edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Benson-Pope David: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Benson-Pope David: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17501] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to respond to the comments made by the preceding speaker. The first thing I say to Mr Peters is that this is not compulsory. One of the things that makes me most proud to be a part of this Government is that it is prepared to take hard decisions. This is a hard decision but it is an appropriate one. 
Jim Peters 
: Where’s the other bill? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I say to Mr Peters that I will come to that. For me this legislation is the absolutely inevitable consequence of the human rights and Bill of Rights legislation passed by our predecessors in Government in the 1990s. We cannot have those decisions on our statute book and continue to allow the discrimination that currently exists in this and related areas. In terms of the companion Relationships (Statutory References) Bill it would have been ideal to debate it in tandem with this bill. I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge the ongoing work that the Justice and Electoral Committee is doing on it. It would have been impossible given the workload of the House and the House roster at this time to do that before Christmas. I think it is entirely appropriate that the select committee has taken the decision—which has of course been its decision—to make sure that that ongoing work continues— 
Jim Peters 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I say to Mr Peters that the committee members are masters of their own destiny. They are making sure that that work continues in order to ensure that there are no unforeseen consequences of that legislation.
Alexander Marc: Third Readings 
Alexander Marc: Third Readings 
[Volume:613;Page:10172] 
MARC ALEXANDER(United Future) 
: 
I rise to contribute on behalf of United Future and I will take but a few moments. We will be supporting the bill. However I will make a few observations. 
One of them is simply that we often hear from the people of this country the claim that they need higher wages that the cost of living is too high and that they need more money to look after their families and kids. The simplest way that we can guarantee people across this country a higher living wage is simply to give them an equitable tax cut. No inflationary pressure is brought to bear in doing so. In most cases where a monetary increase has been given much of it has ended up in the pockets of—guess who—the Government. It seems to me—a very good idea in fact—that what we are talking about is raising the consumption power of the New Zealand worker and the best possible mechanism to do that is a tax cut. We can afford it with over $5 billion—if Rodney Hide can help me here—in surplus. 
Rodney Hide 
: Cut out the dopey spending and you can have $10 billion. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The member is probably right. That money belongs rightfully to the people who earned it. It seems to me that while we sit around here and debate how the cake should be sliced up how the money should be redistributed amongst the people of this country we are forgetting the main thing: that those people who drive the economy those people who provide the jobs those people who are creating that cake in the first place ought to have first dibs on the largest slice. The rest should be left over for this Government to use. In the past we have seen greedy Governments—not just this one but many down the track of the last 20 to 30 years—take a larger proportion of the gross national product from the workers of this country and use it to dangle baubles prior to an election. In the process we have created ever-increasing levels of dependency and we have marginalised families—one generation after another—to the point where we now have an intergenerational problem of families that are simply unable to be economically capable of looking after themselves and of being resilient. Unfortunately this seems to show no signs of abating. 
While we do support this bill and we will vote in favour of it I would just like to reiterate some of the previous comments in saying that down the track what this country really needs and deserves is the ability for families to be independent and economically viable and to look after themselves. The best means of doing that is to cut out the outrageous rates of taxation that this country is inhibited by and to give back to the very people who create the wealth of this country that portion of the wealth that they deserve. 
Taxation (GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill read a third time.
Hughes Darren: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4086] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 As the member of Parliament for Otaki I am very pleased to speak in the third reading of this Racing Bill. In my region there are a number of racing clubs that contribute very significantly to our local economy and they have been looking forward to the passage of this legislation. I remember attending the community racing forum that the Hon Annette King held in the Beehive theatrette in June 2000 and from that forum a consensus emerged across the three codes in the industry to have this legislation written. It has taken us 2½ years to get it to this point of the third reading but I know that the Foxton Racing Club the Levin Racing Club the Otaki Maori Racing Club and the Kapiti Harness Racing Club will look forward to using this legislation and its new governance arrangements to ensure great economic development in my electorate. I support the bill.
