edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12442] 
8.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Social Development) 
: Does she stand by her statement that “the more control that parents have over their lives and destiny the better they can care for their children.”; if so why? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Social Development)) 
:  
Yes that is a view that I hold. Children who are nurtured loved and supported in a secure environment where there are healthy attitudes and healthy relationships flourish. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister support the view of the Law Commission report commissioned by this Government which states that for Maori genetic parents have no exclusive rights to possession of their children; they hold them in trust for the whanau and the wider hapu and iwi? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Yes I do. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise how parents may best care for their children? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Parents best care for their children by loving them providing them with an environment that is conducive to learning and growing and giving them an appreciation of who they are and what they could become. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the Minister’s answer does she believe that whanau and iwi have the same rights as genetic parents; if not how do those rights differ? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Yes I do believe that the extended whanau have the same rights as the parents because children are born into whanau. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Associate Minister concerned that the implication of those views for parents who happen to be Maori is that their parental rights and responsibilities are under this Government significantly less than those of non-Maori parents; if not why not? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I am not aware that the rights of Maori whanau are any different from those of the rights of non-Maori.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:620;Page:16133] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the  
Electricity Amendment Bill (No 2) the Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 3) the Gas Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (No 2) 
 be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bills read a third time.
Pettis Jill: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4724] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I shall make a brief contribution because this is a good bill. It is in the interests of the New Zealand community. One of the best things we can do is to assist its rapid passage through the House.
Ririnui Mita: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Ririnui Mita: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:17191] 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 Given that this is the final reading of this legislation and it will shortly be enacted it is time for acknowledgments of various participants in this process. As I follow the Minister of Maori Affairs in this debate I want to take a few minutes of my speaking time to acknowledge the commitment and the dedication he has shown throughout this very arduous difficult process.  
Some months ago at the beginning of this year there was a huge call for the Minister of Maori Affairs to take the rest of his party’s Maori members across the floor and walk from Parliament. I want to say to this House that that was at times a much-favoured consideration. But we sat down as a Maori caucus and gave really in-depth thought to it. This is our conclusion. I am sure everybody around the country has now heard the speech by the leader of the National Party Don Brash. In the light of that speech they must understand why we did not cross the floor and why we did not walk from Parliament—because the alternative was too frightening to think about.  
So I want to take the time to acknowledge the Hon Parekura Horomia. I know there has been a round of acknowledgments by Dr Michael Cullen but I also want to pay tribute to all of those members of Parliament who participated in the processes of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee particularly the chair of the select committee Russell Fairbrother. I had to ask him earlier this year why anybody would want to do it. This is one of those too-hard-basket projects. But he was more than willing to give of his time and stake his reputation to bring closure to this particular matter.  
I also thank the Hon Dover Samuels and Mahara Okeroa. I also thank Dail Jones who represented the New Zealand First Party in the select committee processes. While I say he did play a strong part in bringing the legislation back to the House that is all I will say about him because basically the ownership of this legislation sits with the Government. No reira Mr Speaker mihi akeanaahau ki a ratau. 
[ 
And so Mr Speaker I acknowledge them 
.]  
The sad part about this whole process is that the expectations of Maori have been raised way beyond belief and way beyond what we as a Government or we as a Maori caucus could deliver. That has left a stench. It is the stench of misinformation and the stench of hypocrisy. Many people out there on the hustings were led to believe that parties within this Chamber could deliver on those expectations. Well this is the day of reckoning. It cannot be done. The Maori caucus are very confident that we have protected the interests of all New Zealanders and particularly Maori in terms of customary rights according to common law. Kia ora tatau.
Simich Clem: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17086] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This part includes debate on schedule 2.
Vote: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Vote: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6635] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Rodney Hide be suspended from the service of the House. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Question agreed to. 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.
Vote: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:619;Page:14984] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:620;Page:16163] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the third readings of the Holidays Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill the second reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill and progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Wednesday of course is a members’ day.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate —  
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7149] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I take the opportunity to remind members that the debate on the Appropriation (2003/04) Estimates Bill should be confined to the current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. The debate must relate to a matter for which an appropriation is included in the estimates. The estimates debate is not a vehicle to scrutinise and debate past performance—that is the function of the financial review debate. In general the purpose of the estimates debate is not to permit a discussion of general policy but to focus attention on the need to grant alter or refuse to grant particular appropriations. The chairperson of the select committee that reported on each vote may speak first. The first two speakers have 10 minutes each and subsequent speakers have 5 minutes each.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15950] 
2.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What initiatives would be under threat if targeted funding for professional development and curriculum support was abolished? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 If such support was abolished as some have suggested recently a number of outstanding programmes such as the Rural Education Activities Programme the retraining support for those returning to teaching and school arts coordinators would go. It could also include the Gateway programme which offers structured and assessed workplace learning for around 4000 senior secondary school students at 126 schools. That in turn would impact on our shared goal with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs that by 2007 all 15 to 19-year-olds will be in education training or employment. Gateway is an important strand of our strategy to achieve that goal as are Modern Apprenticeships Designing Careers and the new Youth Transitions Service. All require proper funding. 
