edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Connell Brian: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16162] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 4 of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. I note that the Minister of Labour got to his feet and took a call regarding this part and I commend him for that. I struggle to find myself in agreement with anything that the Minister had to say. He stressed in his call that employment relations were all about balance. Well I agree with that—employment relations are all about balance. But then he lost me because nothing in this part is about balance at all. I find myself agreeing with the ACT member in that there is nothing in Part 4 that I agree with. In fact I am strongly opposed to what is being suggested here. 
Of course we are shaped by our experiences. I will relate to the Committee an experience I had with this type of legislation that explains why I am so strongly opposed to it. Back in the early 1990s I was working for a large financial institution in this country. We had a female employee who was working for the bank’s legal department. She was a lawyer of course. 
Judith Collins 
: She couldn’t have been a real one! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I suspect she might not have been too flash. But putting that aside the position as the head of our legal department became available. Those who applied went through an approved selection technique called targeted selection interviewing. The woman in question did not get the position. Even though every candidate had the same treatment and the cream floated to the top she took an action against the institution claiming that she had been discriminated against. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Did she have a form? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well she did not have very good form. That was the problem. 
Progress reported.
Smith Lockwood: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21416] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance as to how you are assessing acceptance of closure motions in this debate because we are obviously not allowed to raise a point of order when you accept the closure. Could you give us guidance as to whether it is based simply on the time involved in the debate or on your consideration as to whether serious questions are being answered because I think the public has a right to have questions answered. 
An example of the seriousness of what I am raising is that a few minutes ago my colleague Richard Worth asked for the first time in the debate a question about a very serious issue relating to the consideration of the World Trade Organization’s provisions for safe transitional safeguards compared with those in this legislation. The Minister chose not to answer a question on a very serious issue yet you accepted the closure motion prior to that question being answered and before the issue could be pursued by other speakers. I would appreciate your guidance. Do you give any consideration to that kind of thing or is it purely a matter of the amount of time you consider has been spent on the debate? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I assure the member that the time does not come into it. The matter is one for the Chairperson alone and I make my judgment according to the debate.
Turei Metiria: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18501] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to make a short contribution on the second reading of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. The Greens recognise that this is a very important bill and offer to Ngati Awa our congratulations on its efforts in getting it through as far as this. The Greens support the bill and we are very pleased that it has come back to the House and is able to proceed. It appears that the issues raised through the select committee process in the Maori Affairs Committee were adequately dealt with and we certainly hope that Ngati Awa is able to achieve its ends through the structure set out in this bill. 
We recognise that this bill and the structure in it is not what Ngati Awa originally wanted. It sought for a very long time a structure that would meet its tikanga while being acceptable to the Office of Treaty Settlements. Clearly this is an example whereby that office used its power as the dominant party to force its decisions about the most appropriate structure on Ngati Awa. That goes directly to the heart of the problems with the treaty settlement process: those to whom the reparations are to be made still have the least amount of control over the nature of that reparation. In no other system where the purpose is to dispense justice would such an arrangement be considered to be fair. 
The Greens are also highly critical of the Government for putting this bill forward as a member’s bill. After forcing Ngati Awa into accepting that type of statutory governance arrangement one would think that the Government would at least have the good manners to make the bill a Government bill and to use Government time to pass it through the House so that it had that prestige. That good grace was not accorded to this bill by the Government. 
However the Green Party congratulates Ngati Awa on achieving a settlement with the Government in these circumstances. We certainly and sincerely hope that this structure will provide the people of Ngati Awa with the means to achieve their aspirations for their iwi hapu and whanau. The Green Party offers to Ngati Awa our very best wishes for the future.
