edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14802] 
8.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps if any is the Government taking to improve the teaching of maths skills? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As part of our Government’s commitment to raise student achievement across the board and other achievement across the board we have invested in a range of numeracy programmes. For example over the last 4 years over 8000 teachers most of them in primary schools have been helped to be better maths teachers through professional development programmes. We know that internationally our 15-year-olds perform well; they are fourth in the OECD for numeracy skills. But there are groups of students and adults who need more help. 
Helen Duncan 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the effectiveness of this investment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This week I have released four research reports showing that students’ maths skills are improving—that is people who are still at school. There have been particular improvements in addition subtraction and multiplication skills at various levels and evidence that students in the project have been learning better than those not involved. So far about 1400 schools have been involved. The Government has approved funding over the next 3 years to ensure that the majority of other schools and their students can participate. I invite members to go to their local schools and see what they can learn. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Minister’s enthusiasm for releasing this research when will he release—as he has been requested to—the database that is part of the asTTle project which will show the actual achievement levels of up to 50000 New Zealand children in all schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I understand that that is available on a confidential basis; a briefing on that is available to the member. But as Bill English knows the class-by-class and child-by-child information on that database was collected on the basis that he would not publish it and I am not going to breach the promises that were made to schools. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the answer to that question the Minister said that I knew particular information which happened to be wrong. I would ask him to repeat the answer but without including me in it as the person who knows the information he alleges. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. He does not need to do that. If the member gives us his word everyone in the House accepts his word unreservedly. I accept it certainly. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is referring to what I know; how could he possibly know? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order can I say I just worked from the basis that the member had read his correspondence. I apologise.
Burton Mark: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5593] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7780] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Motion agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Shirley Ken: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:622;Page:17332] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a procedural matter. I am through you seeking an indication from the Minister who is in the House as to when the bill might be tabled. We have suspended the Standing Orders which is a matter of concern to the House and can be the subject of a point of order to grant leave to the Government to introduce legislation yet we have no indication as to when it might do that. Presumably it will be passed under urgency before Christmas but when will we see the legislation?
Peters Winston: Urgency 
Peters Winston: Urgency 
[Volume:622;Page:17686] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That being the case I seek leave for the words “New Zealand First” and the number “1” which are in the second to last line of Government notice of motion No. 1 to be removed from the notice of motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not.
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Immigration—Morning Report Interview 
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Immigration—Morning Report Interview 
[Volume:615;Page:11078] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
:  
The mechanism of using a personal explanation to correct an answer given in the House has been in existence for a very long time and used by successive Governments for very good reasons. Indeed I seem to recollect a Speaker’s ruling that when a Minister makes a mistake in giving an answer then he or she should as soon as possible seek to correct that mistake by coming to the House and seeking to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct. This is in danger of becoming a debate on the request for a personal explanation. Any member is entitled to ask the House for leave for anything. Any member is entitled to deny it. The member asked for leave; a member denied it—that is within the Standing Orders.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5692] 
9.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What reports has he received about the level of investment in research and development in New Zealand and what do they say? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Statistics New Zealand has released summary results of the 2002 research and development survey. The report shows that business research and development increased by more than 40 percent in the last 2 years which is a remarkable astonishing increase. In part it is due to the many positive policy changes the Government has made over the past 3 years and in part it is due to the fact that more and more New Zealand businesses are treating research and development as an investment not a cost. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: If the 30 percent increase over 2 years is a remarkable effort does that mean it is also a sufficient effort? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No it does not mean it is a sufficient effort—not by a long shot. New Zealand still ranks low in private sector research and development expenditure but the latest figures show that the transformation has begun emphatically and I acknowledge and congratulate the business sector on its contribution to the research and development effort. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister give an answer that everything is glorious in the area of New Zealand’s investment in research and development when a leading expert namely James Dyson as published by the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 talked about this country heading straight for the Third World given its current level of investment and lack of understanding of competitive taxation policy for research and development? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The author is clearly and usefully out of date.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15912] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 25 
New Zealand National 22; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 95 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 5; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (f).
