edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12149] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Tizard Judith: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Tizard Judith: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:614;Page:10751] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I propose to seek leave for a number of transitional matters relating to the adoption of the new Standing Orders. 
I seek leave for the following sessional orders to be revoked with effect on 10 February 2004: 
Party votes (29 August 2002); 
Misuse of Drugs Orders (5 September 2002); 
Bill of Rights reports (5 September 2002); 
Copies of bills (17 December 2002); 
Questions for written answer (17 December 2002); 
Notice Paper (17 December 2002). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Dyson Ruth: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9569] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to.
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20525] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You may have missed it but it was clearly discernable to members on the Opposition side of the House that while my colleague Mr Brownlee was engaged in a point of order the Minister of Education made an interjection which I will not repeat to the House that was designed to be insulting to Mr Brownlee. I was surprised that you did not reprimand him for that at the time and I invite you to do so.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5573] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am looking at Standing Order 141. I ask you to indicate where there is room for a mistake. This Committee heard the votes. You declared them as we heard them. You then proceeded. There was no call for a party vote. Where is the room for a mistake? Are you saying that you declared wrongly? 
David Benson-Pope 
: I called for a party vote. I stood up. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: There was no call for a party vote. There is a point of integrity here and the fact that it may be embarrassing is not a matter for the Chair to take into account. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Can I just say to members that I may have declared the result in a certain way and then decided to adjust it. That is the Chair’s prerogative and we have not moved on to the next question. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is not the Chair’s prerogative to determine the declaration of a vote. The outcome of a vote is the vote of this Committee. The Chair is merely the functionary. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am not hearing any more. The outcome of the vote is that the Noes have it and that is where the matter rests. Is a party vote called for?
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:20986] 
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 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 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following new subparagraph: 
(i)the close of the day that is 9 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and.
Pettis Jill: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4052] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to contribute to this debate and to indicate as my colleague Helen Duncan has that Labour will not be supporting this bill. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a success. I do not say that lightly and that is backed up by numerous newspaper reports which I read with a great deal of interest during the January period because I was taking a particular interest in this issue. Comments have been made that the NCEA has been terribly disruptive to the schools: that the schools themselves and the principals and senior teachers involved in the implementation of the NCEA are not supportive of it. I completely refute those claims. 
I am very pleased to say that I have a press clipping from the New Plymouth  
Daily News 
 dated 14 January in which a very very good principal Josephine Mikaere from Okato College is quoted as saying: “the spade work was really done when level one came in. Implementing level one was huge but I think it was timely. The world is changing and our needs have changed and so have opportunities for students”. I know Mrs Mikaere well. I know what a good-quality teacher she is; she taught my daughter when my daughter was at school. So I know that that is a very experienced senior teacher making those comments. Okato College itself voted to go ahead with level 2 and that school is representative of many secondary schools throughout New Zealand. 
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the NCEA was not introduced on a whim. Fifteen years of intensive deliberation took place between the teaching profession and the whole school community. As has been said National itself developed the NCEA. Tragically National underfunded the NCEA and when Labour became the Government it increased that funding by several million dollars. There are 80000 students in the sixth and seventh forms today—far far too many young people for National to be playing petty party politics with when their education is at stake. We want our best and brightest young people—and so many of them are our best and brightest—to be able to go forward in their educational advancement with some surety and security. We do not need to muck them around any more as we try to implement the best possible form of an educational system for them. I do not say this lightly: those young people are our future. We do need to protect them and we need to make sure that we have a system in place that will be in their best interests. 
Let us dispose of this bill quickly because we need our teaching profession and our young people to be able to go forward with confidence and with security.
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17164] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the next member I have a correction to make to votes. I advise that the results were not correctly announced on the votes on the questions that Part 6 as amended be agreed to that schedule 1 as amended be agreed to and that schedule 4 as amended be agreed to 
. 
 In each case the result was Ayes 66 and Noes 54 not Ayes 76 and Noes 44.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11504] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Speaker’s ruling 127/4 states that members must sufficiently describe the document they intend to table. If they deliberately mislead the House that is dealt with in a different way and that is by writing to me. However I judged that the member asked to table a document it was accepted in good faith and I accept that he tabled what he asked to table.