Woolerton R Doug: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4520] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the passing of this Wine Makers Amendment Bill which essentially is Part 5 of the original bill the Wine Bill. 
New Zealand finds itself in a situation that unfortunately it is quite used to as a primary producer—that is it is at the mercy of countries that talk the wonderful free-enterprise talk but do not walk the free-enterprise walk. Those countries impose every regulation upon us that they possibly can—essentially to put up what we have come to call “non-tariff barriers” to exports from our country or imports to theirs. We believe that this regulation is another one of those barriers and it has precipitated the need for this bill. We cannot do anything about that; what we think has nothing to do with it—the European Union decides and has the right to decide what it imports into those countries. It puts these things in place and we simply have to go along with them. 
The current chairman of the Primary Production Committee Mr David Carter said that the main Wine Bill would come along some time later and he referred to a number of submissions that had been made on that bill. One of the things that we have noticed is that a lot of them surround what winemakers see as the excess regulation that is to be imposed upon them. Unfortunately that is the way of the world. We have lived through a couple of administrations in this country that have tried to tell us that that is not so—that we could do whatever we wanted to do and the market would prevail. But that is not the way it is in the countries we export to and we are having to fall into line with that. In its formative years many years ago the wine industry was largely able to get its act together within a reasonably benign environment but it is when the wine industry expands and comes to exporting that we find ourselves up against the cold harsh realities of the wide world. That is what has happened here. 
I do not want to bring you into the debate Mr Speaker but I know that you have an interest in this subject yourself and are regarded as somewhat of a connoisseur. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I most certainly do. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Mr Gerard Eckhoff who is a member of the select committee takes exception to any of those nasty commercial imperatives being put upon wine. He believes that the winemakers’ art is just that. 
Darren Hughes 
: He thinks it is spiritual. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: It is almost a spiritual experience. Mr Eckhoff speaks about a lot of wines that I do not know the name of. I am sure they are very expensive and very nice wines but I do not see this business in quite that light. I am sorry to disappoint the member on that. This is an export business and like most of our successful export businesses it is based on the land it is commercial it is subject to regulation and unfortunately that is what is being put in place in this bill. It is not what we perhaps all want but it is what we all must do. We support this bill.
Shirley Ken: Election of Speaker 
Shirley Ken: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18951] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 Madam Speaker-Elect as a fellow contestant in the vote for Speaker and one who was always extremely fearful of coming through the middle on a split vote it is with extreme relief that I warmly congratulate you on your election and wish you every success and enjoyment in the role of Speaker of our House.
Mallard Trevor: Building Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Building Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14747] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Building Bill that it consider the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Coroners Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Coroners Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18091] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask both members involved to look at Speaker’s ruling 49/6.
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18849] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I stand briefly to respond to the member’s concern with regard to the smaller claims being incorporated into the wider Ngati Awa claim. I advise the member that it was done upon a recommendation from the Waitangi Tribunal during its hearings on the Ngati Awa claim. It also acknowledges that although the Ngati Awa claim is separate we are talking about the same people hapu and land area. Because the smaller claims progressed considerably more slowly than the Ngati Awa claim the Maori Affairs Committee decided to continue to support their inclusion in the wider Ngati Awa claim.
Perry Edwin: Standing Orders 
Perry Edwin: Standing Orders 
[Volume:627;Page:22363] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to draw the attention of the House to a very important part of the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill. I have listened tonight to members from different parties reflecting on their interest and non-interest. But the amendment to the Standing Order reflects a very important part of the bill. The Standing Orders Committee received and considered four submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard three submissions. Hearing the evidence took 1 hour and 32 minutes and consideration took 6 hours and 52 minutes. If that is the priority New Zealanders put on the bill then it makes me wonder why it is even going through. Next minute nosy-parker parties like the Greens will want to how many damn cats we have at home. This is a ridiculous bill. A nosy party like the Greens should look at their own backyard. I just wanted to bring that particular part to the House’s attention.