Baldock Larry: Tabling of Documents — Prostitution Reform Bill 
Baldock Larry: Tabling of Documents — Prostitution Reform Bill 
[Volume:609;Page:6543] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
:  
I seek leave of the House to table this petition which unfortunately cannot meet the requirements but does contain the signatures of 4624 individuals who are urging this Parliament to reject the Prostitution Reform Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Anderton Jim: Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22262] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14302] 
6.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: How is the Tertiary Education Commission assisting the tertiary education sector to support growth and innovation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Consistent with the more strategic approach to investing in tertiary education the Tertiary Education Commission recently provided funding of nearly $1 million for projects to foster entrepreneurial relationships between Auckland University and industry; a consortium to establish post-graduate qualifications of advanced engineering technical and business skills; development of in-work training within the biotechnology sector; and $1.8 million for information and communications technology at Canterbury University to fund a project to identify and meet current and future skill demands in that region. We will announce more of these innovations in the near future. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How were these wonderful initiatives funded? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: These wonderful initiatives have been funded through money from the Tertiary Education Commission’s contestable strategic fund in particular the growth pilot initiative. The Government provided the Tertiary Education Commission with money for this as part of its response to the growth and innovation industry task forces. This shows the importance of a more strategic approach to tertiary education implemented by an arms-length body that can make independent funding decisions of benefit to the country and tertiary education. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen a letter from the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee that states: “What is the point of laboriously putting in place charters and profiles and a raft of other accountability measures when the system is haemorrhaging dollars right before your very eyes?” and that: “The end result of this neglect and mismanagement of obvious problems is that the mainstream needs of tertiary education institutions will be postponed.”; and what comment does he have to make on this? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I have not read the letter. But if I had I would probably say to the vice-chancellors that the funding situation in the 1990s when it was being cut year on year by the National Government has been massively improved by this Government and that they know they are the beneficiaries for example of the grants that I read out today which would have been simply impossible under the National Government.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:614;Page:10437] 
Thursday 4 December 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the completion of the passage of the Holidays Bill and the Families Commission Bill. There will be the first readings of a number of bills including the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill; the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3); the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill; the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill and other first readings on the Order Paper. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Knowing that there are a number of bills on the Order Paper that date back to 2001 and in one case even 1996 I ask whether there is any prospect that the Government might take urgency between now and the lifting of the House for the Christmas break in order to get some of these pressing matters dealt with. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 If the bills have been on the Order Paper since 1996 they will probably wait a while longer without urgency.
Yates Dianne: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10111] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter John: Business of the House 
Carter John: Business of the House 
[Volume:612;Page:9337] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Despite the fact that the House is in urgency I seek leave for it to have question time on Wednesday and Thursday in the normal manner. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Event: Points of Order — Urgent Debate Declined 
Event: Points of Order — Urgent Debate Declined 
[Volume:608;Page:5164] 
Points of Order 
Urgent Debate Declined 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respectfully raise the issue of the National Party’s request yesterday for a snap debate on the announcement of the power savings. We fully accept the ruling you gave us yesterday but it has not been reported in  
Hansard 
 as yet and we have not been able to consider it at any great length. We certainly noticed that in the text of our own letter we covered all the points required for such a decision to be granted. We particularly note that this was a Government decision that had ministerial responsibility and was of such importance that it was given priority at the press conference. Further it was a new announcement and it was the first time that the Government itself had sought to ask for savings of any type or at any level. So we are a little perplexed that it did not seem to have the gravitas necessary or meet the test that you set for such debates to take place. 
We would respectfully ask whether you could give us a bit of paper that might give us greater guidance in the future as to how these debates should be requested. If it is a problem with the text then we certainly want to know about that but we would have thought that a problem with the way in which something is written would not alter the substance of the argument being advanced. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the way in which the member has raised the point of order. I made a decision—which of course I will not be reviewing—but I am prepared to consider it and give the member some advice. The Standing Order is quite specific.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8470] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14574] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I have an amendment to this particular clause. I am the first to admit it is probably not perfect and I am sure that members of this Committee could word it better perhaps make it a little clearer or whatever. However it is designed—and I am sure Mr Ian Ewen-Street will be delighted to hear this—to achieve what we have been discussing all evening: the question of fairness. We have had continual complaints from fishers that they have been shut out and will be into the future. I will not go through the names again; the ministry knows full well who they are. My amendment offers an opportunity in the future for those who want to go scampi fishing to do so. 
One thing is certain around the fishing industry—that is that quota will be traded regardless of what species is involved. Those who held quota 10 years ago in orange roughy crayfish or whatever fishery it might be have traded. My amendment which I hope will be picked up by the Committee suggests that when quota is legitimately traded between a willing seller and a willing buyer 20 percent of the value of that quota—and the value will be established when two people have a deal to do—should be made available to those who have been adversely affected. My amendment proposes to add subsection (6) to section 369R and states: “(b) The Catch History Review Committee must consider and take into account the findings of the Parliamentary Primary Production Committee and the State Services Commission inquiry into matters relating to catch histories for ‘scampi’ and determine what the most likely catch history scenario would have been had the matters of misjudgement and mismanagement for unfairness disclosed by those reports not occurred.” So this amendment is an attempt to redress the problems that do exist. 