Swain Paul: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
Swain Paul: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7394] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee 
 referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee 
 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c) 
.
Hughes Darren: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18650] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16368] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am sympathetic to what Mr Peters is suggesting. National is voting on this as a party so it is not a problem for us. I just want clarification as to the position when recording votes. Are we talking about recording names? If we are recording names the seeking of leave should mention that names would have to be recorded if there is to be a split vote. That is not what the senior Government whip said. That is where we need some clarification. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just suggest that this can be a rather complex issue. Why do we not start the debate and the whips can get together and get this matter sorted out?
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4502] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I understand that New Zealand First has possibly gone over its quota of questions but I seek leave for my colleague to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot seek leave on behalf of another member. Only the member who asked the substantive question can seek leave. If Mr Catchpole is seeking leave I will put leave but New Zealand First has had its quota for the week. The member is now seeking leave for another supplementary question. Is there any objection to that? There is.
Shirley Ken: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12819] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will be supporting this bill. We note the international reciprocity agreements that are provided here with the status of forces agreement. The question that needs to be put to this Government is why it has taken so long. I was somewhat stunned to learn that we negotiated and completed an agreement with Australia in 1998 but that it has not been able to be ratified because this legislation has not yet been passed. In other words this Government has taken the whole length of its regime some 5 years to get around to passing this quite important legislation. That is a reflection of this Government’s total lack of commitment to the armed forces. 
These sorts of agreements are important for military personnel. The sad thing though is that New Zealand does not actually cooperate and train enough with other armed forces and not enough of them come here to share their skills their wisdom and their experience—that mutual benefit of exchange. New Zealand has become the leper of this region in terms of participation in military cooperation. We have reneged on our traditional allies time and time again. This Government seems to wear that unfortunate situation as some form of perverted badge of honour and that is very sad. 
Much of this debate so far has been preoccupied with the hardware of the military. I always think that is unfortunate. Too often military strategic debates degenerate into what sort of hardware to buy—this ship that tank this light armoured vehicle or whatever. The situation with our military strategic defence positioning is a political failure rather than any hardware failure. Politically this Government—and previous Governments too—have failed to identify a clear strategic direction for our armed forces. There is no point in engaging in detailed hardware debates about what sort of ships guns or tanks to buy if we do not know what we are buying them for. That is the problem. There has been no clear mission plan or strategic direction for our military personnel. The key point is that we must get the strategy right. 
The second point is the importance of personnel. Again when we bury ourselves in hardware debates we are actually jumping over the key point of the armed services—that is the calibre the quality and the morale of the personnel. Again the morale of our armed forces has been run down to rock bottom and that is deeply regrettable. 
The ACT party supports this important legislation but the point needs to be restated that the Government has taken far too long to bring it to the House. It is not as if it is complicated. I understand that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee spent about 3 hours on the bill yet the Government has taken 5 years to advance it to this stage. That simply is not good enough and it is a clear reflection of the Government’s lack of commitment.
Peters Jim: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19867] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I say just very briefly that indeed as we were told the protected area within the proposed marine reserves equates to 13 percent of the area enclosed by the recommended habitat lines—in other words a significant increase. Secondly with regard to this legislation although the marine reserves in this case were marked out along habitat lines and others would have wished them to be marked out along other lines that was seen by the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee as a start. 
Most important although there is not the protection that some submitters would have wished for almost all of the fiords are being looked after and the “china shops” themselves are the subject of special provisions within the bill. I believe that that incorporates the other aspect—that is all this area we are looking at here which Ngai Tahu refer to as Te Moana o Atawhenua has been arrived at by natural development from the earlier conceptual thinking developed by the guardians. 
Lastly that takes into account the fact that concessions which are an integral part of the tourist industry will have a longer-term life than submitters believed they would have had at the start and above all that the Southland Regional Council having been part of the process will have no problems with the incorporation of the changes into its coastal plan. That is exactly as it should be. 