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:18732] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This may be a similar point that can be readily clarified and I would accept the interpreter’s assurance on it without reservation. Again being cast to it I see no reference to the runanga in the Maori text. That may be because there is a longer way of describing it or because something is summarised in the term “runanga” but I would have assumed that “runanga” is a Maori word and would not need to be retranslated into Maori text. If the neutral interpreter had given us that statement I guess we would not be asking these questions.
Peters Winston: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Peters Winston: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16368] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Before you put the leave are you putting the amended motion whereby we have asked for the senior Government whip to add to it that there be disclosure in the  
Hansard  
as to which person voted which way? Is that the amended motion you are putting? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The leave that is being sought is the original one that the senior Government whip Jill Pettis has put to the House. That is what she is seeking leave on. It is up to members. They can either say “Yes” or “No”.
Carter John: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Carter John: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12882] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I waited until the vote was finished before I raised this point of order. I wonder whether you could help the Committee and it would be helpful to me as far as planning the rest of the night is concerned. On the debate we have just had there were seven calls plus the closure call I think which is quite a short time. I wonder whether you can give me an indication. That is not normally the convention. Normally the debate goes for three-quarters of an hour or more. Could you indicate whether it is likely that the closure motions will be accepted after a shorter time than has been the norm so that I can plan my speaking list please.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18640] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4A be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 3A of the principal Act by omitting subsection (3) and substituting the following new subsection (3): 
(3)In this section  
highly offensive language 
 means language that is likely to cause grave offence to the overwhelming majority of the public by its use of offensive expression and not by reason of disagreement with the subject matter or argument or propositions expressed.
Mapp Wayne: Building Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14791] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of things I should perhaps remind the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel about is that she voted for the Building Act 1991. It is worth getting one’s history right is it not? The legislation was introduced by the Labour Government of 1984-90 as a result of an inquiry. The Labour Party not surprisingly in 1991 voted for the legislation. Those members cannot disown their past and they need to get their history right. I am not going to talk about incidents that Lianne Dalziel was involved in earlier this year but it does seem that collective amnesia is a fault on her part. 
We have heard a great deal about protecting Kiwi battlers—homeowners. That is a good thing. We agree with that. That is why we have said that there needed to be improvements to the Building Act. We wanted the Building Industry Authority strengthened so that it could undertake its supervisory role more fully. We wanted to have the quality of workmanship improved. Those are the practical measures that are required not this huge piece of legislation that throws out the good with the bad—which is fundamentally what this bill does. It simply pretends that the past did not exist chucks it all out and tries to start again. Well that is the way of tears. 
 I will turn now to the contribution so-called of Mr Smith from United Future. That was not very good. He calls himself a lawyer and he went on about the sort of work that would be covered by restricted building work. The importance of that of course is that only building practitioners can do it. He made a great song and dance about the fact that it required a building consent; and related to an element of the building that is critical to the integrity of the building; and that it is declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be restricted building work. They have produced a discussion document on this issue. The blunt point is this: the reality is that any work that is likely to be covered by a building consent will involve some structural integrity. That is why people get building consents—that is the reality. 
Progress reported.
Heatley Phil: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7119] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party has given consideration to the amendments in the name of Doug Woolerton of New Zealand First. We will not be supporting his amendments. We have given them a lot of thought. The issues he raises are not new to us. The bill when passed requires the Wool Board to present a restructuring plan to the Minister of Agriculture. We entrust this matter to the Minister and expect him to do his job. We will be watching him very closely. Even though the issues have been firmly put to us on a number of occasions we do not believe that there is a conspiracy as many are led to believe. We did beef up the bill to ensure that no share exchange takes place for 2 years and that fewer directors are on the board and there are other issues that address that. So we entrust this matter to the Minister and to the industry as a whole.