Hughes Darren: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7063] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:610;Page:7505] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is intended to deal with the first reading of the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill the second reading of the Responsible Gambling Bill and to make progress on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. On Wednesday the first item of business will be the third reading of the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill and all stages of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill. This of course is a 3-hour debate.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
[Volume:625;Page:19733] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It may help on that matter if you were to tell Labour Party Ministers and MPs that when there are pressing issues of the day they should front up to the media. The difficulty is that the media cannot get to interview them at any other time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I remind members that those who make points of order that are not points of order come close to being disruptive in the House.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14042] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to.
Peck Mark: Third Readings 
Peck Mark: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17954] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 If anybody was doing an act frankly it was the last speaker. At this time of Christmas pantomimes and things of that ilk I refuse to believe that a member of his standing in this House could be so perpetually angry. It is Christmas after all. 
Darren Hughes 
: He used to be good. 
MARK PECK 
: Yes he used to be good once. He was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when I was chairing that committee. I say to that member that his acting ability is well known. He sits there with a Pepsodent grin knowing very well that he does not believe a word he says. There is only one thing that is making that member perpetually angry about this matter as with all pieces of legislation even with legislation that he agrees with. He gets perpetually angry about it. I do not know whether he thinks it sounds better but the reason he is so grumpy is that the only plank of the economic change of this country that the National Party can put up its hand and take credit for is the Fiscal Responsibility Act. 
There is a saying for people who are perpetually angry and acting up in ways like that and that is “Build a bridge and get over it.” It has been said in this debate and I agree with the honourable Minister in his speech this legislation is not repealing the Fiscal Responsibility Act at all. It integrates several pieces of legislation into one piece of legislation. I agree with the Minister that officials who have worked on this and Ministers who have worked on this including Simon Upton did a remarkably good job in putting into place legislation that will stand the test of time. 
We in this House should not say that this legislation removes fiscal responsibility. That is irresponsible in the extreme. I know that John Key will not use those words. I listened to John Key and the way he has been performing lately. He is the only one on that side of the House who has any financial understanding at all and is making any headway in terms of the way in which he is running his portfolio. I know that he will not say that. I know that they are grumpy that Ruth Richardson’s legislation is now being integrated into the Public Finance Act but that is just the way it is. Legislation does not stand still and neither should it. 
I say to members of the National Party that it is Christmas. For crying out loud stop the act stop the pantomime recognise that we have some very strong financial and fiscal legislation in this country that ensures very clear transparency and let us celebrate that. We actually lead the world in that respect. I do agree with Lockwood Smith about one thing. When we travel overseas we get great kudos for the financial reform that we have introduced in this country. So let us not badmouth it let us celebrate it and let us all have a good Christmas.
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4451] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Can I make one other contribution which may well help the member and other members. I think it is highly unlikely that any member will be seeking a closure on this bill although everyone has a right to do so. Obviously if it went on until 2004 we may well be encouraged to put a closure at that time! I suspect that if members do have a contribution to make over the next two or three members’ days depending on how long the debate goes for it is unlikely that anyone will be seeking a closure. The member can rest assured there will be an opportunity to make contributions if members wish.
Hunt Jonathan: Third Readings 
Hunt Jonathan: Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14134] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the third reading I want to advise members that I will put each bill separately at the end of the debate.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19195] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Goods and Services Tax Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven   
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher   
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei   
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes   
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams   
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole   
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell   
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time.
Benson-Pope David: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7367] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of the third reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill and I know that the New Zealand community will overwhelmingly welcome the opportunity it presents for more efficient reorganisation of the public service. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How do you know? 
Peter Brown 
: Tell us why you’re doing it. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Indeed I say to those members interjecting from the Opposition benches that they could well follow the same path with some more efficient reorganisation within their own National Party structure. Of course they would need to maintain fairness towards employees which is a problem they have. 