As we said earlier this is the beginning of what we hope is the model not only for Fiordland but also for other like developments for our marine life up and down our coastline.
Parker David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Parker David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7078] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill and to thank the last member for his considered clearly expressed opinions which I found helpful and valuable. I am not going to add to them. I recommend the legislation to the House.
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15939] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to get it absolutely clear in my mind that you are accepting Mr Tisch’s assertion that he can sit privately and in no way divulge who voted one way or the other. That is acceptable to the chair? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is the leave the House gave. It has nothing to do with Mr Tisch. We are talking about the leave the House gave. That was the correct procedure as was indicated. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will seek the leave of the Committee if I have to to divulge—not necessarily now and not privately to me but publicly through the system—who voted which way. I seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member can seek leave for that purpose; that is quite correct. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hunt Jonathan: Budget Debate 
Hunt Jonathan: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13740] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The final amendment is in the name of Dr Don Brash.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6716] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Care of Children Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Bill read a first time.
Newman Muriel: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9731] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Bill sounds great but as we have found during the Committee debate it will do nothing at all to solve the transport needs of New Zealand. In fact it is a politically correct woolly-woofterish sop to the Green Party. Anybody who reads this bill will see all the Greens’ provisions in it—provisions that most New Zealanders do not know anything about. They think their petrol taxes actually go into building roads and improving the infrastructure of New Zealand. When they read this bill or when it is enacted and takes effect in their local area they will find out it is quite different. 
Let me give an example. One of the bill’s provisions is that Transfund Transit local authorities and every approved public organisation must consider the needs of persons who are transport disadvantaged. One of the rules of passing good legislation is to make sure it spells out very clearly what it means. I ask the Minister of Transport to explain what “transport disadvantaged” means. Does it mean somebody who does not have a footpath? Does it mean somebody who does not have a bicycle track? Does it mean somebody who cannot catch a bus or a train or a ferry or who does not have a car? Maybe it means somebody who has a Skoda instead of a different car. Maybe it means somebody who cannot drive. The problem with this provision is that local authorities will have to try to figure it out. They will have to go through endless rounds of consultation litigation or whatever it takes actually to figure out what “transport disadvantaged’ means. 
I can tell the Minister in the chair Mr Swain that local authorities are already sick to the teeth of the costs this Government has imposed on them. The Local Government Act the Gambling Act and the Prostitution Reform Act are examples of legislation that puts millions and millions of dollars of compliance costs and consultation costs on the back of ratepayers up and down New Zealand. The problem is that ratepayers do not know that because all that stuff has happened in just the last couple of years. It is disgraceful.
Simich Clem: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14694] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) has at times been quite lively and comment has been made that a number of members have not spoken in a way that is relevant to the issue before the House. We know that debate should be relevant to the motion before the House and the motion is that this bill be read a third time. In my view all speeches made by members have in some way been relevant to the motion before the House albeit in some cases the connection was rather tenuous. I thank all members for their contribution.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12889] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16355] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 5; Progressive 2. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 3; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to subparagraph (iv) of clause 72(1)(a) be agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:20877] 
5.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: How will the Government be assisting people to become first home owners? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Budget 2005 has provided the resources to assist 8000 Kiwis per year to get their first home. This will be done by extending the Mortgage Insurance Scheme from 1 July this year allowing 2000 Kiwis to acquire their first home in the coming year then rising to 5000 per year. Through KiwiSaver individuals who join KiwiSaver will become eligible for a deposit subsidy of $1000 for every year they save with KiwiSaver up to a maximum of $5000. We expect a further 3000 homeowners to arise from that scheme making an overall sum of 8000 Kiwis per year reaching the Kiwi dream. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise what the risks are to the success of this package of homeownership assistance? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can. There is only one threat and that is the threat to axe the KiwiSaver programme and deprive thousands of Kiwis of the chance of attaining the Kiwi dream of owning their own home. The package that has been offered is one of tax cuts by 2014! I predict that well before then John Key will U-turn on the KiwiSaver as he has already U-turned on the “Cullen fund”. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other options for homeownership assistance has he seen? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen one scheme which is opposed to the measure in this year’s Budget that will see 8000 Kiwis per year reach the dream of owning their own home and that is the scheme that prevailed in the 1990s which saw $3.6 billion worth of Government mortgage portfolio sold off and plaques to commemorate the selling off of those houses—like the $900 million one I am holding. Kiwis will need to get used to the notion that National intends to sell their houses. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the latest building permit figures which show the biggest drop ever in the records of building consents and the number of houses being built as a consequence of the Government’s Building Act. 
