edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:606;Page:3648] 
1. GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
 on behalf of  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
: Has a committee meeting been set to consider the petition of Kenneth Wang and others requesting a review of the new English Language immigration tests? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee): 
 No. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Has the committee taken into consideration when setting its time table for hearing that petition that thousands of people are affected by the Government’s sudden change in immigration criteria; if so; how can the committee justify the lack of urgency given to the issue? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The committee has received that petition and at least one other of a similar prayer and will proceed to consider them at the appropriate time given its other priorities. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Will the committee when finally considering that petition allow a full range of evidence including the Prime Minister’s statement to the House last year in which she said: “We’ve also eased the English language testing requirement to make New Zealand a more attractive destination for migrants. The last Government’s position of a stringent English language test had an adverse impact on migration.”? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: As I said in my original answer the committee has yet to determine when it will hear that petition. That also means it is yet to determine the shape of such a hearing. I am sure given the spirit in which the committee works that we will come to some acceptable agreement about the range of issues to be considered and the way in which members may participate in that process.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11224] 
12.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What has she done about giving local government the right to decide with local communities whether or not there is Easter trading in local government areas? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I established a Shop Trading Hours Working Group in February 2003 to sort out the inconsistencies in the country’s shop trading hours legislation. The group’s report was referred to the Commerce Committee in July 2003. I understand that the select committee is due to report back this Friday 27 February 2004.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14842] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14212] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12440] 
5.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has he received regarding the disestablishment of the Labour Market Policy Group? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have been advised by the Secretary of Labour that he is restructuring his leadership team to increase coordination across the Department of Labour to focus its work more strongly on outcomes and to strengthen the policy leadership capability of the department. As a result the Labour Market Policy Group will not remain as a stand-alone policy group but its policy capability will be integrated into workforce workplace and work opportunities groups in the department. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Why did the advertisements for the new deputy secretary positions invite candidates to demonstrate that they were able to “resolve conflicts between commitments to long-term goals and the need for political expediency”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It was a mistake and it has been corrected. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Why is structural change necessary at the Department of Labour? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am informed that the structural change proposed is designed to lift the department’s capability on labour market issues and strengthen the quality of services it delivers. Overall this should mean a more coordinated whole-of-department approach in this critical area of economic and social development. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: What part of the job description was a mistake—the part about being able to resolve conflicts or the part about having the need for political expediency—and who made the mistake? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The answer to the first part is the latter and to the second part I am not sure. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Is the Minister telling the House that a requirement for a neutral public servant to have political expediency is a mistake and he has not bothered to find out who made it? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The responsibility for the mistake is the Secretary of Labour’s but who— 
Opposition Members 
: Oh! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Shock horror probe! The reality is that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of Labour. How that came about is not clear but the Secretary of Labour has taken full responsibility for the mistake and has had it corrected.
Peck Mark: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Peck Mark: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4758] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8462] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Supplementary Order Paper 132 has not been before the Government Administration Committee. As I said earlier it has 163 new clauses in it plus changes to the schedules. I seek your indulgence that when we move through these parts of the debate you will accept multiple calls so that we can have a fair debate. I for one will seek multiple calls on the remaining parts.
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18729] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is the point of order relevant? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I did wish to speak to the point of order before you ruled. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will accept that. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Although those two rulings confirm that authority in the Chair I do suggest that even in the way they are framed they assume that the translation is non-contentious or they assume that it is given in circumstances where there is no reason for someone to raise a question about whether the translation might not generate confidence in the House. I am perfectly happy to accept that the Minister’s offer was made in good faith and that he would undoubtedly simply read the English that Mr Burton has already provided to us—[ 
Interruption 
]—sorry the former Minister. But in a situation where we are trying to establish a principle it would be seen as very odd not to use the official translator. When the official translator is available it is almost inexplicable that the official translator would not be used for that purpose. I venture to suggest that those two rulings would have been given in relation to a circumstance where there would have been a delay or some other problem associated with using the official translator.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Department of Corrections—Emergency Response Unit 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Department of Corrections—Emergency Response Unit 
[Volume:623;Page:18245] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 a report from the State Services Commissioner on the Department of Corrections emergency response unit. The report was said to have been released on 16 December 2004 but the member has not submitted any authenticating material with his application. In these circumstances it cannot be considered for debate—see Speaker’s ruling 150/3. The application is declined.