Sowry Roger: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4040] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is very important and I want to make it quite clear because I have tried that device before and clearly people may well now wish to use it. If a motion does not have to be lodged before a bill is read the first time—I point out that that is something I myself have tried to do and the Clerk of the House Mr McGee who was at the Table at the time indicated to me that the amendment had to be lodged before the bill was called—and if in fact you are determining now that at any stage during the introduction speeches on a first reading members can lodge amendments to move bills around to different select committees then I am happy to accept your ruling. But I want you to make sure that that is the appropriate ruling because I envisage now that we will get ourselves into situations where we end up with a new procedure—lots of votes at the end of a first reading. We have not done so before because those amendments have not been able to be lodged once the first speeches were given.
Woolerton R Doug: General Debates 
Woolerton R Doug: General Debates 
[Volume:617;Page:12641] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
:  
I think this is the first time I have spoken in a Wednesday debate— 
Simon Power 
: It’s a pleasure. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: The National Party tells me it is a pleasure to listen. I am pleased the member is saying that; it makes me feel very warm and fuzzy all over. But I simply cannot remain silent and sit here and listen when a party that is trying to attain power at any cost poisons the relationship between the two peoples of this country. 
I grew up in a family that was colour-blind and in a community that was colour-blind—a community where each person was recognised and valued for what he or she could give to this country. I think the reason that is making the people who are marching and protesting outside rise up as they are is not just the issue of the foreshore and seabed but also that Maori following the speech made by the leader of the National Party feel threatened. They feel that non-Maori are poisoning the air against them. That is very sad because I believe they feel they are being treated like the Jews were treated at the beginning of Nazi Germany. We cannot blame a whole race of people for the actions of a few. That is understood and that is the way we think democracy should work. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been reflecting on that comment. I think the member had better assure me he was not referring to any member of this House with the comments he was just making. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: No I was not referring to a member of this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK. Please continue. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: The last thing we want to see in this country is race riots. I am concerned that with the inflammatory language that is becoming more and more commonplace in Parliament that is exactly the road we are going down. I do not believe it is right to stir up one race against another. I am anticipating that some people will say New Zealand First has said some things about Treaty of Waitangi gravy trains and things like that but we never spoke—and will never speak—about the Maori race. We talk about the institutions of Parliament and its departments and we talk about the people who run those; we do not talk about the race of Maori people which we respect. 
From time to time John Tamihere in the Labour Party speaks of a country where in a number of years the Pakeha New Zealander will be outnumbered by those with olive skin. We welcome that. The only issue we take with Mr John Tamihere when he says that is that he says it as some kind of threat. It is not a threat—and I might say I look forward to future generations of New Zealanders having skin that is somewhat more olive than mine is at the present time. That would be lovely and it would be the New Zealand of the future. It is a New Zealand we want to see. 
The legislation regarding the foreshore and seabed which New Zealand First is promoting and will support is legislation that respects the rights of Maori non-Maori and most important of all future generations of New Zealanders.
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10736] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That may well be the case but I have accepted the closure motion. The question is that the question be now put.
Carter Chris: Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Carter Chris: Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11892] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6183] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As Mr Copeland’s amendment actually envisages a greater restriction on advertising it is not the same as the amendment that has just been passed. It expands the prohibition even further. Surely it cannot be out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No we have agreed to restrictions. It is then inconsistent to prohibit it. Therefore I am now moving to an amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4094] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 45 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21529] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Hunt Jonathan: 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:10000] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely correct but once the presiding officer has accepted the closure we proceed from there and we finish the debate this evening. There is no interruption to that. I declare the House in Committee on this bill.
Vote: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19546] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 99 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 15 
ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Question agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13177] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority be agreed to.  
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 6. 
Question agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15186] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to members that it is highly disorderly to interject when votes are being cast. It can be seen as intimidation and could ultimately amount to a breach of privilege. I am cautioning members on my left.
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13236] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I understand it is the wish of the members to debate groups of financial reviews.
