edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — Urgent Question 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Points of Order — Urgent Question 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6432. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Points of Order 
Urgent Question 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that an urgent question was lodged by the National Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes there was. It was ruled not to be an urgent question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am sorry. I missed that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been ruled out as an urgent question. That is the end of the matter. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for some clarity for the future. The first point is that this decision was brought down by the court at 12.30 today. Effectively the court ruled that Maori do have a right to claim ownership of foreshores etc. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. This was a private communication from the member to me. I said no to the urgent question. There is no argument on that issue at all. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for a further question on the matter of the Court of Appeal's decision to grant usage of foreshore— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask that question. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22208] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Transport be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Vote Transport agreed to.
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10177] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the preamble be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Preamble agreed to.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11643] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Perhaps I can clarify the situation for the Leader of the House. On 20 February as would be well known in this House there were large amounts of rainfall and flooding and the alarm system went off when there was not a lahar. That was a failure of the alarm system.
Jones Dail: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7340] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I take into account the speeches that have already been made today. I note the comments made by Dr Mapp about New Zealand First’s approach to the earlier bill which I believe is now the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act and New Zealand First’s attitude to that. This bill is really just minor legislation which could almost have made its way through the Statues Amendment Bill if it had not been for opposition by some party. It is a nuts and bolts matter and at this stage New Zealand First will give cautious support to the bill going to the select committee and we will take the matter from there. 
Mention has been made of the Nuremburg tribunal and as a lawyer I happened to notice in the last week or so the obituary of Sir Hartley Shawcross. Perhaps in the context of this bill one could keep that historical point in mind. But from that early beginning we are moving on to further things. New Zealand First will look at this matter closely in the select committee and speak to it again in the second reading.
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:8777] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The problem we have here is that we had a discussion at the Business Committee yesterday—I cannot remember whether the member was there but certainly Mr Brownlee was—and we had an agreement for twelve 10-minute speeches with no variation. One party United Future had some uncertainty about its position and its members were going to let it be known at this point if they opposed this particular leave being taken. We had a clear understanding. There were no fish hooks and no “yes but maybes”. I simply ask members to reflect that we need the Business Committee process to be a good-faith process and to work and we need people to stick to what they say there for this House to run for all our sakes. I ask members not to try now to relitigate something about which the Business Committee reached a clear understanding yesterday.
Fairbrother Russell: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17063] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 That was a most interesting exposition of one of ACT’s views on this bill. The other ACT view I quite like is contained on page 15 of the report of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee where it states: “It is our view that this bill insults the rule of law by failing to uphold the sanctity of property rights …”. Well what is a customary rights order? It is bundle of rights. A customary right is a bundle of rights that varies from hapu to hapu from use to use. It is a bundle of rights that is non-exclusive and not necessarily territorial that does not require contiguous land and that requires physical activity as well as maybe a spiritual connection.  
The rights are in fact rights that exist and that have existed since at least 1870 in the case decided by Chief Judge Fenton in the Kauwaeranga case. Unfortunately by a drafting accident it seems in 1909 they were removed from legislation and in 1993 they were even further blocked by yet another drafting mistake.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17570] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Connell  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street  
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments to clause 37 in the name of Richard Worth set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 to omit subclause (1) and to omit and substitute words in subclauses (2) and (3) are out of order because they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee. The amendment to omit and substitute clause 38 in the name of Richard Worth set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 is also out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clauses 38A to 43 be agreed to.
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8885] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 During the course of my supplementary questions the Minister of Justice—deliberately I think—misled the House on some of the words that I used in one of my documents. He did not quote some of the other aspects of my document which included such comments as— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a proper way to do this. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I do seek leave to table the document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants just to seek leave to table the document he may do that. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hodgson Pete: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19817] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I shall make a few brief remarks. The first is that the legislation in front of us amends the Building Act the Commerce Act the Health Act and the Copyright Act. I am the Minister of Commerce and what is more I have obligations through my portfolio in commerce for Standards New Zealand which of course is the group that promulgates most but not all of the standards in this country which is why the bill is in my name. Secondly I thank the member for pointing out an error on page 15. It does indeed state (1) (2) (3) (4) (6). They are mistakes or things that are corrected as a matter of course by the Clerk’s Office and do not form part of New Zealand law. The third point I would like to make— 
Murray Smith 
: Mistakes mistakes mistakes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I shall say it again for the member if he would like to be quiet. I thank the member for drawing to my attention the numeration (1) (2) (3) (4) (6). I have checked it with officials. He is absolutely right; it does not follow but it is not something that needs to be attended to by the House. It is routine after the passage of law for things like line numbers etc. to be checked. They do not form part of New Zealand law but I thank him for drawing it to our attention anyway. My third set of remarks are directed to the member Richard Worth. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Dr Richard Worth. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not think it would be Dr Richard Worth but Richard Worth none the less. I say to him that the reason— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: An explanation is helpful. I welcome an explanation. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will get an explanation if he would keep his mouth shut and he will not if he does not. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I don’t think I need an explanation but if you must make it.