I repeat in the not too distant future the fishing industry will languish. Indeed I am told that it is languishing somewhat right now. The cost of diesel for example is getting to a level where it will make fishing unproductive for a number of individuals or companies. They will no doubt sell their quota in order to survive or move on to some other fishery or into another line of business. Quite clearly scampi quota will be on the market at some stage and I think that if this amendment is accepted there is an opportunity of redress—or to add some redress anyway—for fishers who have been shut out and who want to advance their cause and prospects in the scampi fishery. I hope that the Committee will consider this particular amendment.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19971] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Carter John: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Carter John: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5727] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 Very briefly the National Party is happy to support this sensible bill. It reorganises a historical structure and we want to see it modernised. That is entirely what this bill will do and the National Party will support its progress in both the second and third readings.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20946] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2).
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3496] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Yates Dianne: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7609] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to speak in support of the second reading of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Although I was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee I have been reading the report and I was very disappointed with Mr Hide’s speech because he did not really talk about the bill. He talked about personalities which was disappointing particularly as the select committee had added a new part to the bill and there was a great opportunity to explain to the House what had been added and why. I was rather disappointed that as a member of that committee he did not go into the details of the changes made. 
Rodney Hide 
: I wasn’t there. 
DIANNE YATES 
: He has just said that he was not there which is probably why he spoke about personalities rather than the bill. I support the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9738] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 21 
New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 96 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15801] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well let me put it this way. The standing of my comment is as I made it and I stand by it. When I hear the member’s question I will judge accordingly. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rodney Hide 
: I am sorry? [ 
Interruption 
] I thought Mr Speaker that was the last time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no I just tell the member that he had not started to ask the question. Please ask it. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rodney Hide 
: See how they get away with it Mr Speaker? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister concerned will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Chris Carter withdrew from the Chamber.
Ryall Tony: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12864] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In respect of Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” the purpose of the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill is to facilitate the flow of information from the Police Complaints Authority to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct in order to assist the commission to undertake its inquiries. Evidence given to the Police Complaints Authority is subject to a general privilege in that no prosecution may be taken as a result of that information confidentiality is assured and the only exception is in the case of perjury. 
In order for the commission to fulfil the requirements of its terms of reference the Government has brought forward this legislation to lift the veil surrounding the authority and provide for that information to be made available to the commission. A number of changes were made to the bill by the Law and Order Committee and in particular to the definition of a “restricted matter” in clause 4 “Interpretation”. The change of most note which comes as a result of a point made by the Police Managers Guild is that if the commission of inquiry is to look at how the police undertook investigations in respect of certain incidents those investigations should be seen within the context of the instructions the investigating police received from the Police Complaints Authority. Without information as to the context in which investigations were conducted it is possible that conclusions could be drawn by the commission that could be perceived differently in light of the instructions. 
The bill as introduced proposed that there would be a blanket suppression with no transference of any document generated by the authority or any of its staff. That would have limited the ability of the commission to receive the information that would enable it to use that information. So that change has been made in the bill. The definition of a “restricted matter” was also changed to clarify that term to readers because there was some confusion that restricted matters may be limited to complaints made to the authority rather than any correspondence generated by the authority. So those changes have been made. The inclusion of an instruction communication will be vital so that the commission can consider those matters. This question is being taken as one subject and during the debate members of the National Opposition will want to cover a number of issues and we look forward to taking a number of calls.
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8794] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to join this debate and support the rapid progress I hope of the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill. This is the second time I have had cause to discuss the bill in the last 2 days. Yesterday good agreement was reached in the Business Committee to advance it quickly and now today when that agreement was welshed on by some members of this House. It is becoming a bit of a practice with members opposite to welsh on the undertakings of the Business Committee but I want to share something with the member opposite who by inference as good as called me a liar without breaching the privilege of the House. 
