edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hartley Ann: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11547] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Sowry I did not hear you call and I apologise for that but I have called Mr Adams.
Simich Clem: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15507] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will just go back a step. I think some members were confused as to what the question was. The question was that the bill be read a first time. I will put that question again because I do not think it was clear to any members. That will decide the issue. The question is that the motion be agreed to and the motion was that the bill be read a first time. Those who are of that opinion will say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Noes have it. The Ayes have it.
Smith Nick: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17025] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled.
Prebble Richard: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Prebble Richard: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14828] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 In fairness to Mr Ward he has been quite frank with the Committee. He is now considering his position and realising that he did not have an instruction on procedural matters and is asking for leave to correct the voting. By the fact that he has to ask for leave it is over to the Committee but it is my view that it is better that the voting record actually be accurate. We can see the position that Mr Ward is in; he has only just received a proxy vote for another party and maybe he will have to get better instructions later. But I think he is doing the honourable thing in asking for the record to be corrected and I believe that you should put it to the Committee that we correct the previous vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I think that is sound advice. Mr Ward should ask for leave of the Committee.
Tisch Lindsay: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tisch Lindsay: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8037] 
10.  
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: In light of the Business NZ - KPMG Compliance Cost Survey released yesterday does he acknowledge that the Government’s attempts to reduce business compliance costs have failed; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 No for the reasons I outlined in response to question No. 2 this afternoon. For the edification of the member reducing compliance costs and regulation is a journey not a destination and under this Government it will be a wonderful journey for all businesses. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: How does he explain the results of the KPMG survey that show that compliance costs are estimated to be $3400 for each employee of a small business and have increased for the majority of businesses over the past 12 months; and does he accept KPMG’s comment that the Government needs to do more than the current tinkering to reduce compliance costs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Has the Minister received any reports at all suggesting how New Zealand businesses manage compliance costs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yesterday I released the perception survey prepared by Massey University on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Development. It showed that the majority of businesses deal readily with compliance requirements as they acknowledge them to be part and parcel of doing business. The survey also found that business concerns about tax-related compliance requirements were minimal and declining. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Does the Minister accept the Auckland chamber of commerce survey result that small businesses with fewer than five staff are spending 172 hours annually or nearly 4½ weeks full-time on Government red tape and compliance issues and does he consider this satisfactory; if not what does he intend doing to reduce the cost for small businesses? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: We welcome all this information and it is informing our policy debate. I can tell the member that the Hon David Cunliffe will be releasing some significant information in that regard to alleviate these issues. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: With regard to the escalation in compliance costs since Labour has been in power what is the Minister’s response to claims that his Government with its anti-business agenda is being driven by its cronies in the unions? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Obviously—like that member’s leader—the information that the member gets is absolutely incorrect and wrong.
Benson-Pope David: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9268] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and I would like to congratulate the previous speaker on the reasoned and sensible approach his party is taking towards this matter. I would also like to congratulate Dr Cullen on presenting this measure to the House. I am sure it will be widely welcomed by the New Zealand community which expects the degree of transparency and disclosure of the whole of the Parliament that is currently at a reduced level made by the executive. I look forward as the community does to the unanimous support by members of this House for this measure. I cannot imagine any reason why any member of this New Zealand Parliament would not whole-heartedly support a measure of this kind.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15719] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson be agreed to.
Barker Rick: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6967] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9395] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I point out that the title debate is a very narrow debate. Members need to ask themselves whether the proposed title adequately describes the bill. I just say that to indicate to members what I will be looking for.
Jones Dail: Urgent Debates — Solomon Islands—Deployment of Police and Military Forces  
Jones Dail: Urgent Debates — Solomon Islands—Deployment of Police and Military Forces  
[Volume:609;Page:6711] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I also seek the leave of the House to table New Zealand First defence policy of 1999. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Turner Judy: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15843] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think I got my votes round the wrong way. I thought I was voting for the procedure and United Future was voting against the bill but voted for the procedure. I am not sure but I think I have got those votes around the wrong way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We cannot deal with that until the House resumes so we will have to wait.
Cullen Michael: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Cullen Michael: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3495] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Since the vote has been taken I notice that the ACT party voted eight with Mrs Awatere Huata in the House. I take it that the ACT whip can assure us that the ACT’s eight votes included Mrs Awatere Huata because if it did not she cannot be in the House and not be voting.