Cullen Michael: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6479] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Hughes Darren: Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14481] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 We have just been treated to a great audition to be a front-bencher from John Carter who was telling us all about the National Party and its approach to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4). But he made one mistake. He told us that the National Party’s approach would be led by Katherine Rich—who of course has been silent on this bill up until now. But the idea of Katherine Rich leading anything is a bit of joke. We want to know what her view on time limits is when it comes to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) because I understand that the National Party is having a huge debate on issues about limiting time. It will be very interesting to hear what Katherine Rich has to say about that. 
This bill builds on the work of the Ministerial Task Force on Youth Offending which found that overall our youth justice legislation was sound but of course improvement is always needed. With the better information-gathering and operational practices that this bill proposes we will be able to make more of a difference for young people in this sector. I support the bill having its first reading and am interested to hear from Mrs Rich her view on time limits.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14880] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you telling me that it is up to the Minister to decide the processes of this House and the level of accountability of Ministers? Because that is what you said—that it is up to the Minister to decide. Frankly it is not. It is up in the end for us to decide. Where you are concerned it is up to us to decide and it is up for you to require of the Minister that he gives something like an adequate answer. There would be no other Western democracy where he would get away with that.
Cullen Michael: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Cullen Michael: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6636] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We are getting back to the stage where the Opposition is starting to threaten you in one way or another. That was an explicit threat from a previous speaker. The issue here is very simple. Members opposite seem to demand the answer they want not the answer they get. Today we had a question where the Minister was not quoted; the question actually went a good deal further than what the Minister had said. Members are complaining that the Minister said he did not say it. Well he did not say it. I listened very carefully both to the  
Hansard 
 quotation and to the question and the two were not the same. Your job is to ensure that a Minister addresses the question not satisfies the desire of members opposite for the answer they want.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17628] 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What has been the dollar increase in total tax including indirect taxes paid by the average household in the 4 years since the 1999-2000 financial year and what does this increase equate to when adjusted for inflation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Subject to the quite large technical difficulties of working out what private households pay as opposed to anybody else the average tax including GST has increased by $5200. The increase after inflation is $2910. 
Rodney Hide 
: Following the Minister’s answer to oral question No. 7 on Tuesday 7 December can he confirm that that means the average household has in real terms after direct tax become no better off in the last 4 years yet the same household is in real terms paying an extra $3200 to the Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The numbers the member has just given are different from the numbers that I just gave. But no I cannot confirm that because the social wage has also increased and spending on health and education has risen faster than general income growth. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no further warnings. I tell whips to control their members. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think he is treating the New Zealand public even-handedly when on the one hand he is prepared to come into the House and pass legislation to index petrol taxes but on the other hand he is not prepared to index income-tax bands; and is that just a case of what is good for the goose is somehow not good for the gander? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is probably the wrong week to be dealing with issues of gender identity in that particular respect. The difficulty with non-indexation of the petrol excise duty is that it declines in real terms whereas demand for roading increases. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why does the Minister risk giving the impression that he likes being the beneficiary of inflation by refusing to adjust the tax brackets for movements in the cost of living when that is what UK Chancellor Gordon Brown has done; and might we see some change of heart any time soon? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My good friend Mr Gordon Brown certainly has done that but he has also significantly increased the tax take as a proportion of GDP by a variety of other measures which I have not.
Okeroa Mahara: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Okeroa Mahara: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11740] 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I stand here to comment on that honourable member’s statement in the introduction of his speech to the House. He made what I consider to be an entirely inappropriate statement. He said something about space for race and a race for space. I think that was entirely inappropriate on the basis that it was not a race for space that actually generated the debate when one is talking about the foreshore and seabed or about aquaculture and the extension of the moratorium. The debate was about space for race. If that member was honest and had any sense of integrity about what he said he would admit in this House that it was actually the issue of space for race that ignited the whole debate that we are presently engaged in. 