Swain Paul: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15604] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16574] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Woolerton R Doug: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7127] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I am naturally sorry that the amendment that was put up in my name was lost. I think we have lost an important opportunity to pause for another look and to have a further investigation of the common sense of the things that lie beyond this bill. However New Zealand First will support the bill. I make no apology for believing that industries should be controlled and owned by the participants within them. I know that sometimes these days that is becoming an outmoded concept but it has served this country well. I believe that in the guise of Fonterra it will continue to serve the dairy industry well and I believe that it could have served the wool industry well also but that is not to be. The wool industry is heading out into a brave new world and I wish the industry all the best on that journey. 
I want to particularly mention the emerging participation of Maori corporations in the farming world. At long last Maori are banding together under a corporate identity to participate. They felt that by their numbers they were outvoted and not listened to in the structures that have just passed into history shall we say. I know they will welcome the new world. I believe they could have been incorporated into a more cooperative world than the one that is going to be faced by the wool industry but that is not to be. 
I am sure that woolgrowers and sheep farmers right across the country will view the passing of this bill with immense relief whatever side of the argument they came down on. I am sure they will pick up the challenge that I laid out to them earlier and participate with renewed vigour to ensure that the democratic processes we have been at such pains to ensure remain in the bill are picked up and carried forth so that farmers have delivered to them that which they aspire to. 
The commodity levy that comes in will be an interesting test for farmer participation. There are some views around that farmers will reject it out of hand but knowing farmers as I do—and I am sure as you have come to do over the years in this House Mr Speaker—I am sure that common sense will prevail and they will engage with their industry and go on to the better things that this allows. 
So it is with some regret that I end this speech by saying that I would have liked to see a halfway house established so that another independent person could have looked at this industry. That was not to be but we will not be dogs in the manger. We will vote for the bill and wish the industry which is so valuable to New Zealand all the best for the future.
Cullen Michael: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17852. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill that it take the bill part by part 
.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:613;Page:10013] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill and the Children’s Commissioner Bill. If time allows bills available for first reading will be dealt with.
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15185] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. He is a senior member of the House and I recognise the points he made. There have already been four closure motions and 18 speakers. I had heard what I considered to be sufficient debate on the issue and the proportionality was in keeping with the Parliament’s overall membership.
Swain Paul: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12251] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:624;Page:19303] 
Thursday 17 March 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on 29 March priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill a 4-hour debate and the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Priority will also be given to any first readings on the Order Paper. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
:  
I wonder whether the Leader of the House might tell us how many third readings he currently has on the Order Paper and intends to complete in the next short while and also whether the much-promised Resource Management Act bill will see the light of day on the Order Paper before the House rises for an event later this year. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I have one third reading on the Order Paper and I hope to finish it by roughly 5 o’clock today.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
[Volume:608;Page:5457] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is a decision that was within the gift of the Speaker. I can do that but I took upon myself that I got a unanimous decision from the Standing Orders Committee as all parties are represented on that committee.
Hunt Jonathan: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4442] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member and I will be calling the Hon Margaret Wilson next I want to say that I have examined this matter and it is right outside the scope of the local bill. If it was a member’s bill then of course the member could seek leave. But this is a bill that has been to a select committee it has had a report and it has been referred back to the House. I shall have a further look at it. I assure the member that I will do that. But my first glance and my first discussion indicates that it is not possible to seek leave in that way.
Gudgeon Bill: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Gudgeon Bill: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17447] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
Tenatatou e whakarongoana ki ngakorero e whakawhitianai roto itenei o otatou Whare. Greetings to all who may be listening to the civil union debate that is taking place today. Is it not ironic that the opinion of the large majority of the general public has been ignored? Members of Parliament who support the Civil Union Bill are deaf to the cries of the majority of constituents. Is this democracy? New Zealand First has strongly recommended a public referendum but this so far has fallen on deaf ears as the Labour-led Government is adamant that the bill must go through. Others who have conscience votes in this House should note that if the bill passes it will undermine a stability that has been the foundation of this country. Moral fibre and virtue seem to be irrelevant and this bill will certainly erode disrupt and create a decay in the family structure as we see it today which has always been the hallmark of this nation. 