Jill Pettis 
: What is the Government doing to build on the successful Gateway initiative? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Today we are announcing the 55 new schools that will join the Gateway programme in 2006. The Gateway programme currently offers structured and assessed workplace learning for around 4000 students in 126 schools. Next year that will increase to around 6000 students at 180 schools including Patea High School Cullinane College and Wanganui High School in the member’s own electorate. The last of those is one of a group of 21 schools that are the first decile 6 schools to enter the programme. Gateway opportunities will be available to all decile 1 to 6 schools in 2008. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is Government policy that much of the new money going into education is spent through the Ministry of Education on his little ideas while parents and schools are raising around half a billion dollars per year just to keep their own schools running for children who show up to class every day? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can only say that I think the member does not come here to the House for the questions because he has been told before that a good deal of that money is raised through international students and that no matter how much money went to schools schools would continue as they always have and that is to fund-raise. That is the way it goes. Of course free education is the policy of this Government.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation from France 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation from France 
[Volume:613;Page:10219] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from France led by Mr Renaud Muselier Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and accompanied by Mr Philippe Vitel President of the French New Zealand Friendship Group is present in the gallery. I am sure they will be welcomed.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19681] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker before I get to my point of order I want to address your idea of seniority in this House. If you thought that a member’s rising to his or her feet first was some sort of entitlement to precedence then obviously you would have called the last speaker before Dr Cullen who had already spoken once on the point of order. That is pretty obvious really. I do not want to be difficult in this House as some members are wont to be but I am bound to point out that we have a thing called seniority and that you should uphold it. 
The second point I want to make is that New Zealand First agreed to the House being lifted because we had in this country the president of the biggest Islamic country in the world. I was somewhat astonished to see the desire of one party which spends all its time talking about the need for foreign intervention foreign aid and foreign subjugation in terms of its policies for foreign exports not to have the House rise. I think there is a precedent for the action taken. It is a very unfortunate one which I think happened in 1904. So it is 101 years since it was last tried. But my real point is that if a party does object then the House should continue to proceed with its business. In that respect I think it is rather disappointing that the rights of the House as enunciated by one party—which nevertheless are still the rights of the rest of us—were ridden over in a very roughshod way. That is the point I want to make.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:622;Page:17373] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Civil Union Bill—subject to it passing the second reading today obviously—and Government notices of motion Nos 1 2 and 3. Following oral questions on Tuesday 7 December Kenneth Wang is scheduled to deliver his maiden speech.
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5511] 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have no option but to recall the Speaker. I move  
That the Speaker be recalled. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed.
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21301] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be noted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Report noted.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15451] 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Following her reply yesterday that Mr Lloyd “would not give the information” has she now been able to find out how many jobs have been created by Sovereign Yachts and does she stand by her 2001 statement to Parliament that “hundreds more jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of export earnings” were in prospect through this development? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The company today informed the Ministry of Economic Development that it currently has 75 workers and that it estimates another 20 to 25 are employed by subcontractors doing Sovereign Yachts work. It repeated its invitation to Mr Hide to visit. As to the second part of the question while the numbers fall short of the predictions originally made by the Ministry of Economic Development they still amount to more people in work than if the company had not located there at all. Of course since this Government came to office there are 211000 more jobs in New Zealand than previously. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she consider it a good deal that Bill Lloyd would get to pick up 10 acres of Auckland real estate right on the waterfront for less than half a million dollars and in return generate by her count only 75 jobs out of the 350 jobs and in 3 years finish off only one boat and not generate anywhere near the $600 million in export earnings that she promised in her speech? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is aware that there was a disposal process that was gone through with the Defence land: to sell it back to the original owners who then had an arrangement with Mr Lloyd. There may be all sorts of reasons why businesses do not grow as fast as was predicted. What I am confident of is that this Government has a fantastic record of jobs—211000 more since we came into office. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does she stand by her statement on 4 February 2001 that the Sovereign Yachts development “reflects well on the Government’s commitment to being active in promoting investment exporting business and job growth.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course because there are 75 jobs that were not there previously. 