Document not tabled.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16590] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16580] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17249] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Motion agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12154] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. This is somewhat more controversial legislation. It essentially addresses the question of whether teachers should be paid when they are on strike. It is the view of the Government that they should not be paid and I expect there will be some discussion of that in the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7395] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a debatable point. The reality is that it does actually occur.
Franks Stephen: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8858] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. When the closure procedure was in progress there was such an uproar that I did not hear the vote being called for. I suggest at least that the debate on clause 1 proceed. I do not believe that Mr Eckhoff voted either way. He did not hear the vote being called; I did not hear it. The first I knew that there had been a vote or what was purported to be a vote was when I heard Mr Tisch calling for— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. That point has been made already. Mr Ewen-Street is this a new point of order? 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Yes it is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Ewen-Street.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Speaking Slots—Allocation 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Speaking Slots—Allocation 
[Volume:617;Page:12702] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was going to raise this when we got to the foreshore legislation but since you have now turned your mind to this Standing Order now is as good a time as any. 
We also have been in receipt of some pretty extraordinary communications from the whips that I think you will end up having to adjudicate on and it would be helpful if before the debate you were to do so. The information I have received is so incredible that I have difficulty believing it. If it is not right I hope the Government will correct me. I have been told that the Government has decided that even though it has five slots in the debate it will not allow Mrs Turia to speak. She will not be allowed to speak. The only way she will be able to speak is for her to seek the leave of the House. That means that I will have to make a decision on whether to allow her to speak. 
 I am in favour of allowing parliamentary debate but if she is a Labour member it would appear to me that under Standing Order 102 as she has some seniority you could give her an assurance that she would actually get that call. I would not want to think that the Labour Party Government was manipulating the House just because it has some well-publicised divisions. That is not a reason to have extra slots given to it.
Mallard Trevor: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14747] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill that it consider the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4597] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17143] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen as amended and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 306 in his name be agreed to.
Carter Chris: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter Chris: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11654] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Burton Mark: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9243. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Turei Metiria: General Debate 
Turei Metiria: General Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19249] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 From the beginning the purpose of the Foreshore and Seabed Act was manifestly clear to the Green Party: the Government would acquire full legal and beneficial title to the seabed to enable it to better exploit marine resources. Why did it need the Foreshore and Seabed Act to do that? It was because Maori customary ownership was the last constitutional defence for the retention of the foreshore and seabed in the hands of New Zealanders in perpetuity; the last constitutional restraint on the power of the Government over the marine environment. The common law of our country provided Maori customary ownership that was governed by tikanga Maori that could not be taken arbitrarily by the Crown and could not be sold yet remained subject to regulatory regimes. Customary title would have required the Government to deal with Maori on a decision-making basis not a subservient one.
Hunt Jonathan: List Member Vacancy 
Hunt Jonathan: List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:622;Page:17213] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that the seat of Donna Awatere Huata became vacant by application of section 55A of the Electoral Act 1993 on 19 November 2004. 
I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Kenneth Xiaoxuan Wang has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Donna Lynn Awatere Huata. I understand that Kenneth Wang is present and wishes to affirm. Would he please come forward to the Chair on my right.
Ward Mike: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
Ward Mike: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:615;Page:11341] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I did in fact seek to register a vote against. I said “The Noes have it.” but I was not heard. I sought a party vote but I am a little new to this place. I noticed that when Mr Carter sought a point of order he was ignored as well. So I was not heard. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave then? 