Those who are for the bill may say and think: “Where has Bill Gudgeon been lately? He should get off the grass and not bring his moralistic views and virtues here because we are entitled to whatever we want hence the Human Rights Act.” What about the rights of the majority and those people who are against this bill? I have always believed in accountability for whatever we do. I say that that time will come. I would like the public to know that this reminds me of the story of the frog that happily boils to death. This Government has slowly increased the temperature incrementally at regular intervals and things that were once not normal to our society are now gaining a foothold. 
 To the Maori members who support this bill for whatever reason I go back to the ancient proverb: “E kore au e ngaro te kakanoiruia mai iRangiatea.” The literal translation of this proverb is: “The seed that was planted in Rangiatea will never be lost.” The seeds are us gathered here today. Rangiatea is the literal place of heaven where we originated. And the proverb goes on to say that we will never be lost. Is there any significance in the relationship between this bill and that proverb? I would say that the seed is the generations yet to come. So again we should think about our position as members of Parliament. Those who vote in favour of this bill will be responsible for a huge amount of negativity just like that caused by the Prostitution Reform Bill. 
This bill is iniquitous and has no future in New Zealand. I am vehemently against it. Regardless of the percentages and the statistics that people have thrown around today and in the past and will throw around in the future this bill has no place in New Zealand. God did not create marriage for man and man or for woman and woman. Marriage was between man and woman and through that union came the children. For those who might think I am a Bible-pusher for those who might think I am following God’s path—
Cullen Michael: Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9966] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the second reading of the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill be postponed until after members’ order of the day No. 1.
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21798] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20979] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15200] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. Too many points of order are being raised after the Chair has dealt with the issue—and this issue has been dealt with. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. By your interruption of a point of order being raised by the chief Opposition whip we have just seen exactly the situation of the point of order I raised with you before. You totally indulged the Rt Hon Winston Peters on about three occasions and never brought him to heel. The chief Opposition whip raised a very valid point just now and you interrupted him and then would not let him continue because you said that you were on your feet. Why do you not get on your feet when other people make non – points of order?
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7636] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek an explanation in the light of your comments and ruling on this matter that you will treat all members on the same basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Absolutely. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I wrote to you in respect of a question about whether I had broken the law and asked for a Privileges Committee hearing with regard to the actions of the Solicitor-General. You advised that the Privileges Committee could not hear the matter because the issue of whether or not I had broken the law was nothing to do with the Privileges Committee. I seek an explanation of why when it comes to Mr Duynhoven and a suggestion that he has broken the law suddenly there is a Privileges Committee hearing and we are going down a very different course of action. It seems that there are two different standards for members in this House when it comes to the deliberations of the Privileges Committee and to your rulings.
Swain Paul: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Swain Paul: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7409] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 that the committee finally report on the bill by 30 November 2003 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).
Soper Lesley: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Soper Lesley: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22079] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise as a non-smoker who has many friends of a diverse age range who smoke to oppose this bill. This bill is plainly frivolous and silly in its proposal to make exemptions to section 12 of the Smoke-free Environments Act—which I remind the House came into force only in December last year and has been extremely successful legislation. The exemptions proposed would not work. They would simply be messy unnecessary and petty. The fact is that smoke-free laws are saving lives around the world without putting bars out of business and that is also the case in New Zealand. 
The Smoke-free Environments Act provides for the protection of workers volunteers and the public from the effects of second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand. No one who reflects on that fact can see the Smoke-free Environments Act as a negative step. The Act does not take away the smoker’s right to smoke but it protects the right of non-smokers not to have second-hand smoke forced upon them. I remind the House that I am one of the 75 percent of the population who are non-smokers. 
We are already seeing the success of this law with a survey commissioned from UMR Insight Ltd in April this year showing that 70 percent of people support the smoking ban in pubs and bars. Even smokers are appreciating the benefits of smoke-free bars and pubs. The survey also revealed that 42 per cent of smokers now support the ban compared with 22 percent in the previous survey conducted in November. Support from non-smokers increased to 75 percent up from 66 percent. Second-hand smoke is 90 times more dangerous than asbestos. New Zealand’s over 10000 hospitality workers face dramatically increased health risks from second-hand smoke exposure. New Zealand’s restaurant and bar workers face nearly five times more exposure to second-hand smoke than someone who lives with a smoker and they run an estimated 50 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer. The Act is a good one. It does not deserve frivolous amendment and I will continue vocally to oppose such amendment.