The New Zealand community will also be pleased at the savings in public money through the reduction of the unnecessary technical redundancy provision. Nothing has made more of a nonsense of our redundancy laws than those people who pick up repeated redundancies when there has been a technical shift only. For that reason alone I am please to commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8090] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 122 in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 16(2)(b)(i) be agreed to.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17627] 
3.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has he received any reports on the implementation of the Holidays Act 2003? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Labour 
: Yes he has seen reports that the Act is shambolic and that a fourth week of annual leave is “a massive cost to New Zealand employers and workers”. Those comments were made by Don Brash 3½ months ago. Dr Brash also committed National to repealing the Act “once we are in office”. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports on the Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes because he has to keep up with these things almost day by day. The Minister has now seen reports stating that Dr Brash supports keeping the entitlement to a fourth week of leave. As we approach the summer recess it is clear that National is in a state of free-falling flip-flop flap. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why does the Government not allow workers to freely negotiate with employers to either work the fourth week—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not ever going to have anyone in the gallery at any stage participating in the proceedings of this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It was him—David Benson-Pope. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Was the member displaying a sign during the asking of a question? Was the member doing that? He will leave the Chamber. 
Hon David Benson-Pope withdrew from the Chamber. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I will start again. Why does the Government not allow workers to freely negotiate to either work the fourth week or take it as leave given that the entire cost of the additional fourth week will be reflected in lower wages than otherwise would be the case? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: For exactly the same reason. Throughout history there has always been a need for statutory minima because the member’s notion of what is freely negotiated often does not apply to some workers. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Can the Minister confirm that the estimated cost to the health sector alone is $18 million to $20 million; and what is the total cost to the public sector of the Holidays Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A variety of estimates has been used and in fact there is no reliable estimate at this stage in terms of the health sector. 
Deborah Coddington 
: In respect of a small business who does the Minister think will end up paying for that extra week and what is his estimate of the cost to small businesses in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At the end of the day the cost of any change such as this is spread across the entire economy not in the particular area where it falls.
Simich Clem: Estimates Debate —  
Simich Clem: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7170] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question now is that Vote Revenue stand part. Those who are of that opinion should please say “Aye”— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think you were going to ask whether the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee wanted to speak first. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Vote Finance and Vote Revenue were debated together but I am putting the votes separately. This is not a new vote. The debate on Vote Revenue was held in conjunction with Vote Finance as the member would have picked up from most debaters— 
Rodney Hide 
: No it wasn’t. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes it was. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Perhaps I should advise that Mr Hide had indicated he would take a call on this vote. I therefore seek leave for him to be able to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6901] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; 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 11 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b)(iv) of section 2(1) from the definition of  
goods 
.
Hartley Ann: General Debates 
Hartley Ann: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11931] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. That is absolutely irrelevant. The Minister called for a point of order. The rule is very clear that there is to be silence during points of order but that is when Mr Brownlee spoke. Therefore your point is not a point of order.
Parker David: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6885] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Police 111 System—Review 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Police 111 System—Review 
[Volume:625;Page:20457] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the release of the New Zealand Police Communications Centres Service Centre independent external review. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and because of the public interest in this matter I consider it does require the immediate attention of the House. I therefore call on the member to move the motion.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21213] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15001] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 246 be referred back to the Primary Production Committee for further consideration. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16445] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table minutes of the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee which show that a lot of members have not read the clinical data due to the short notice. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table an article pointing out that the Chiron Corporation’s manufacturing licence has been suspended in the UK for violations of good manufacturing practice and in America. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order —  
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order —  
[Volume:620;Page:16082] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will certainly do that but it is up to Ministers as to who are their advisers on a bill.
Robertson H V Ross: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3821] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I put the next amendment I need to inform members that Katherine Rich had put an amendment to clause 33(1) to insert words after “the shareholding Minister”. That amendment is now out of order because the amendment from Stephen Franks has been agreed to so the amendment is inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 33 be agreed to:  
to amend subclause (1) by adding the following paragraph: 
(d)performance of any employee.
Vote: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17791. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 5) 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.