Rodney Hide 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to Bill Lloyd’s complaint repeated in today’s  
Dominion Post 
 that the reason the project has not delivered as promised is that the Government has broken its commitment to him and refused to sell him more of the surrounding land for a residential development as he said he was promised—or does she think Bill Lloyd is not quite what he was cracked up to be? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not believe any such promise was ever made to Mr Lloyd.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18529] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there is no further assistance required. It is entirely up to the Government as to who answers and it has indicated it will be answered in that way. That has been the case for over 50 years.
Copeland Gordon: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:8020] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I too would like to make just a brief comment on the third reading of this bill. Firstly I acknowledge that New Zealand truly has a world-class institution in the Reserve Bank which I know has gone through a number of evolutions. I think it is good to pay tribute to the former Governor of the Reserve Bank Don Brash for his contribution over the years he was there prior to coming into this House. 
This is a good bill. It acknowledges the importance of the bank’s prudential supervision over the New Zealand financial sector which is tremendously important to all of us and it provides for a new international payment settlement system which I think is a step forward. So it is with great pleasure that we support this bill. We wish the new Governor of the Reserve Bank Alan Bollard and his staff all the very best. We thank them for the contribution that they make to the country.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7993] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table an answer to a written question that shows that Asiatic apprehensions for kidnapping in 1 year have risen over 700 percent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6931] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Commerce Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time.
Donnelly Brian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8858] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It was the same situation with New Zealand First because of the confusion around the vote. We wish to vote in favour of the title so could we— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I tell the member that I called for the vote on clause 1. Could the Clerk call those again please?
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12167] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17081] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 19 
Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 50 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “or cancel an order under section 48”.
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4099] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Dail: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Jones Dail: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:13839] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is an important issue. It is yet another example of how this minority Labour Government is trying to get yet another tax passed through this House as late in the day as it possibly can. New Zealand First will not allow that to happen. The whole country should be made aware that most of the Opposition parties in this House are fighting as hard as they can to prevent this minority Labour Government—on this occasion supported by the Greens or should I say yet again supported by the Greens—from imposing a tax on the people of New Zealand to do something that in the past Governments have always done in any event and that is ensure the safety of our borders from people coming in and the safety of the products we export. 
This Labour Government is again breaching these well-established principles of the New Zealand way of life all to eke out another $18 million or so from the workers of New Zealand. This tax bill will fall inevitably on the workers of New Zealand as the tax is passed on to the various people who have to bear the cost of it. The exporters will pass it on to the carriers and ultimately the carriers will pass it on to the housewife. All these costs will inevitably be met by the housewife as she shops in Foodtown Countdown or wherever for the goods that are exported or imported. Another little tab will go on to them but this minority Labour Government does not really care at all about those people. 
There are two bills here. New Zealand First will support the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) which has nothing to do with taxation. It tightens up aspects of immigration to New Zealand and that is to be commended. I just had one thought about the bill when I looked at section 125AA in clause 29. I am sure that this matter has been covered but there is a constant reference in section 125AB as well to a chief executive. I suppose the chief executive must be covered in the definitions in the principal Act because there is no definition of chief executive in this bill—the chief executive of whom or what? Is it the chief executive of the plane itself or the chief executive of the Immigration Service? 
Shane Ardern 
: Immigration. 
DAIL JONES 
: Well if the person coming on to the plane has to be dealt with and the chief executive is in Wellington that will not help someone getting on a plane in Hong Kong very much. I guess that some sort of delegated authority will have to be taken into account. I just raise that issue but it is excellent to see that the type of policy that New Zealand First— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3631] 
Thursday 20 February 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
. Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the first reading of the Holidays Bill the remaining stages of the Television New Zealand Bill and the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) and the second reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting that the Government saw fit to hold a press conference late last week advertising changes to the Resource Management Act that would allow numerous projects of national interest to progress under a different regime can the Leader of the House give us some indication of when that legislation may get to the House so that it becomes a reality rather than just a vague hope for the future? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 I cannot at this point but I will inform the member as soon as I am able.
Vote: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4951] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 and the following amendments in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (3) of clause 9 by inserting before the word “ownership” the word “the”; and 
to omit from the heading of clause 23 the word “Functions” and substitute the word “Function”; and 
to omit from subclause (1) of clause 23 the words “functions of the Commission are” and substitute the words “function of the Commission is”.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6449. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Question agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14017] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 1 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: General Debates 
Tisch Lindsay: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8551] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When the member is quoting from a document then he is required to table it. He said he was quoting from a document. He had the document in his hand and he said he was prepared to table it. I ask that he do exactly what he indicated he was going to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well that is normally done only if the document is an official one. However the member has assured the House—and all members here are honourable; their word is their bond—that the document is not an official one. Therefore he is not required to table it.