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17103] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is relevant to the vote. Can you just clarify for us this relatively minor point perhaps as far as the results are concerned. With regard to the Progressives I thought the Progressive Party had to have one member in the Chamber in order for its vote to be cast. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In the precincts. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Precincts of Parliament. Well that does immediately present a little bit of a problem I might say given our intelligence on this particular issue and it is not one perhaps that we want to be pushed too far. I know that the matter was brought to the Business Committee. However I do recall that our view was that if the Progressives wanted to cast its two votes it had to have one member here—certainly in the precincts of Parliament and we do not have a problem with that. Perhaps the whip casting the vote could stand on the floor of the House and give us that assurance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All I can say to that is that all members are honourable members.
Members Sworn 
Members Sworn 
[Volume:622;Page:17213] 
Members Sworn 
Kenneth Wang was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took his seat in the House.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17939] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 7 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to schedule 8 be agreed to: 
to insert after the item relating to section 195B(5) of the Education Act 1989 the following item: 
insert in section 200(1) after the words “registered bank” the words “ or any registered building society with which a Crown entity may establish maintain or operate a bank account under section 199 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Act 2003.
O'Connor Damien: Budget Debate 
O'Connor Damien: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13567] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 If there was ever a time to be proud of being in a Labour-led Government this is it. If there has ever been a time to truly identify what Tories stand for this is it. We have heard from the National Party—the Tory speakers—that we have seen the largest surplus ever in this country’s history. Where is the acclaim the thanks and the praise to Michael Cullen for that? Nowhere! The Tories are too miserable to even acknowledge that the fiscal and financial management of this country by Michael Cullen has been outstanding. Now the question is: who should share that success? Tories give it to their mates. Labour gives it to the people who have worked so hard to create it.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20065] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16442] 
8.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Communications 
: What recent evidence has he received showing that the Telecommunications Act 2001 is working to deliver competition to New Zealand consumers? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Communications) 
: 
TelstraClear has recently launched a new nationwide home phone service. This means that all New Zealanders will now be able— 
John Key 
: And John’s on it. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: And you did nothing about it—well not you Mr Speaker—that National Party did nothing about it for 9 years— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the problem we get when Ministers interject in that way and in the second person. Will the Minister just answer the question. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: This means that all New Zealanders will now be able to choose their residential phone provider. That would not have been possible without their Government’s regulatory framework provided by the Telecommunications Act. In addition I note that Telecom has recently lowered the cost of some services to its residential customers which is further evidence that competition promoted by the new framework is working. 
Mark Peck 
: What changes if any is the Government considering to the Telecommunications Act? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Telecommunications Act is by and large working very well. However there is potential to make improvements in areas such as timeliness monitoring and enforcement. I plan to release a discussion paper on these issues and other matters shortly.
Beyer Georgina: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13983] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to make a brief contribution to the first reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. May I remark on the previous speaker’s speech. I have a great deal of respect for the views that are shared by Larry Baldock and I pay due heed to what he has to say. He thinks about matters from his perspective sensibly and clearly and articulates them well. However I do disagree with many of the points that he made. 
In the first reading of the Civil Union Bill I mentioned the perpetuation of discrimination and prejudice that occurs particularly in relation to the particular matters dealt with in the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. We cannot continue that discrimination. Albeit that some may consider that those who will benefit the most are in the minority that is no excuse to deny rights when they are sought. I am also quite often amused at the hysterical argument that is put out about the undermining of marriage due to both the bills that I have referred to in this speech. I do not think the situation is as dire as some people would make out. Quite simply I do not think this bill or the Civil Union Bill affect technically the powers of the Marriage Act. That Act of course currently holds the power of excluding people such as same-sex and de facto couples from being involved in marriage. The choice that I hear being talked about is for some no choice. 
This bill will support the Civil Union Bill in rectifying the discriminations that occur under the Marriage Act towards de facto couples and same-sex couples. I certainly hope the House will support this bill being scrutinised by a select committee. That referral will appropriately be done at the end of this first reading I hope.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20319] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you may inadvertently have missed a very subtle attack that took place in this House just a few minutes ago. Mr Williamson got up and asked whether he could have a word explained to him so he could determine whether it was out of order insulting or offensive. Having had it described to him he then sat down and said nothing. I take that to be an attack on the ACT party and I think those parties should not allow their rift to be sorted out in the House in that way. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but that was not a point of order.