Visitors — Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council 
Visitors — Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council 
[Volume:610;Page:7633] 
Wednesday 6 August 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that the Hon Mr Ahmed Qurie Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon Mr Ahmed Qurie accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6902] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 80 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10642] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
:  
Unlike the personal comments that have dotted some of the Opposition’s comments on this bill I rise to support my colleague whom I regard as an excellent Minister of Education. He is a Minister who has made a really positive difference to literacy and numeracy in the early years as all the testing will show members and therefore I support this bill.
Prebble Richard: Voting — Correction 
Prebble Richard: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:617;Page:13144] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave at the first available opportunity to ask the House to allow the ACT party to correct its vote last night on the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill from 7 votes to 6 votes. I apologise to the House for the error. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure no one will object to that being done. The vote will be so changed and I thank the member.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20156] 
8.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Was she advised by the Attorney-General that a letter had been sent from the Attorney-General to then Police Commissioner Peter Doone’s lawyer on 12 January 2000; if so what was the purpose of that letter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes the letter set out the ministerial concerns about the Government’s ability to retain confidence in Mr Doone as Commissioner of Police and offered Mr Doone an opportunity to respond. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she not accept that her obligation following the Attorney-General’s letter was to preside over a proper process to determine whether the Government had confidence in the highest-serving officer of the New Zealand Police; if so why did she sully and undermine that process by leaking material about Mr Doone to a national newspaper especially when the assertions she leaked were wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There was a proper process and the Government’s course of action was in no way impacted on by any media reporting which had of course been ongoing since early December. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she consider her behaviour in providing incorrect information to a national newspaper right in the middle of a ministerial consideration of Mr Doone’s future as police commissioner to have been appropriate or ethical and was not her anonymous verification designed to publicly kneecap Mr Doone? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not believe that incorrect information was provided. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Attorney-General’s letter outlined that Ministers were considering public perceptions of Police Commissioner Doone’s actions and can she tell the House precisely what she expected to achieve from her encouragement of the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 story about Mr Doone if it was not to actually shape public perceptions in relation to Mr Doone? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The issue of perception was specifically addressed in the report of the Police Complaints Authority. It was that on which the Attorney-General would have based her letter. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the Attorney-General’s letter of 12 January 2000 in which the point is made clearly that one of the questions that was being addressed was public perceptions of the commissioner. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Motions — Privileges Committee Proceedings—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Motions — Privileges Committee Proceedings—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:611;Page:8740] 
Motions 
Privileges Committee Proceedings—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to move as a non-debatable motion members’ motion No. 3 in my name “That this House instruct the Privileges Committee to monitor the proceedings against Hon Dr Nick Smith in respect of alleged contempt of the Family Court so as to ensure that the freedom of speech of members of this House is fully protected …”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to move that motion without debate. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No leave is either granted or not granted. Is there any objection? There is. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I support the motion proposed by Stephen Franks because it is the view of United Future that it is a matter of importance. I seek leave for the matter to be debated by the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the matter to be debated by the House. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10320] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to schedule 2 be agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19305] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I assure Mr Gerry Brownlee that it is not a fire alarm; it is called a general election and those Maori MPs are busy trying to get back some votes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 2.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new clause 11A be agreed to.
Peck Mark: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11572] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 There was one serious matter raised during the debate that I felt should— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I thought I raised at least three. 
MARK PECK 
: I really appreciated the member’s contribution to the debate but the Hon Richard Prebble raised a serious matter concerning a redundancy agreement being negotiated just prior to bankruptcy or litigation. I am advised by the officials that the law is not clear but it is unlikely that the payment could be challenged by the liquidator or official assignee on the basis that it was giving an unfair advantage to the employee because the employer would not be a creditor at the time the contract was negotiated. 