Burton Mark: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Burton Mark: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17100] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Simich Clem: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: 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:9986] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank that member for a model contribution in terms of speaking to the relevant part.
Cullen Michael: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20925] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17248] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) 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 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8226] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 249 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (4) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(4)Section 51 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (6) the following subsections: 
(6A)If after giving the holder of a licence whose licence is suspended under  
subsection (6) 
 a reasonable opportunity to be heard and after considering any evidence addressed or submissions made by the holder of the licence: 
(a)the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder has failed or is failing to comply with any conditions attaching to the licence the authority may- 
(i)cancel the licence; or 
(ii)reinstate the licence; or 
(iii) reinstate the licence subject to conditions: 
(b)the licensing authority is not satisfied that the holder has failed or is failing to comply with any conditions attaching to the licence the authority may- 
(i)reinstate the licence; or 
(ii)reinstate the licence subject toconditions. 
(6B)If the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of a licence to operate a pharmacy has failed to comply with any conditions attaching to the licence the authority may instead of or as well as exercising the powers conferred by  
subsection (6A(a)) 
- 
(a)impose on the holder of the licence a penalty not exceeding $40000; 
(b)forbid the licence holder or any person with an interest in pharmacy from holding any interest in or operating a pharmacy for a period not exceeding 5 years specified by the authority. 
(6C)A penalty imposed under  
subsection (6B) 
 may be recovered in a court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due to the licensing authority.
Prebble Richard: General Debates 
Prebble Richard: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8539] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone going up to talk to the Speaker on a matter such as what the order of speakers will be or a suggestion of that sort. But what I think I heard was a whip approaching you to suggest that you make a ruling on a matter of order. If someone wants to raise a matter of order he or she should do so by raising a point of order and there is a very good reason for that—the whole House should know what the matter is. If the Speaker encourages the two old parties to do that then we ought to have him back because he most certainly should not. If a member wants to raise a matter of order the Standing Orders are quite clear. He must do so by calling and saying that he is raising a point of order. He most certainly cannot raise a point of order by whispering in your ear to influence you. In this particular case you clearly took no notice which was the right thing to do but you most certainly should not suggest to members that they should now raise points of order by approaching you and secretly whispering in your ear.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6571] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is a point of clarification. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is it a new point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes it is a point of clarification and it is new. I am simply asking why a member was not required to apologise for an offensive remark. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. I have previously dealt with that matter. That is the end of the matter.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17718] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (i) of new section 165I(1)(b) the word “necessary” and substitute the word “essential”.
Shirley Ken: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19012] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call but I found the previous contribution so interesting that I thought I would add to it. The ACT party like I think every other party will support this legislation and that is why I do not wish to prolong the debate any longer than is necessary. But the Green spokesperson made some very interesting points. He made the observation that milk is actually a big bacterial soup—I think that was his language. He was dead right. It is also one of the most versatile products we have after oil. An enormous array of products is made from milk and caseinates. Then the member had a romantic notion when he recalled how in his childhood the milkman used to arrive in his horse-drawn cart and ladle milk out into a billy. It makes one wonder what part of New Zealand he lived in and what decade that was. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: It was in Australia. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Was it in Australia? The member has just revealed the fact that he is an Australian; that may explain it. 
There are issues of reality if one wants to trade internationally: one has to maintain quality standards and have a standard product. Whether or not we like it we should rejoice in the New Zealand milk industry—one of our biggest export earners a major success story and a key component of the New Zealand economy. But it is interesting to see the double standards. In order to trade into Europe we must maintain our standards; we must have pasteurised milk and everything in stainless steel. But the Swiss make wonderful cheeses and they make them in old wooden boxes with non-pasteurised milk. In fact they insist that the best cheeses need to be made in the wooden crates because the bacteria live and thrive in the wood frame that produces the cheese. If one really wants to make that top-flavoured cheese one would need to use the old techniques of wood and non-pasteurised milk. Of course one would then run the risk of listeria and serious diseases like that. Hence with our large factory production we cannot take those risks but must adopt standards that assure the purchasers of our products that there is minimal risk of pathogens—close to zero—and must give the assurances and have the systems in place to ensure that. 