Cunliffe David: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15647] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wong Pansy: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7629] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 We would encourage the Minister to take a call to expand on his explanation because we would hang on to every word he says. Mining industry operators had the same experience with officials of the Crown Minerals unit. For a number of years they were told that the 1991 Act extinguished their licence rights. Some of them took that at face value and did not even think about challenging the statements made by the officials. It was only when Glenharrow took the case to court that they started to realise that they were being disadvantaged by taking the officials’ words at face value for all those years. 
So instead of giving a brief statement to answer the question raised by the Hon Lockwood Smith I encourage the Minister to take a call to explain the matter in detail and put the whole issue to rest. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. The question is what are these “existing privileges” if they do not relate to permits or if they are nothing to do with Part 2. Although Part 1 was on the surface only a technical amendment to clarify some administrative procedures the Minister could understand the anxiety of Opposition members after listening to mining industry submitters to the Commerce Committee. They have taken statements made by officials and Ministers at their face value only to find subsequently that they have been disadvantaged. I ask the Minister to take another call to explain to us in detail why he believes that these “existing privileges” have nothing to do with the permit at all. 
When the Hon Paul Swain introduced the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill he claimed that Part 1 had gone a long way to simplify the legislation removing compliance costs. When I looked through the commentary on the bill I realised that there was absolutely no compliance cost statement attached to Part 1 and I am not too sure how the mining industry can be assured that Part 1 has managed to simplify its compliance costs. All that industry knows is that Part 1 is the part of this bill that seeks to extinguish their licence privileges. I do not think they agree that Part 1 has gone a long way to assure them that compliance costs have been simplified—if indeed there are any—to compensate for the loss of their property rights. 
Looking at clause 18 “Reports to Secretary” it was interesting to find that: “Nothing in subsection (4) or subsection (7) requires the Secretary to send or make available any records reports information or returns relating to the calculation and payment of royalties by permit holders.” What if errors are made? What if the permit-holders do not agree with the calculation and payment of royalties? How do they go about seeking that information?
Pillay Lynne: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22316] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14188] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 229. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Simich Clem: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Simich Clem: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4528] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is a financial veto certificate in respect of the amendment from Barbara Stewart. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 53 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8145] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of Hon Annette King to clauses 101 and 102 be agreed to.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8504] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Swain Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8866] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction  
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction  
[Volume:616;Page:12432] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Fully accepting your ruling and noting that you finished that ruling by saying “at the moment” I wonder whether you might consider— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
:—that this is a matter most appropriately sent to the Standing Orders Committee for a broad consideration so that all members might have a say in what the new regime is to be. In fact the press gallery itself could make suggestions.
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9657] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on this matter. It is a new point of order—is that correct? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. There is no question that your ruling is right. A member must contain himself or herself strictly to the title. Therefore I would ask you Madam Chairperson to explain to the Committee the parameters of the word “Management” when it relates to a bill and whether it is impossible for a member to tease out the issue of why “Management” is an inappropriate word in the title of a bill. Frankly no word in any title of a bill could ever be discussed if a word like “Management” cannot be extrapolated explained and extended as Dr Brash was doing. We know that the Labour Party is absolutely petrified that the National Party has a new leader in Don Brash and that Helen Clark is counting the days until her premiership ends. His elevation to the leadership of the National Party was the beginning of the end for the current Labour Government and it will fall because of it. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11670] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; 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 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Act” and substitute the words “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Seabed and Foreshore) Amendment Act”.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — Report by Secretary of Labour—Immigration Service 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — Report by Secretary of Labour—Immigration Service 
[Volume:611;Page:8330] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Murray McCully seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the release of a report by the Secretary of Labour into allegations with regard to the Immigration Service. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I am persuaded that it does require the immediate attention of the House and the Government. I therefore accept the application.
Parker David: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20571] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Just dealing with some of the points raised by the last speaker I note that Marc Alexander thinks this legislation should go further. I disagree with that. I think the position that has been espoused by the Minister of Justice is quite right—that it should not go further; that there are human rights implications of going further; that there are international law obligations— 
Stephen Franks 
: Why aren’t members who know something about it speaking on it? 
DAVID PARKER 
: Actually I am happy to take a call to test my knowledge against Mr Franks’. It is always fun. 