 I want to read to him item 8 from the minutes of yesterday’s meeting and I am happy to table them afterwards. In “General Business” it was noted that leave would be sought for the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill to have a second and third reading with no Committee stage in a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. That is precisely what I said earlier and precisely what I assured the House about. Mr Brownlee welshed on the deal because his colleagues put pressure on him which is a very sad thing because it was a cross-party agreement that we had carefully put together. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Oh come on! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Now of course Mr Mapp says it does not matter because they have been caught out with their nasty little tricks. It has backfired. I say that the good people of Christchurch should not be disadvantaged because of members opposite who cannot be trusted. 
Before I conclude I want to say that Mr Shirley and I do not agree about a lot of things but in his comments earlier he did make a point that I think has some merit and we should consider it through the Standing Orders Committee in relation to these sorts of bills. It is not that these bills are not important but they do perhaps belong more properly in the jurisdiction of local government. I think it is something we should look at in the future. 
With that it is my pleasure to support the progress of the bill. I seek leave to table for the benefit of the House the minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee meeting. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House and leave subsequently rescinded. 
Secondly I seek leave that at the conclusion of the second reading of the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill the House move directly to the third reading and that the question on the third reading be put without debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Robertson H V Ross: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5422] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank both members the Hon Richard Prebble and the Hon Roger Sowry who are long-serving members in the House. I understand what they are saying. I just have to remind members that the Chairperson is the sole judge of when the closure should be accepted. I have been listening and am listening very carefully to the debate and I will certainly take members’ views on the debate into consideration as Part 2 progresses. I might also add that as Chairperson I am not responsible for whether members or Ministers take a call. That is up to them to do so. Again I thank those members for their contribution to the point of order.
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10099] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall speak briefly to Part 1 to state New Zealand First’s view. New Zealand’s First’s view on this very important part is clearly that the money collected from taxpayers as stated in this bill should be reprioritised by this Government with regard to social spending so as to place greater focus on the real needs of New Zealanders. The Government should do that rather than spend its income on the different social policy that it is spending it on. 
New Zealand First calls on this Government—and I call on the Minister as well to speak to this if he can—to provide more economic leadership with regard to this part of the bill and to focus less on other legislation like the Smoke-free Environments Bill. I believe that the lack of an export policy providing tax incentives for exporters research and development and so on and the continued running down of the country’s infrastructure is very unfortunate. 
Jill Pettis 
: For goodness’ sake! Where have you been for the last 5 years? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: New Zealand First believes that the Government should be working on an economic vision that will help to lift living standards and provide some sort of future for our young people—and I just had to throw in the “young people” since I am spokesperson on youth affairs for the party. 
Jill Pettis 
: We can work that out. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I thank the member. But on a positive note I want to say that providing income tax exemptions for community trusts is a very positive move and that move is set out in clauses 5 and 17. There are provisions giving community trusts that are established under the Trustee Banks Restructuring Act of 1988 an exemption from income tax. So New Zealand First does support the other parts of this bill but we feel we have to oppose this part for the reasons I have just given. This Government is showing a lack of vision in the area of taxation not so much for income tax but for— 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s a very profound reason. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: It is a very very profound reason. This Government needs to provide vision for exporters because it will be exports that will grow our economy.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15605] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 40 be agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Answers Maori Language—Interpretation Points of Order—Minister’s Answers 
Shirley Ken: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Answers Maori Language—Interpretation Points of Order—Minister’s Answers 
[Volume:615;Page:11496] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to the ruling you have just given to the House but also to Speaker’s ruling 34/5 which I note is also a ruling of yours made in 2002. The difficulty as I see it is this: where a member responds in Maori as a member certainly might particularly a Minister replying to a question and the member breaches the Standing Orders in so doing—and the rest of the House is not aware of that and the interpreter does not make it clear in his interpretation that the Standing Orders have been breached—then as the ruling stands now we have an obligation to take a point of order immediately. But it might be some time before we learn of the breach of the Standing Orders that was not contained in the interpreter’s translation. What remedy and recourse do we have to raise that point of order at a later time when under normal rulings it would be regarded as out of time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Firstly in relation to that last sentence of course a member would be able to do so at a later time because that is an exceptional circumstance. I referred to Speaker’s ruling 34/5 in my ruling; the other matter is addressed in that ruling.