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10186] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clauses 54 to 56 be agreed to: 
to omit these clauses.
Chadwick Steve: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15418] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: Estimates Debate —  
Prebble Richard: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7150] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thinking about how exciting this is for listeners I suggest that it might be an idea for you with the leave of the Committee to start reading out all the votes under each Minister’s portfolios until someone seeks a call. For example you could start putting the next set of votes—Communications Security and Intelligence Ministerial Services and so on—and keep going until someone seeks the call. Let us do the votes together to speed things up. The debate is a time-limited one and we do not want to spend our whole time reading out all the portfolios.
Duncan Helen: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Duncan Helen: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3808] 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16148] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert words in the heading to section 59A in clause 19 be agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4501] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a serious issue. There were two questions on the Order Paper today to the Minister of Police and one to the Minister of Internal Affairs. The Minister with responsibility for those portfolios was not available and other Ministers answered the questions—which does happen from time to time. We accept that the questions were not easy but the minute that question No. 11 was over—which was addressed to the Minister of Internal Affairs—the Hon George Hawkins arrived in the House. We have just gone through a series of questions where an acting Minister was not able to answer some of the issues that were raised. The Minister answering on behalf of George Hawkins said he was not sure what the Minister of Internal Affairs would say but he was sure he would say A B and C. I seek an assurance from the Government that the Minister in question was not being kept out of the House.
Gosche Mark: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15355] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19136] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 1; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order —  
Prebble Richard: Points of Order —  
[Volume:620;Page:16081] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened to your list and it seems to me that this issue falls into the category in the British House of Commons of: “I Spy Strangers.” If this Government is bringing in people who are not civil servants who are not entitled to be here and who in this case are representing the largest trade union group then my only objection to this point of order is that it appears that if the Government went along with this then the matter has to be a breach of privilege and a very serious one. The Committee of the whole House was debating industrial law and the person who has the greatest self-interest in the issue was within the lobby directing the Government. That has to be very close to a breach of privilege. It is not a matter just for you Mr Speaker to look into. If it happened I think you should invite the member to lay a breach of privilege case against the Government.
Hunt Jonathan: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13158] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say quite specifically that a Chairperson is not bound to give members advice on what recourse they have under the Standing Orders. That is for MPs to research themselves.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11282] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11559] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to make one further point in respect of the bill—a point that Mr Peck has not addressed. When one looks at the bill one discovers that the only employees who are excluded are those who are directors. So in many large companies—the freezing works are the examples that have been given—there would be senior managers who would be entitled to redundancy. I ask the Committee where the fairness is in that. I go even further than that— 
Mark Peck 
: What was the point? I missed the point. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The point is this: the only employees who are excluded are those who are directors or relatives of a director. So the management of a company can get redundancy. I say this to Mr Peck: yes there are examples where companies go broke when it is no one’s fault; there has been a change of economic circumstance. It might even be the example just given by Mr Connell where a major creditor fails to pay but I also have to say to him that in my experience of insolvency frequently it is the result of mismanagement—of managers making bad decisions. I say to Mr Brown from New Zealand First that I know about the case which he told us about of the stevedoring company. Yes what it did to them was wrong but I also know that the employees in that case actually did have an opportunity to renegotiate and they turned it down. 
What about the creditor? The creditor does not have such an opportunity. The creditor is told a company is a good company and has no way of knowing that it is actually going broke. The management may know it is going broke but the creditor does not and the creditor loses. I ask where the morality is in this. The very people responsible for the insolvency who may have been totally irresponsible are now going to get $15000 guaranteed to them and it will be money that is actually taken from small business. 
The only people excluded are directors. Well they are frequently nowhere to be seen. That is a piece of nonsense and when people get up and say: “The hard-working worker did a fair day’s work and worked hard. Why should he not be paid?” I say that sure there are many such people but there are also just as many cases where the management by their actions put the company under and nowthis Parliament is saying that those people should be rewarded. Where is the justice in that? I ask Mr Peck where the morality is in it. Where is the business sense in it? It is clearly wrong and the small business that supplied the goods and services was honest. It supplied the goods and services and it had no chance. But the management that put the company broke under this bill is going to be rewarded. Surely the House can see that that is just wrong.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: 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:10010] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3 Green Party 9. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata . 