Those who say that this does not go far enough to take away the rights of prisoners who have been abused in prison are wrong. We must always acknowledge that in the worst circumstance it is possible for a State to torture people. Were a State to do that then the compensation that the tortured person might eventually get from the State should not be able to be taken back by the State for itself or indeed for the benefit of some other person necessarily. So I do not think the bill should go any further than it does and I disagree with Mr Alexander on that point. 
I also note that although Mr Powers’ prior contribution said a lot about Mr Alexander’s contribution he did not go so far as to suggest that the bill should take all rights away from inmates.
Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 
Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 
[Volume:627;Page:22227] 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I want to take this early opportunity to clarify and put in context a statement I made in the House this afternoon in relation to which the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade subsequently tabled an edited document. 
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade refused to release to me under the Official Information Act notes claimed to have been taken at a meeting I had with a group of visiting US senators. A confidential summary of notes taken at the meeting was eventually made available to me but it contained none of the Minister’s claim. Under the Privacy Act part of what the Minister has claimed was released to me. 
The allegation by Labour that I proposed a US-funded campaign to change our antinuclear legislation is utterly untrue. To the extent that the note released by Mr Goff implies that I wanted to invite a US think tank to run such a campaign in this country is equally untrue. New Zealanders will note that Mr Goff continues to refuse to release the full notes from the meeting because he knows that any balanced report of the discussion will show his Labour Government in the poorest of lights.
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:20951] 
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 Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in its appropriate alphabetical order the following definition: 
restricted period 
 means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2011 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first.
Hughes Darren: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3751] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21365] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
Prebble Richard: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:620;Page:15844] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I think I can help. I think the United Future member confuses the House when she talks about procedural votes. There were not any. But I have had an opportunity to have a quick chat to her and the position is that United Future actually wants to be recorded as having voted against both motions. I know that on the second one it certainly voted in favour which somewhat surprised me but I do not know how it voted for the first. What the member needs to do is make sure the record shows that the United Future party wants to be recorded as being opposed to both motions. I do not think anyone will object to that.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5014] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Party 8.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16229] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 In the interests of fairness and disclosure of documents I seek leave to table three press statements: one from the Labour Party one from the New Zealand National Party and one from the ACT party attacking Fay Richwhite’s dealings with Tranz Rail. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those three documents. Is there any objection? There is.
Roy Heather: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Roy Heather: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4944] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of this bill. The two previous speakers made some very good points. When Katherine Rich asked whether this was a feel-good bill she did indeed raise a very valid point. I agree with her that an amendment would have been quite sufficient. We should feel duty-bound to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. How much was it that a bill costs? 
Hon Member 
: Between $300000 and $800000. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is a lot of health care. However here we have the bill and the ACT party supports it. As Mr Power said we have some concerns on the issue of legal deposit for electronic material. I will be putting forward an amendment to ask that the term “restriction” in the interpretation contained in clause 28 should have the following added to it: “means recognition of legal restrictions that already may exist for material on Internet sites.” The reason I want to put this amendment or addition to the clause forward is that I have some concerns with clause 30C(4) which allows the National Library to make content harvested from public websites such as stuff.co.nz or newzealandherald.co.nz available via the Internet. There are two implications from that. The first is that the viability of some publishers of commercial news archives may well be threatened. I would welcome the Minister taking a call and assuring the Committee that that is not the intention of that provision. I am sure that it is not but it would be good to know that was not the case. Many of those organisations survive because they are able to sell their information and it is essential that when the library is asked for that information to be given out the information will be still protected. 
Another concern I have is the requirement for the National Library to gain agreement from affected publishers prior to the library making material available via the Internet. It is legally protected at the moment so not everybody can go in and get the information that members of those publishing organisations have paid considerable amounts of money to be able to access. I think that is a very important point. 
So ACT will be supporting this bill. I would welcome everybody having a look at the amendment I have put forward and I ask that they consider it seriously and support it.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16463] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time.
Wilson Margaret: Election of Speaker 
Wilson Margaret: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18945] 
MARGARET WILSON (Labour) 
: 
 I declare my nomination for election as Speaker.
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18730] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Madam Speaker at the request of Mr Brownlee you have been recalled to the Chamber to rule on a matter that I have dealt with in the Committee. As part of a point of order raised by Mr Brownlee he spoke what we have referred to as recital (10A). He gave a very good rendition of that recital as it is in Maori and then requested that it be translated. The Hon John Tamihere offered to translate. I have confidence that he is able to do that and I have asked him to translate it. But besides that the matter that Mr Brownlee has presented the Committee with is in fact translated in the bill itself and there is a translation on a paper circulated by the Minister which is actually a certified copy—that is the English version of the Maori. Mr Brownlee sought to recall you to deal with the matter. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I have heard the debate.