However I draw members’ attention to clause 5(7) which deals with the definition of who is an employee and who is not. It is quite clear that in any such circumstances the employee must be a genuine employee hired by an employer “to do any work for hire or reward under a contract of service”. So in the situation of it being alleged that a form of insider trading could have been entered into—to assist employees and disadvantage other creditors—the question would have to be asked why a company would want to do that particularly in the light of it not having had a redundancy agreement in the past. Most particularly it would be unable to assist anybody who had any interest in the ongoing nature of the business especially shareholders family members directors or the like.
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Standing Order 366 
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Standing Order 366 
[Volume:627;Page:22163] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would be obliged if you could also look at exactly the same issue in relation to questions for written answer Nos 8409 8412 and 8431 in which the Minister was asked about his response and his interest in self-defence in the exercise of citizen powers to help apprehend people and advised that it has not been possible to obtain the information required to enable him to respond to the question by due date. These are questions about his own actions and they did not require anyone else’s information. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I will look into the matter and if I understand that that was the response then under the rules that is the response. It may not be a satisfactory one but it is a response. However I am happy to look into the matter.
Hutchison Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17352] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek a point of clarification. Yesterday the debate on Part 1 was truncated after a fairly short-lived debate. The Chairperson at the time said that on Part 2 which is clearly the larger part of this bill members would be given the opportunity to debate it widely. The Government has already moved one closure motion to try to stop this debate. I ask you because this is such an important bill and this is the main part to ensure that Opposition members are given an opportunity to speak on it.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21630] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 7; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10702] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Families Commission Bill be now read a third time.  
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5572] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not hear the Chair’s call of the determination but I do know that I voted “No” on the Nick Smith amendment under discussion and I know that the Minister in the chair also did because I was watching her.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9249] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise an issue with you under Standing Orders 22 33 and 397 that is of deep concern to the National Party and I am sure others in the House. That is the issue of a small article on the front page of this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 
in which you are effectively accused of taking a bottle of wine as some sort of assuaging of the stress or whatever caused to you by the hassle of three Labour Party researchers—Andrew Marshall Melanie Schurr and Donovan Ryan—undertaking a bit of guerrilla activity on the second floor by posting an offensive notice on the door of Shane Ardern’s office. The question we have before the matter can progress is a simple one and that is whether you received a bottle of wine from those people.
Business of Select Committees — Membership 
Business of Select Committees — Membership 
[Volume:610;Page:7425] 
Wednesday 30 July 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Membership 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Rod Donald to be a member of the Commerce Committee for the purpose of its consideration of the Business Law Reform Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I presume there is no objection to that course being followed. There appears to be none.
Pettis Jill: Maori Television Service Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Maori Television Service Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4922] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I remind the Labour Party that the idea of having a Maori television service has been around since I was in about form 2 when television was available to the masses in New Zealand. Certainly we kids from the poor side of town had to wait longer than others before we got to have television in our own homes. But the idea of a Maori television service is not new at all and I am delighted that we are now seeing real progress on the provision of such a service. My pronunciation of Maori words is abysmal. I keep working on it and I know there are a lot of people who similarly want to improve their pronunciation. In fact at 6 a.m. this morning I was watching  
Te Karere  
and listening very carefully. I am also aware from the other part of my heritage of languages that were dying such as the Welsh and Celtic languages where those countries very wisely invested time in their languages so that they would be preserved for future generations. It must be an absolute tragedy for people to know that the language of their forefathers and foremothers would possibly be lost. 
This is important legislation. I cannot understand the—I was going to say covert but I will be frank and say overt—the overt opposition with unpleasant undertones behind it from some of the members of the Opposition. We need to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is about reflecting the New Zealand that we want to see for the future. Our children support this kind of legislation. The things being said by some members of the Opposition just makes them look like dinosaurs. Let us get on with this bill. It is a very good progressive piece of legislation.
Hunt Jonathan: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7464] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As there is only a reply to come and the person is not present we come to the vote. The question is that this bill be now read a first time. 
Motion not 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:6284] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “1 July 2003” and substitute the words “1 January 2004”.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15085] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill be read a second time. 
Ayes 18 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3762] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (iii) from subclause (2)(b).