New clause 10A agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to clause 11(1A) be agreed to.
Vote: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19769] 
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 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Tertiary Education Savings Scheme—Government Policy 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Tertiary Education Savings Scheme—Government Policy 
[Volume:624;Page:19374] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but that is not a point of order.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21014] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005” and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Legal Entitlements and Claims Act 2005”.
Peters Jim: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18934] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I think that some members of the Committee may be in some confusion. What we had here despite the best words of the chief Government whip was a limiting—[ 
Interruption 
]. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: From the Government benches and particularly from the chief Government whip there are too many interjections. I think it is that member’s responsibility to show the way. 
JIM PETERS 
: I was about to say that this is a small bill that came to the House because the Wellington Regional Council in its wisdom found that the Wellington Regional Water Board Act was limiting due to a series of developments in the past. Part 2 is merely the enabling part of the bill which is being used in this case to allow the Wellington Regional Council under the enabling arm of the Resource Management Act to strive and thereby to enable the people of Wellington to thrive. In this case it is with regard to renewable energy. 
Secondly the new clause 5 was inserted specifically because we were made aware by the Wellington Regional Council of the potential not for the council as the dominant authority to run an energy resource such as a wind farm but for the council to be allowed to do exactly what the clause states—except that the council will set terms and conditions in accordance with its wishes as defined by consultation and in terms of the accountability of the Resource Management Act. Those were the final considerations that guided new clause 5 which was agreed to unanimously. 
Subsequently it may seem to some members of the Committee that the Wellington Regional Council may not be the fit body to do that. That is a matter for the council to determine for itself and will be the subject of adequate consultation in the wider Wellington regional area. That is what the bill states. 
That was exactly the intention of new clause 6; it did not concern just the Resource Management Act. We had in mind in taking up the enabling function of that Act a clause that would enable the council not to be limited or affected by any other enactment but to be able to proceed. 
In summary Part 2 enables a body that is limited by the past to be creative and entrepreneurial not necessarily by its own actions but by passing on to another entity or another group the ability to form what the council hopes will be a renewable energy development. That is what New Zealand First supported in the select committee and that is what I support now.
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16347] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 Yes I do want to add something because it was in an earlier discussion with Mr Franks where I alerted him to the fact that I had had a phone call that made me pursue this matter with some vigour because a member of the public did not know who was voting which way on this bill and there was an inconsistency in the way parties were voting and that person was entitled to know. Suggestions were made to me and I cannot prove it that MPs were saying one thing here and another thing there. That is why I raised the issue in the first place.
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17369] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Indeed having been a member of the Standing Orders Committee that wrote those particular Standing Orders let me say that Mr Prebble’s recollection is absolutely correct and the Standing Order was written in precisely this form. In other words a tie in the Committee stage keeps the matter alive. Clearly if the vote is repeated at the third reading the bill is lost. Mr Prebble is also completely correct: because this is a taxation bill particularly one that confirms the annual rates of taxation it is a confidence measure and if it is lost the Government would have to proceed to an election immediately or the Governor-General could be invited to find an alternative Government which is most unlikely in the current situation. When I look at the latest opinion poll I could possibly say “Bring it on!” from our perspective as well but I think 3 years is a better term of rigour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Power for raising that and it has been so well explained I do not need to deal with it. Yes one is a general Standing Order; the other one is specific and relates to the Committee. Standing Order 298 relates to the Committee. Standing Order 298b has precedence. But I thank the member for raising it.
Cosgrove Clayton: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18624] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Beyer Georgina: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8849] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Referral to Privileges Committee Apologies in the Chamber Question Time 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Referral to Privileges Committee Apologies in the Chamber Question Time 
[Volume:612;Page:9036] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have two questions down to be asked of the Minister. I was not aware that he had made a correction and that being the case I am sure that some of my supplementary questions may be misdirected. I wonder whether it would be possible through you for the Minister to seek leave again and help us through this question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is something the member could approach the Minister about personally. It is not for me to do that.
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10177] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17099] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I have heard what the member said.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4401] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Maharey Steve: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Maharey Steve: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3738] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I have been listening to the debate very closely and I think finally Lindsay Tisch has asked a question that is worth answering. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I asked it first! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Well if the member asked it earlier then I should have noticed and answered it then. I think it is a reasonable question; it concerns a change that I think the Committee does need to be aware of. 