I need to clarify for that speaker that Maori were not participants in the space for race. There was a non-Maori monopoly on the licences granted for aquaculture space in Marlborough. I think that distinction needs to be made. It is already an absolutely proven fact. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: It was 30 percent. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: Yes but Maori have been forced to buy space rather than being granted a licence. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: But it was only 30 percent. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: If that member cares to debate the issue with the district council in her own area maybe she will be in a position to make a statement rather than misleading this House with what I consider to be throwaway lines based on space for race. That is entirely unacceptable and it shows the level of debate that is coming from the Opposition. All that that does is try to reinforce an agenda and continue the issues that we are fronting at the moment. My rating of that particular presentation would be a zero out of 10—there is no doubt about that. 
That is my brief commentary on this issue. I do not see that space for race or a race for space has any relevancy to this debate and I commend the Government’s move with regard to the extension of the moratorium.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:618;Page:13990] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Question No. 12 to Minister 20 February—Amended Answer 
Question No. 12 to Minister 20 February—Amended Answer 
[Volume:606;Page:3685] 
Question No. 12 to Minister 20 February—Amended Answer 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Education (Special Education)) 
: 
 Last week in answer to Question No. 12 on Thursday I stated that the number of at-risk students enrolled in the Correspondence School at the end of last year was 100 fewer than in 1999. That was incorrect due to a calculation error. The figure I was given for the 2002 year was 1051 when in fact it was 1592. I apologise to the House for using the incorrect figures.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9016] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; 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 2 be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after the words “into force on” and substitute the words “following endorsement of this Bill by a majority vote in a public referendum”.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6500] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Fairbrother Russell: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5586] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10106] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 7. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11843] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill. The new Standing Orders— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. My understanding is that we are taking the Finance votes first. That was the advice from the Clerk’s Office because of the nature of the Standing Order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is correct. The new Standing Orders provide that the financial review debate will be held in Committee stage which is different and the debate now is organised into three distinct parts. It commences with the debate on the Crown’s financial statements as reported on by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Once that debate is disposed of the Committee debates individual financial reviews of departments and Offices of Parliament as reported on by the select committees. There is a list of the financial reviews available for debate at the Table. 
The question is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Crown for the year ended 30 June 2003 be noted.
Simich Clem: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17988] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question is— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I started my speech I inadvertently said “before 4 April 2004”. Of course that should be “before 4 April 2005”. I ask whether that can be corrected. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Was that by leave?
Anderton Jim: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5440] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I will deal with just two issues. Mr Prebble was worried about spirits and spirituous beverages in schedule 1—that is 99.45 and 99.45.86F containing more than 14 percent volume but not more than 23 percent volume. Mr Brownlee was very worried about ice cream with alcohol content of 14 to 23 percent. That is in schedule 1. It is actually the first item: “Containing more than 14 % volume but not more than 23 % vol.” The member has to read it.
Connell Brian: Business Statement 
Connell Brian: Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3421] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House at the conclusion of the Prime Minister’s debate to have the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill—that is the “Boy Racer Bill”—moved to become the second item of business after the Dog Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I heard general murmuring. Can you identify who said no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. There was objection. A lot of members heard it. That is the end of the matter.
Dyson Ruth: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3661] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I would like to be so bold as to offer the member who has just resumed his seat a little bit of advice. If his wish is to have a legislative procedure progressed rapidly he can assist that process by sitting down quickly after the beginning of his speech rather than using the full 10 minutes he is entitled to. I certainly intend to follow my own advice on that very point because the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill should be progressed as rapidly as possible. I support it.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18826] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 328 in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 13 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
.
Vote: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Vote: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:20143] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 95 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 17 
ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Bill read a third time.
National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:607;Page:4933] 
National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister responsible for the National Library 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to.
Fairbrother Russell: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4632] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill. I have listened to the various speeches and the complaints about the civil liberties aspects of the bill but it is easy to criticise without advancing positive suggestions on how we balance the civil liberty interest with the overall attraction of having a bill that addresses the evils of terrorism. 
The major aspect of this bill is the evil of terrorism. The mechanical processes may need refining but we need suggestions not criticisms built from ideology and vague dreams. I support the bill; it should go to its second reading. It is a bill that this whole House in honesty must support. The select committee is where those criticisms should be raised and addressed because the overall purpose of the bill is one that this country longs for and needs.
Hutchison Paul: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8101] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I reiterate the comments of my colleague Dr Lynda Scott in saying that I hope there will be plenty of time to spend on this part of the bill because it is very important. 
Progress reported.