Tizard Judith: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tizard Judith: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17775. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mark Ron: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Mark Ron: 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:10007] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just confirm that the vote was 61 in favour and 56 opposed which means a differential of only 3 votes would have had a large impact. Given the closeness of the vote it is my view that the absence of one or two members from the Chamber because of the timing of and the confusion about the vote would have had a very serious impact on the passage of the bill. Therefore after looking at the Standing Orders pertaining to personal votes I seek that you call a personal vote.
Speaker’s Statements — Sound System 
Speaker’s Statements — Sound System 
[Volume:615;Page:10781] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Sound System 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise members that the new speaker system is now in operation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well we still can’t hear you! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can assure the member that the microphones are working—and I will make sure that we look at the other part of it too. The microphones can now be moved just slightly—and I emphasise ever so slightly—towards the person speaking. Mr Ward should note that he could move his microphone forwards. I ask members to treat them carefully because they are expensive. 
Before we move to the Prime Minister’s statement I point out that as members will know the statement had to be issued to other parties and therefore the Prime Minister has to read from prepared text. I expect there to be no interjections. In addition I expect the speeches of party leaders to be heard in silence out of respect. Of course if a member’s own colleagues want to make comment then obviously I am not going to stop that. But as far as interjections are concerned while speeches are being heard— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I’m a colleague and friend of the Prime Minister! Surely I can. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Prebble is chancing his arm on the first day as he usually does but I am going to ignore it. I just want to say that that is the way this debate will proceed.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17662] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Civil Union Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 65 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson 
Laban(P) 
Simich 
Barker 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother 
Mackey J 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Tanczos 
Beyer 
Gallagher 
Maharey(P) 
Tizard 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta 
Turei(P) 
Burton 
Gosche 
Mallard(P) 
Ward 
Carter C 
Hartley 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson 
Chadwick 
Hawkins 
Parker 
Wong(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora 
Peck 
Yates 
Clark(P) 
Hide 
Pillay 
Coddington 
Hobbs 
Prebble 
Cullen 
Hodgson 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel 
Hughes 
Robson 
Donald 
Hunt 
Roy(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan 
King 
Shirley 
Pettis 
Noes 55 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Oconnor(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock 
Field(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks 
Perry(P) 
Turner(P) 
Brown 
Goudie(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brownlee 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley 
Power(P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison 
Robertson(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole 
Jones 
Ryall(P) 
Collins(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott 
Connell(P) 
Mapp 
Smith L 
Copeland 
Mark 
Smith M 
Cosgrove(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
McNair 
Sowry(P) 
Tisch 
Bill read a third time.
Points of Order — Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Points of Order — Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:606;Page:3339] 
Points of Order 
Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to have the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2)—the dog control bill—placed as item No. 1 on the Order Paper at the completion of the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is. 
Questions for Written Answer 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order on which I believe a considered ruling is required in respect of written questions. Last August I lodged written questions Nos 7801 7804 and 7805 to the Minister of Education regarding school funding and I received those answers on 24 January and 11 February which was a bit over 5 months late. But the more serious question is that the Minister’s office chose to distribute the answers to those questions to numerous media and education organisations well before the Table Office or myself had received those answers. In fact I have an email from the Minister’s staff that the Minister specifically instructed his staff to distribute those answers to the media. I seek your ruling on both the timing and the appropriateness of Ministers distributing answers to questions to organisations outside of Parliament ahead of them being received by a member or published in the Replies Supplement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising the point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister of Education would like to comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is important that the facts are made clear in this case. The reason the questions were late is that the questions related to 2002 expenditure and that was not available until January because of course the year had not finished. When the figures came through and showed such good news in respect of improved expenditure for schools I decided that it should be widely shared. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: The good news is that some people will be leaving. I just want to say that that is a serious point of order and I want to come back with a considered ruling.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20262] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Pettis Jill: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Pettis Jill: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:4997] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18554] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise in support of the second reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill and in doing so echo the comments of previous speakers on the relationship— 
Stephen Franks 
: Including me? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: No not of that member; I never echo the 17th century views of the ACT party. When a party is polling at only 1.6 percent it is very difficult to take its views very seriously. After September we will not have to hear any speeches like that when we talk about important constitutional matters in Parliament. Most political parties agree that the treaty settlements process is an honourable way of getting things done for all people in New Zealand. I look forward to the departure of the ACT party in that regard. 