Hartley Ann: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15843] 
ANN HARTLEY (Labour—Northcote) 
: 
 The House is in Committee for further consideration of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill. When the Committee was last considering the bill the question before the Committee was—
Tisch Lindsay: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13512] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to bring your attention to the debate the member Clayton Cosgrove was involved in. You ruled on the comments he made concerning tax evasion. Comments—and Deborah Coddington brought the matter to your attention—in that exchange where the member used the words “tax evasion” were a reflection on all members not only on Deborah Coddington. Also in that context Katherine Rich’s name was mentioned and I ask that Mr Cosgrove be asked to withdraw and apologise for those statements about tax evasion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. The matter should have been raised at the time by the member concerned— 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: At the time Deborah Coddington did raise a point of order but subsequent to that we have been able to determine that under Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections” bringing Katherine Rich’s name into it is unacceptable.
Robertson H V Ross: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9020] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the honourable member to Standing Order 301 which states: “The member in charge of a bill can require that all amendments in that member’s name to a provision be put as one question. …” We will now put the question that the Minister’s amendments as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 151 be agreed to.
Vote: Appointments — Deputy Police Complaints Authority 
Vote: Appointments — Deputy Police Complaints Authority 
[Volume:627;Page:21941] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand National 26. 
Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Law Commission Reports—Availability 
Points of Order — Law Commission Reports—Availability 
[Volume:616;Page:11702] 
Points of Order 
Law Commission Reports—Availability 
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. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: They are in the Bills Office. If the member wants to go there to get a copy he can have one. 
DAIL JONES 
: But my point is that some members got it at about 11 o’clock 10 o’clock or 9 o’clock so why was New Zealand First able to get it only at 1 o’clock? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that was the case then people got it from the Law Commission. It was tabled yesterday and it is available in the Bills Office.
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21694] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 39 
New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Phrasing of Questions 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Phrasing of Questions 
[Volume:615;Page:11581] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Phrasing of Questions 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was asked to reflect on a ruling I gave on Tuesday during question time when I ruled out of order the second part of a question by the Hon Bill English. The part of the question that I ruled out of order reads: “… will he continue to obstruct the Official Information Act like the civil servants in the Immigration Service did?”. I said that the member could not impute improper conduct to another member by saying that he did not observe the Official Information Act. I then allowed the member to rephrase his question. 
I stand by my ruling. It is out of order in a question to accuse a member of obstructing the Official Information Act and then to draw a parallel with officials who have been severely criticised in an Ombudsman’s report on that very ground. It was also unnecessary for the member to have asked his question in that way. I note that he successfully rephrased his question when I gave him the opportunity to do. I have to say that I do not consider that the member’s offence was very serious which was why I gave him another chance. The Speaker has to make a number of snap judgments during question time. I went back over this one because I was asked to do so by a senior member but I would prefer to regard these incidents as closed once the House passes on to the next question.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20531] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Health but I note that she is not in the House so I seek leave to defer it until she is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer the question. Is there any objection? There is.
Power Simon: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Power Simon: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18707] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I find myself in the position of wishing to complete Mr Tisch’s call. He was speaking prior to the dinner break and I understand he had 4 minutes to complete his contribution. It will not come as any great surprise to members of the House to learn that the National Party will support the third reading of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill. Some reservations have been expressed by members on this side of the House regarding the penalties imposed by the bill and the severity and extent of those penalties. I am sure that like me members have received a number of pieces of correspondence on the issue of penalties and their severity if indeed a person is found to be in breach of the provisions of this bill. 
There is no doubt in the minds of National Party members that in respect of this legislation in an attempt to balance issues of freedom of expression on the one hand and then to deal with what can only be described as despicable criminal behaviour on the other hand the issues of freedom of expression are well and truly overtaken by a greater public good—which is of course to protect innocent children and to protect innocent members of our society who may be taken advantage of in the technological age. I do not think that any member of the House would quibble with that fact. As I say Judith Collins the member for Clevedon will follow me later in the debate and give a comprehensive outline of matters relating to this bill. She of course was heavily involved in the bill’s stages as it progressed through both the House and the select committee stage. 