Hodgson Pete: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3876] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly to this legislation and to ask Sue Kedgley who has just resumed her seat to reflect please on whether Radio New Zealand or Concert FM are subject to political interference because they have no advertising revenue. Would she please reflect on whether it is possible to have no split between transmission and broadcasting yet have Television New Zealand as a Crown-owned company. No one I think is suggesting that BCL Ltd should be other than a State-owned enterprise. I say about the ACT party contribution that if we have a charter come into place that means that Television One is more different from the other main providers do we not therefore have better choice? Why might the ACT party argue against that?
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17815. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9390] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18655] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Tabling of Documents — David Henderson—Letter Refuting Allegations 
Tabling of Documents — David Henderson—Letter Refuting Allegations 
[Volume:621;Page:16381] 
Tabling of Documents 
David Henderson—Letter Refuting Allegations 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a letter to Michael Cullen from Mr David Henderson and copied to me which clearly refutes the allegations Michael Cullen made against Mr Henderson on Tuesday and again yesterday. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mapp Wayne: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8811] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Your previous ruling was about the structure of the part. This point of order is about the scope of the debate. Mr Damien O’Connor alleged that there had been a wide-ranging debate in which everyone had been able to take part. That is simply not correct. I sought a call on Part 1 and had not spoken on the bill previously but the closure was accepted. I ask for the Chair’s assurance that there will be a full debate on this part to the point that everyone who seeks to contribute will have the opportunity to do so at least once anyway. That did not happen with regard to Part 1. I seek your assurance that every person who seeks a call and who has not had a previous call will have that call accepted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point. I note that there were 23 calls on the previous part.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6307] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 31 be agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9250] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to get too pedantic. The question could well be: were you offered in the circumstances a bottle of wine? If your answers remain as they are would you entertain a letter from us citing a breach of privilege against Leah Haines for implicating the Chair—and it is not you personally; it is the office of the Chair which I think has taken quite a battering of late—being referred to the Privileges Committee?
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8819] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I did not regard the comment on the face of it as needing to be ruled on. I will call the next speaker on Part 2.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9229. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I require the member to withdraw. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: But I have already withdrawn and apologised. I have done it twice now. Everyone is getting very sensitive on this issue. They are quite happy to call— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have just required the member to withdraw and apologise which she has done.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13029] 
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 82 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 82.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:613;Page:9787] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I notice that the Order Paper is relatively light and that the workload of the Government could be completed very early this year. Can the Minister tell us whether there is more legislation in the pipeline that may be put through the House under urgency—for example the foreshore and seabed legislation—and if not can he tell us what the Government’s intention is to sort out that particular problem? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer the first part of the question.
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19031] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I did not want the call now! I just want to make a brief contribution to the debate as one of the members who have a particular interest in this bill as members of the legal profession. I am an associate member of the Canterbury District Law Society. This is not a declaration of a conflict of interest because there is no conflict. There is no pecuniary benefit to me and I accept that if I return to the legal profession when I leave this place it will impose obligations on me. I accept that. It is a privilege not a right to be a member of a profession. If the provisions of the bill that certain Opposition members wanted to amend had been amended—and Murray Smith certainly identified those—then there would have been a pecuniary benefit to them but I am sure that the disappointed failed candidate for the presidency of the New Zealand Law Society will talk about that in her contribution to the debate. 
I note the Minister’s acceptance of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendations in all but one respect. I am pleased that the Minister is introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to resolve this matter. 
Debate interrupted.
Pettis Jill: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20976] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Sometimes in this place you win and sometimes you lose. The way that we have been responding to votes today has been the same way it has been done since MMP was introduced. There is nothing different happening today that does not happen any other day that we are taking votes in the Committee stage. You do not need to get personal Mr Alexander.
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10293] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for her contribution. Expertise of course can be taken into account. I also remind members that this is a title debate. It is a very narrow debate. The contents of the bill can be debated at length when we come to Part 1.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Sound System—Microphones 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Sound System—Microphones 
[Volume:616;Page:11628] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: During the last sitting period I undertook to respond to members’ concerns about the sound system. Action is being taken to refine the sound quality from speakers in the Chamber and in the galleries with some modifications also being made to the equipment in the broadcasting booth. At the beginning of the year members should have received information about operating the new microphones. I am having this information recirculated to members. 