One of the issues that we have had to deal with in relation to splitting the organisation into a State-owned enterprise and a Crown-owned company—a “CROC” as it is called—for the television business is the fact that in Australia the transmission arm operates under the name of Television New Zealand. Under the rules that operate in Australia around capital gains tax if one splits the organisation apart in the way that we are intending to do then one invites capital gains tax to be paid on that part of the organisation. What we are doing at the present time is ensuring that we do not expose ourselves to paying that kind of capital gains tax in Australia in relation to the organisation. We have ensured that the shareholding Ministers remain the same as they were before. In other words the ownership structure of this organisation remains the same until we see where we go from here. The Committee needs to know that we are simply protecting the value of the organisation in Australia. We have made sure that no money needs to be paid in relation to the changes that will take place. That is why these changes are in the bill.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8118] 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has she received any reports from the Minister of Revenue as to the effects of immigration on tax revenue? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is this Minister telling me that despite the fact that the Inland Revenue Department is aware of tax fraud of up to $30 million a year in the horticultural industry from immigrant labour and foreign fly-by-night employee organisers she has never received any report whatsoever from the Minister of Revenue on this very serious fraud of the New Zealand taxpayer? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware of the Inland Revenue Department being aware of any of that. I would like to see some evidence for once from that member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister always the last person to know? What the Inland Revenue Department advised the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation at a meeting that was reported on at the February meeting of the fruitgrowers’ Te Puke association—[ 
Interruption 
] Is this a laughing matter? The biggest laugh in this House is this incompetent Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am warning members. I want the member to start his question again and I ask the senior Government whip to make sure that his Ministers keep quiet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister always the last one to know about a very serious issue within her portfolio when Andrew Fenton the chairman of the board of the Satara Cooperative Group and the Bay of Plenty fruitgrowers’ representative on the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation reported that at the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation meeting before February the Inland Revenue Department made a presentation in which it pointed out the massive losses taking place in respect of collections because of fraud of the Inland Revenue Department occasioned by immigration immigrants and organisers of foreign workers? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am aware of the shortcomings of people working illegally in this country and I do know a lot about it. That is why this Government acted to change the law to bring in a strict liability offence for employers in that regard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member’s supplementary questions have expired. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: As $30 million per annum is involved and this is a terribly serious matter I seek leave to ask this Minister a further question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18656] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I come to the member’s point of order I just say that the advice I have is that this is a debating matter. It is not procedural. If the member wishes to take it further then he should raise it with the Speaker.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8930] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill — Third Reading 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7707] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill be now read a third time. 
Bill read a third time.
Kedgley Sue: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14235] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to do that. I seek leave to complete Keith Locke’s speech. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that? I call Sue Kedgley.
Field Taito Phillip: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9023] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that once we commence voting you cannot start allowing Opposition members or any member to call points of order.
Ward Mike: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ward Mike: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9879] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are delighted that the bill targets dangerous dogs menacing dogs and problem dogs. Although we will be supporting the breed-specific bans we do have some problems with them. The following breeds of dogs—tosa fila brasiliero and dogoArgentino—do not exist in New Zealand or if they do they are very small in number. It is unlikely there are enough to warrant worrying about banning them. However they are dangerous dogs. We have been told and the Minister admits that the American pit bull terrier is a difficult breed to identify. We are a little bit worried that other dog breeds that look like pit bull terriers may be caught by this legislation. They may be required to be muzzled or neutered when they are in fact not dangerous but just happen to look like American pit bull terriers—in spite of the fact that American pit bulls are apparently difficult to identify. 
The bill bans four breeds at this stage. It has been pointed out by the kennel clubs that Italy started off by banning four breeds but now bans 77 breeds. I notice the bill contains fairly strict criteria for adding new dogs to the list of banned breeds but I would be pleased to hear the Minister confirm that he will be applying those criteria fairly rigorously before adding other breeds. Microchipping may not be a huge cost compared with the overall cost of owning a dog. As Jim Peters said maintaining a dog is an expensive business anyway. But microchipping all dogs so that dog control officers can get better use of their transponders would just add to the cost. Most dogs will never have the wand waved over them. It will happen only to problem dogs or dogs that come to the notice of dog control officers. Although the Greens do not support universal microchipping in some ways it has advantages. Hunting dogs will get caught by this legislation and that will offer some protection to wildlife. It will certainly offer some protection in terms of sheep being worried by dogs that escape from hunters. I suspect that once hunting dogs are tagged hunters will make very strenuous efforts to locate their dogs when they are lost. The Greens have mixed thoughts about both these measures. We will be supporting the ban on specific breeds but we will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of universal microchipping.