The ACT party supports this bill.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15614] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 and Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 3 be agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13033] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The last amendments are the Minister’s handwritten amendment and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213. All those in favour please say “Aye”— 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. During the debate the Minister indicated an amendment to clause 71 which I have not heard called out. I would be in favour of that amendment. You said there was a handwritten amendment and if it relates to clause 71 I would like that put separately because I will support the Minister on that matter—in a reciprocal way you understand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It does. I will put that amendment separately. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to clause 71 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)In this section:  
bed  
includes a mattress;  
bedding 
 does not include a mattress. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 2 be agreed to.
Duncan Helen: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Duncan Helen: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7764] 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:626;Page:21191] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to take urgency. The likely business to be included in this motion will be the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises the Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill including a second reading of an Imprest Supply Bill both of those being of course time-limited debates and the remaining stages of the following bills: the Land Transport Amendment Bill the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) the Overseas Investment Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Tertiary Education Savings Scheme—Government Policy 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Tertiary Education Savings Scheme—Government Policy 
[Volume:624;Page:19374] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Peter Dunne seeking to debate a decision not to establish a scheme to assist parents to save for their children’s tertiary education. The application relates to a newspaper report that a scheme that was to have formed part of the next Budget is not to go ahead. Had such a scheme been announced in the Budget it would at that point of course have been a particular case of recent occurrence within the terms of Standing Order 373. But a Government deciding not to initiate a new policy if that is indeed the case is not a particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised for debate under the Standing Orders. The application is therefore declined.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10725] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How could Dr Cullen make that statement again as he did just before in a category of which he has some understanding without knowing at all what will happen in respect of these debates? He can shake his head but if we get to Government Notice of Motion No. 2 item No. 5 and it is an open debate then how could he possibly know that matters will be suspended at 10 o’clock in the middle of that debate? If they cannot get it done by 10 o’clock then we are back here tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Exactly. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Right then. That is what I am arguing and all I want to know is that we are— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We know that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is not what the Minister hoped for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Carry on please. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am trying to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know and members should not be interjecting. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: All I am asking is that we on this side of the House will not have our fair rights of debate proscribed by some desire of this Government not to face scrutiny tomorrow—after it has made the announcement.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13024] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 55 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 55.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16040] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 8 
United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 278 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to add new subclause 2 to clause 2A be agreed to.
Baldock Larry: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17986] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask your assistance in this matter with your knowledge of the Standing Orders but I referred to the report-back time in my speech and I wonder whether I might be able to move the motion. Can you give me some clarification on that Mr Speaker because I clearly referred in my speech to the fact that there would be a shortened process. If it must be a Minister who moves the motion I understand that but I am seeking a clarification please.
Pettis Jill: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4358] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 All the wittering and procrastinating from the Opposition that has gone on this afternoon is doing nothing to foster growth industry and innovation in this country. The most important thing we can do for business is to get this bill passed. Therefore I am pleased to support its passage through the House and I think we should get on with voting.
Benson-Pope David: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8468] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15276] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Hutchison Paul: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9535] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Have I got 2 seconds remaining on this extremely important bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member has 2 minutes remaining. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: —that was so badly handled by the Minister of Justice in an outrage of political process? Might I say again that here we have a bill on which all members of the select committee collaborated excellently in an incredibly sensitive situation only to find 3 years later the process totally abused by the Labour Minister of Justice in terms of bringing in the bill in the dead of night under urgency and clearly making a ridicule of the parliamentary process. 
Undoubtedly this so-called Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill is one that requires considerable care and thought in the way it is delivered. We have found—even in the explanatory note of the 44-page Supplementary Order Paper so inappropriately brought in by the Minister of Justice—several instances where there are serious concerns as to the considerations he has given to protect the public and has totally forgotten that the other vital consideration is care of the individuals concerned. Because of that it leads me to believe that there would be great benefit in the Government actually backing down and withdrawing the bill to allow further consideration and deliberation by the select committee. In fact I would go so far as seeking leave to ask that the Government withdraw this bill and instead take it back to the select committee where appropriate considered thought can be given to these hugely important issues. 
I was quite surprised to find that New Plymouth Crown solicitor Tim Brewer when he was appointed law commissioner in 1997 said that this— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: That’s last century. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It might have been last century; however it was 4 years ago that this bill was considered by the select committee and that is the huge inappropriateness of the way the Labour Government has brought it in under urgency. Crown solicitor Tim Brewer said that this was one of the changes to the law he was determined to promote.