I would just like to repeat two main points. Once I have called the member please pause before you speak to allow the sound technician to switch on your microphone. When speaking members should adjust the microphones so that they are turned towards them. Please speak towards the microphone from about 20 to 30 centimetres away; if you are too close to the microphone sound distortion may result.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8099] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
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:9968] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That request must be done on a call and not on a point of order. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Mr Chairperson I sought advice from advisers from the Clerk’s Office about the way to proceed and was advised that I could do this by way of a point of order the moment you assumed the Chair.
Jones Dail: Points of Order — Law Commission Reports—Availability 
Jones Dail: Points of Order — Law Commission Reports—Availability 
[Volume:616;Page:11702] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a matter of procedure that is of some concern to New Zealand First. It is with regard to the presentation of Law Commission reports. We were informed that we could only get a copy at 1 o’clock yesterday. It was 372 pages long. I see that one party had a press release about the report out by 11.51 a.m. yesterday although it was embargoed until 1 p.m. I would ask that these reports are distributed to all members of all parties equally and that some are not preferred over others.
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13288] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 7B be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (4) of section 34A all the words after the words “the Minister must” and substitute the following new paragraphs: 
(a)do everything reasonably practicable on his or her part to consult with the persons or representative organisations likely to be substantially affected by the making of the proposed regulations; and 
(b)ensure that the parties involved have been given sufficient time and information to make an informed contribution.
Yates Dianne: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Yates Dianne: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17502] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 There is a lot of huffing and puffing from members on the Opposition side of the Chamber particularly from the previous speaker who was formerly a Minister and could have done a lot of things then that he talks about now. If he was really concerned about the situation perhaps he should have overturned the human rights legislation. I will talk about Part 2 of the Civil Union Bill which is about processes formalities and the vows people take. We are not talking about marriage in this Committee as has been made very very clear. We are talking about a legal contract with the State. We are not talking about the marriage vows that many people make within their churches. Nor are we talking about marriage as a sacrament which I know that many churches particularly the Catholic Church uphold and believe in—and have done so for centuries. We are talking about a legal contract that is enforceable by the law of this land. I have no objection to people going through these formalities and forming a legal contract in which they make a commitment to each other. 
Part 2 includes provisions concerning the formalities of that contract a couple’s mutual obligations to each other and the legal agreements that they make to support each other uphold each other and go into financial deals together. I see no problem with that. I see no reason for the people who are opposing this bill to oppose it except to gain political capital and mileage. It has nothing to do with what is taught to children in schools. Nor will it destroy the fabric of the family. I think that that is absolutely ridiculous and that the people who say that must have very weak marriages and very weak families. I think it is just a matter of homophobia and their own insecurity. I am absolutely appalled at some of the speeches I have heard here. 
Hon Bill English 
: That is just absolutely outrageous. 
DIANNE YATES 
: It is not outrageous and I am entitled to my view. If that former Minister does not agree with my right to speak in this Chamber perhaps he should have changed the law when he was a Minister. 
I call for tolerance and reasonableness on behalf of the people in this Parliament and the people of New Zealand. I think this is very good legislation about basic human rights. I do not think that many people will take this contract up anyhow but it is a human right that people are entitled to go into this form of legal agreement. I have no objection to it and I wish the bill a safe passage through this Parliament.
Wilson Margaret: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wilson Margaret: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12108] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee 
referred to Law and Order Committee 
 for consideration and the committee to report back by 3 May 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13020] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) from subclause (1) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(c)fixing the weekly rate of the cost of detaining prisoners at the cheapest competitive rate tendered for the purpose of enabling deductions to be made under section 68:
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7137] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member as usual makes a very interesting point and quite a lot of the points he makes are valid. I certainly reaffirm Speakers’ ruling 116/1. In fact I did so in  
Hansard 
 Volume 581 at page 322 which is Speaker’s ruling 20/3 (Supplement) and it will be in the reprinted  
Speakers’ Rulings  
next year. I want to say that that does not apply here. I have ruled in accordance with the Speakers’ rulings. The Associate Minister did make the statement and it lies wholly within the Government’s discretion as to who should answer the question.
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:13839] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call in the third readings of these two bills the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3). Throughout the debate members have talked about the importance of border security so we should get on and pass legislation to do something about it.