Tisch Lindsay: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19089] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just seek clarification. As there is a conscience vote on Supplementary Order Papers and on the bill my understanding is that this should also be a conscience or personal vote and that we should be proceeding not with a party vote but with a conscience vote. I call for a personal vote to be cast. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: A personal vote will be held. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 11 the following new subpart: 
Subpart 1AA—Amendments to Adoption Act 1955 
11AAAdoption Act 1955 called principal act in this subpart 
In this subpart the Adoption Act 1955 is called “the principal Act.” 
11ABInterpretation 
Section 2 of the principal Act is amended by repealing the definition of  
adoptive parent 
 and substituting the following definition: 
“ 
adoptive parent 
 means any person who adopts a child in accordance with an adoption order; and in the case of an order made in favour of a husband and wife or of civil union partners on their joint application means both the husband and wife or civil union partners but does not include a spouse or partner who merely consents to an adoption”. 
11ACPower to make adoption orders 
(1)Section 3(2) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “spouses” the words “or civil union partners”. 
(2)Section 3(3) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “spouse” the words “or civil union partner”.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17086] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:612;Page:9249] 
Thursday 16 October 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the second reading of the Land Transport Management Bill after which the Government will be moving an urgency motion. The following bills will be included in the urgency motion for their respective remaining stages: the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Film and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill the Retirement Villages Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Counter-Terrorism Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) the Wine Bill the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) and the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that outline of next week’s programme. I note that the urgency motion appears to be quite light and there is little in it to suggest it needs to be done urgently. Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that question time will occur on Wednesday and Thursday of next week? I note that question time has been difficult for the Government of late; it is of course the Opposition’s chance to probe the Government on its programme. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I thank the member for his comment that the programme looks quite light. I am sure in that respect there therefore should be no difficulty in arriving at an understanding about the completion of that business in return for having oral questions on Wednesday and Thursday. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the two old parties are going to have that conversation then let me make it clear to the Leader of the House that under previous Governments there has been an understanding that there would be question time. The ACT party will most certainly not agree to have our debates guillotined just for question time. A true Parliament supported by a decent Opposition would insist that in return for an urgency motion there would be question time; so it is really Mr Dunne is it not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. It is a statement made to the House.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8519] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise this point of order at the first available opportunity and I make it particularly under Standing Order 22 which relates to the privileges of the House. I was extremely disturbed to see on television last night pictures of police officers in this building interviewing members of Parliament. I was even more disturbed to discover that we are now having a member of Parliament being prosecuted and I say to you that you should reflect on this matter. It is your job to stand up for the privileges of this House. I have no doubt at all that this prosecution has come about solely because of statements that you have made and that the Prime Minister has made and other Ministers inviting a member of Parliament to be prosecuted for a matter that has occurred within the precincts of this House. 
We have our own disciplinary procedures. We have the absurd situation of a member of this House admitting to art fraud a member of this House engaged in insider trading with nothing happening about those and now just a back-bench MP standing up for his own constituents on a matter that rural New Zealand feels very strongly about. I say to you that I believe it is your press statements that did that. You should consider that it is your position to stand up for the rights of MPs and not to invite police into this building to charge a member of this House. It creates an impression that we are becoming a police State.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:607;Page:4546] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through its remaining stages of the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill; the first readings of the Counter-Terrorism Bill the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Corrections Bill; the second readings of the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) the National Library of New Zealand (Te PunaMatauranga o Aotearoa) Bill and the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill; and the passing through their remaining stages of the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill and the Social Workers Registration Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
I move this motion in order that a number of bills can be referred to select committees this week to advance four bills to their Committee stages and to pass four bills that have been widely supported or that address immediate and pressing issues. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 62 
Noes 57 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3849] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is the Government’s intention to pass the bill. Of course I would be only too willing to accept any offers of support from New Zealand First to accelerate that passage by means of urgency or other mechanisms.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6871] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words after the word “Consumer” and substitute the words “Miscellaneous Consumer Law Amendments”.