I will complete Lindsay Tisch’s speech by simply saying that it would be a brave member of Parliament—actually it would be a foolish member—who stood in this Chamber and did anything but support the intent of this bill. Members of the National Party as I have expressed do have some reservations about the severity of the penalties to be imposed under the offences provisions of the bill. I will leave the matter there and I will look forward to the contributions that other members in the House will make.
Peck Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
Peck Mark: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7389] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support this bill.
Cullen Michael: Members’ Bills 
Cullen Michael: Members’ Bills 
[Volume:625;Page:20185] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee that had the support of all parties I seek leave for there to be a ballot to draw two members’ bills tomorrow. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I apologise to the Minister but I could not quite hear what he was saying. Did he say that everyone has agreed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes; Ken Shirley agreed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: God we’re getting soft! OK. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I take it from that there is no objection? Thank you very much. There will be a ballot to draw two members’ bills tomorrow.
Brash Don: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Brash Don: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9657] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Land Transport Management Bill so-called and I want to make the point that the title of this bill is a travesty of the truth. Far from dealing with the serious land transport problems we have in this country it dumps massive roadblocks in the path of progress for our motorists for our communities and indeed for the economy generally. It is a bill that does nothing at all to deal with the serious congestion problems we have on our roads. It is more than a year since the Prime Minister herself suggested that road transport congestion in Auckland was costing the economy in excess of $1 billion a year. Well last week the estimate was increased. It is no longer $1 billion a year. The estimate of the cost of congestion in Auckland alone is $1.4 billion a year equivalent— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. When I was a third-former in this House I was instructed by many Speakers and Chairs that the title debate was a very very narrow debate. There is plenty of opportunity in the debate on the rest of the bill to have a formal discussion about what should or should not be in the bill. This is a narrow debate and I would appreciate some instruction from you around this matter.
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 Hon Tony Ryall to clause 81 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 81.
New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill — Procedure 
New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:607;Page:4887] 
New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill to be extended to 30 October 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Speaker’s Rulings — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
Speaker’s Rulings — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
[Volume:619;Page:14513] 
Tuesday 3 August 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members last week the leader of the ACT party raised a point of order as to the implications for ACT’s parliamentary membership of a Court of Appeal judgment on the use of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 to remove Donna Awatere Huata from Parliament. The court has held that at this stage there are no grounds for removing Mrs Huata under the legislation. The Court of Appeal’s judgment has no effect on ACT’s parliamentary membership. Parliamentary membership is determined entirely under the House’s own internal rules—its Standing Orders. Since the ACT leader’s advice to me under Standing Order 35 on 11 November 2003 that Mrs Huata had ceased to be a member of ACT ACT’s parliamentary membership has been eight members and that is where it remains today. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That ruling does have some bearing of course on what actions we might take. Am I to understand that in terms of Parliament we have eight MPs and our proportion is eight but that according to the courts we actually have not lost any proportion; that we are dealing with two worlds: one world where we have eight MPs and are treated accordingly; and another world—the courts’—where we have nine? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not concerned with the courts; I am concerned with Parliament only.
Dunne Peter: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8796] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I think the member has made a very valid point. It may well be that the best way to resolve this impasse is for the member who sought leave originally to seek leave afresh to table the draft unapproved minutes of the committee then the House can make an informed decision on whether it wishes to accept them. As Mr Carter points out we now have a rather bizarre situation. The Minister says he has tabled the minutes. Next Tuesday will be the earliest date the committee can approve those minutes. There is an error there. The way through it is for the Minister to withdraw the original request seek leave to table the draft unapproved minutes then the House can resolve the matter accordingly.
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate —  
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7150] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It might be an idea to slightly modify that Mr Chairman. You could just run down the list calling the votes until you get to one that somebody wants to take a call on. The question could then be put on the votes on which no call is received. We will then know which select committee chairperson is involved.