I want to draw to the House’s attention one small correction to the commentary on the bill from the Maori Affairs Committee. On page 13 it refers to 78.3 percent of valid votes being in support of the settlement in terms of the Ngati Awa voters. The correct figure is 87 percent and that is the figure that should be in the commentary. I understand that was advised to the clerk and to the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee. There was much higher support amongst Ngati Awa for the settlement—87 percent. 
That is quite a big figure for the ACT party to comprehend but something that shows me that this has been a very careful process between the Crown and Ngati Awa and it is for that reason that I support the second reading of the bill.
Tisch Lindsay: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16213] 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I have actually cast 27 votes opposed. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No vote is called until the Clerk calls it.
Tisch Lindsay: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19828] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification on the vote on Part 1. Can you please tell me what the vote on that part was? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 1 as amended was agreed to on the voices. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I seek leave of the Committee to put that vote again because National wants to record a vote against. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. The Clerk will conduct a party vote on Part 1 as amended.
Hughes Darren: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3947] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand in support of the second reading of this bill. In doing so I want to endorse the comments that Phil Goff made earlier in the debate. I was not in the Chamber for his speech but I heard it on the radio in my room. I thought he summed up the bill and the feelings behind it very well. I am proud to support it also as the member for Otaki—the electorate with the highest number of people over the age of 65 and therefore one containing a very high proportion of people on this war pension. The bill will make a big difference for them and meet the desire of the veterans’ community to have its entitlement viewed separately from the wider social security entitlements in the system. That is recognition of their special status as veterans and is an appropriate thing to do. I am pleased to see the bill going through the House.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4100] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 45 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.
Hobbs Marian: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18907] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Barker Rick: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14170] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 So we have the amendment to clause 6A the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223 and then a vote on the rest of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230. Is that it? Right. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 6A be 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:3763] 
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. 
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 Katherine Rich to the amendment to clause 21 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new clause 21.
Kedgley Sue: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5737] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this bill going to the select committee. We can see no reason that Wellington City Council should not be able to sell or let land other than by having to do so through a public auction. That seems a bit old-fashioned. But like the member from New Zealand First we have some concerns about the bill and we will want to address those concerns at the select committee. 
There is a little paragraph in the explanatory note of this rather technical bill that raises concerns with us. That paragraph states: “In addition the Council will be able to sell or lease the reclaimed land without being constrained by other enactments such as the Reserves Act 1977 which would otherwise apply as a result of the original grant of land as a public reserve under the Public Reserves Act 1854.”I have spent a considerable amount of time today trying to figure out why that piece of land should be exempt from the Reserves Act. I have even had a couple of letters sent to me about it. Clearly it is a very technical issue but the letters and the other documents that I have received ultimately do not seem to answer the question. Indeed they seem to increase the mystery surrounding why that particular land should be exempt from the Reserves Act. 
We would be very happy to let this bill proceed expeditiously. There may very well be a good reason for that provision. The people in the council that I spoke to today mostly did not realise that the land would be exempt from the Reserves Act. They were a little perplexed at that as well so I have not been able to get to the bottom of that issue. But I will take a great interest in the bill when it goes to the select committee and unless there is a very good reason for it I will seek to remove that exemption from the Reserves Act. I think the land should be subject to that Act as is any other land that is public reserve. I give notice that the Green Party has some real concerns about that particular provision. We have not had any good explanation for it and we will pursue that vigorously in the select committee.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8801] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to inform the member that I am the Speaker and the member will not be approaching that subject at all. I do not need any assistance on this. I have allowed the member to relitigate in a way my ruling and I should not have allowed that because there was not too much new in what he said. The member brought up Speaker’s ruling 114/4. I did not accept for one moment—nor do I believe that any members in this Chamber would accept—that the Hon Mark Burton set out deliberately to mislead the House. You all may have your own views but as the Chair I do not accept that he was in contravention of Speaker’s ruling 114/4. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What about 113/5? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is the one I quoted to you earlier so I was quite aware of that one. The Minister sufficiently described the nature of the document; he did not describe the status of it—that has been canvassed. He certainly described the nature of the document and anything else we wished to know. I am certain that all members knew that the document was if not the minutes part of the record of that committee. I do not think there is any doubt about that. But I thank the member for raising those two Speakers’ rulings.