MIKE WARD 
: I am seeking leave to change the vote for the Greens. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There was no vote. 
MIKE WARD 
: I seek leave for a vote—because I did so at the time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There was no vote. What the member could do is seek leave to recommit the bill and we would have to go back into Committee and take the vote in Committee.
Pettis Jill: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17730] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mahuta Nanaia: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20968] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16922] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.
Robson Matt: Retirements — John Lindell O’Sullivan 
Robson Matt: Retirements — John Lindell O’Sullivan 
[Volume:607;Page:4506] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The leader of the Progressive party has asked me to speak on behalf of the party. He in particular has had a long association with John O’Sullivan and appreciates the assistance that he has been given as a leader in this Parliament. John O’Sullivan has overseen an enormous expansion of the services to members of Parliament in that time. 
In a television programme well known in New Zealand the fictional character Francis Urquhart coined the term: “You might very well say that; I couldn’t possibly comment.” I am told that that saying might have come from Mr O’Sullivan and that he was possibly an inspiration for it. 
John O’Sullivan has advised me that in his retirement he will be involved with community organisations. It has been suggested to me that the New Zealand Kindergarten Federation in particular is asking for the benefit of his experience and I do not think that would reflect too badly on this Parliament. I am sure that Mr O’Sullivan will serve in community organisations wherever he is called to serve. As a Minister of Corrections I was often told that it is a good idea to lock people up and throw away the key. I have never been in favour of that but if there are any skeletons in his cupboards in this case I am sure that throwing away the key would be a very good idea. 
In the tributes paid all of us have said that we have appreciated the professional way in which Mr O’Sullivan has assisted us in our work. I can assure the public of New Zealand that in the dealings my party has had he has at all times looked after the interests of the public as well as the interests of the members who serve in this Parliament.
Roy Heather: Budget Debate 
Roy Heather: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:6026] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This Budget shows the Labour Government in its true light. It shows it for what it really is: an arrogant Government that is out of touch with New Zealanders. We object to this Budget. We will not be supporting it. The $4 billion surplus is an indictment on this Government. The money that was earned by the workers of this country should be given back to its rightful owners: the workers who deserve tax relief for their fine efforts in producing the goods for this country.
Pettis Jill: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5025] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16446] 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: On what date did the committee commence its “Inquiry into the revenue effects of fraudulent investment schemes” and when is it expected to report to the House? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 The previous committee commenced its inquiry on 8 May 2002; the current committee reinstated the inquiry on 4 September 2002 following the election. It is for the committee to determine when it will report to the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the committee be considering the lack of tax paid on John Tamihere’s golden koha payment or is this inquiry a failed attempt to discredit Opposition MPs based on a false affidavit that was signed by Sid Taare because John Tamihere had promised him that if he signed the affidavit he might get his money back rather than investigate an actual tax dodge on a six-figure payment to a Government Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is responsible for process issues only. He may respond on that area only. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No but that would be a decision and a determination for the committee. I would suggest that if Mr Hide is interested in transparency and openness in respect of tax he will open his tax and banking records so that we can determine whether he received monetary compensation at an investment scam conference— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —that he attended in Fiji— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —with many New Zealanders losing millions of dollars. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that when I stand up he sits down. He will stand withdraw and apologise to me. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11515] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I object to being put in this position because as a general rule I do not object to members tabling documents. Indeed if you look through  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 you will find that reading from a court judgment is not out of order. Tabling a court judgment by itself is not out of order. What is out of order is making a reflection against the judiciary. The point I asked you to look at which I do not think you did was to do with what I believed I heard Mr Ron Mark say when he was raising his original question. I thought he was making a reflection against the judiciary. The words I thought he said were “soft sentencing by judges”—or reflections of that sort—which you ruled out of order. Subsequently he wanted to table a document which I took to be a direct challenge to you Mr Speaker that was in fact showing that here was a judge who was behaving in a way that this House should reprimand. You then said that by leave he could do that. I put it to you that that is not so. The House cannot give leave to criticise a judge. It is actually prohibited from doing that in the Standing Orders. We would have to suspend the Standing Orders to be able to do that. But if you are ruling that he is not criticising a judge then at that point I will have no objection to the member tabling a judgment; but if he is then it is your duty not to allow him to do so—and he cannot do it by innuendo either.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14857] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the next part I have a vote to correct. The vote on the closure of Part 2 was incorrectly announced as Ayes 70 Noes 48. It should have been Ayes 69 Noes 48. Is there leave to correct that? There is no objection.
Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11241] 
Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: I seek leave for the Committee of the whole House in its consideration of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill to have authority to consider and if it thinks fit to adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 190. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears not to be.
Pettis Jill: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3871] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am very pleased to support this bill for a variety of reasons. One of the things that we will be able to experience now as a consequence of this charter is to see minority peoples and hear minority voices on our television more often than we have to date. New Zealand is a rich and diverse community and it is important that we see that reflected on our television. This bill will also enable us to have a platform for informed public debate that is not driven by commercial imperatives. It is important to have a participatory democracy and our television service as one of the main mediums of communication is important to that. 
As I listened to the speeches from Opposition members through the Committee stage it was obvious to me that their knowledge of New Zealand history is only about 5 minutes long. I have said in a number of interjections when this demon of “State control” has been mentioned by Opposition members that they want to get into their history books and see what has happened in New Zealand in the past. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: She’s showing her age. 
JILL PETTIS 
: That member says I am showing my age. Does he not even know what happened to Uncle Scrim and “The Friendly Road”? He was taken off radio on the eve of the general election that saw the election of the first Labour Government. Talk about State control! It was a conservative Government that did that so the member’s own party history is not very pure either. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: What about  
Kath and Kim 
? 
JILL PETTIS 
: As for New Zealanders being able to see themselves on television there was an interjection from that member: “What about  
Kath and Kim 
”? Anybody who has watched that programme knows that it is not a New Zealand programme at all. It is an Australian comedy—a quite good comedy but it is certainly not about New Zealand at all. 
In response to Mrs Stewart’s comment about why we are bothering to have a Maori television channel when we already have Maori programmes broadcast on television today what about our having Television One TV2 and TV3? That situation has prevailed for a long time. How come it is OK for one group to have a selection but not another? So I take issue with the member’s comments about that. 
I am pleased to support this bill. It will be good for New Zealanders when we can have informed debate on our television instead of crass commercialism all the time.
Hughes Darren: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16192] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Correction 
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:607;Page:4838] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The National Party wanted to vote one down on the last vote. Is it possible to correct that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take the leave of the House. I am sure no one will object. Is there any objection? There is none. There will be one less vote recorded for the National Party which will mean the result is the Ayes are 108 the Noes are 8.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8948] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to add new subsection (3) to new section 38J in clause 18 be agreed to.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
[Volume:621;Page:16381] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I stand to raise it on an issue that I have raised with you twice in this House and twice again in writing. This time it has come to my attention that the Minister of Education has once again not answered a written question within the stipulated time frame according to the Standing Orders— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I actually replied to the member this morning. Perhaps he would care to get hold of that letter and then contemplate whether he wants to take the matter any further—after he has seen the reply. 
RON MARK 
: This concerns a different Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. I can assure the member that I have replied to the letter the member wrote me. I wrote to him this morning. 
RON MARK 
: Yes Mr Speaker but this concerns another case that has just been brought to my attention. As you have just pointed out you have responded to me in a letter which I have yet to receive but now we have the Minister of Education failing to respond to question for written answer No. 14929. Staff from New Zealand First rang the Minister’s office today expressing concern and got a very blunt and terse response as to what they should do with themselves. This has now got to a stage where I believe that Ministers are trifling with you Mr Speaker and with the Standing Orders. You have made it very clear that Ministers must abide by those Standing Orders. I will read your letter but I ask what we are to do. Where does the protection for the Opposition lie? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The protection lies with me. The member can be sure that I have taken up matters on behalf of him and other members used pretty strong words and had pretty well immediate action. If the member writes to me about this he will get action.