in the last 12 months? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The independent communications centre review panel is today hearing submissions from Federated Farmers on this matter. Obviously we want to improve the service as much as possible and we are getting better results and better resolution of crime. That member knows that because when his party was in power it did not even have a target—not even one. We put the target in and we are trying to get it better all the time. We want standards; they did not. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the latest financial review of the police which shows that even Government members have been forced to criticise the review for not including the appalling response times in rural New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.