edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Winston: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
Peters Winston: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4442] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respect what you have said. But this House is the master of its own destiny. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This House can accept this bill today despite what you have said. It can ensure that the people of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui if that is the council decision can have Easter trading this Easter Sunday. This House can decide that. None of us are hamstrung or confined by any parameters in respect of what I have suggested. Obviously I have discussed it with my colleagues and that is what I am seeking leave from the House to do. I think it is patently absurd and unfair that Rotorua our neighbour should get it and we do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not rule on it at the moment but I will look at it in the next few minutes.
Catchpole Brent: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5225] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The stated aim of this bill is to decriminalise prostitution but let us look at why it is necessary because I do not think it is necessary. Prostitution in itself is not illegal in New Zealand but a range of activities around prostitution are illegal at the moment. The aim of this bill is to decriminalise prostitution or if one likes decriminalise the activities surrounding prostitution giving them the legal status of legitimate businesses. I am talking about pimping brothel-keeping and if one likes to add to those—and this bill leaves it wide open—trafficking in women and young children. It also includes and encompasses the businesses surrounding drugs. Therefore I have a major problem with this bill as it is because as a natural part of prostitution and the industry associated with it there are more sinister businesses—namely the trafficking in and exploitation of young people particularly young women and the proliferation of drugs and organised crime that goes hand in hand with prostitution. 
Tim Barnett would have us believe that the purpose of this bill is to protect the health and the well-being of prostitutes and the public as a whole—safeguarding the human rights of the sex worker and protecting him or her from exploitation. That sounds all very well and good but decriminalising prostitution in the manner that this bill attempts to do also legitimises those peripheral businesses. That is the major difficulty I have with this bill. The question that must be asked is whether this bill is ultimately intended to legitimise those peripheral businesses and decriminalise the trafficking in and exploitation of women and drugs because both of those activities have very serious health problems associated with them. 
Since the introduction of this bill in September 2000 my colleague Peter Brown has done a lot of research into its background. He has formulated an alternative bill which we have in the ballot at the moment. It is based on the Swedish model and is entitled “Prostitution (Client Liability and Prostitute Care) Bill”. That bill is based on the Swedish law and it makes the client of prostitution the one to be prosecuted. It establishes a programme to encourage assist and support those people who are working in prostitution to get out of the industry. It also restricts the advertising of prostitution in the media. The bill that Tim Barnett is promoting is set to legitimise the other more sinister businesses associated with prostitution. That is not good enough. No matter how many Supplementary Order Papers we have on the Table they will not change that part of the bill. Instead they will detract from our real knowledge and understanding of the bill and allow us to let it slip through legitimising those peripheral industries and businesses.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19716] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Government does not object if members now move immediately to conclude the first reading of Ms Kedgley’s bill.
Hawkins George: Visiting Forces Bill — In Committee 
Hawkins George: Visiting Forces Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:13755] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I can quickly answer that question asked by Simon Power. Tokelau has asked to be outside this measure. As is usual we have agreed. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7961] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The one thing I agree with in that point of order is that Standing Order 117 “Personal reflections” is the clear one. There are a number of Speaker’s rulings which I am just attempting to find at the moment that essentially indicate that if a member takes offence that is enough to trigger the Standing Order. I took offence at the comments. I took offence at them for the reasons that I stated in the point of order. I also took offence because of the fact that this matter had been raised once already in this debate this afternoon and ruled on in my favour by the presiding officer at the time as had been the case with the previous charge which ended up going to the Privileges Committee. That was also ruled on in my favour and the organisation concerned made an unconditional apology. In this instance I say that the provision of Standing Order 117 means that I am entitled to take offence at the comments made by the member and ask that they be withdrawn. It is not a question of whether the member likes what was said or likes what I said about her or anything else. The point at issue here is that under that Standing Order I have taken offence.
Smith Nick: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15141] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to draw to your attention that we have before us a Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled on Tuesday of this week which includes 11 pages of amendments. These are not amendments that have been considered by the select committee. They are amendments that affect a large— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I understand that. The time has come for me to leave the Chair to report progress and I must do that. 
Progress reported.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8696] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion 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 insert after the word “Finance” the words “Additional Compliance”.
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16583] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 295 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 7 and to add new clauses 61B and 67B are ruled out of order as that Supplementary Order Paper was not lodged with 24 hours’ notice. 
The question was put that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8089] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 122 in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 12 be agreed to.
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:609;Page:6238] 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Debate resumed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Motion agreed to.
Parker David: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Parker David: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11651] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Parker David: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Parker David: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21698] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Duynhoven Harry: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6284] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9062] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mark Ron: General Debates 
Mark Ron: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6155] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the start of the next member’s speech but I do so in his interests. Prior to your taking the Chair a member who was sitting in the Chamber Dr Smith was chastised by the Speaker for interjecting from a seat that was not his and he was silenced. Through the entire course of the Rt Hon Winston Peter’s speech that rather inane member Mr Cunliffe ran a non-stop inane barrage of chatter that did not even make sense. But more important it was interjecting. In the interests of the remaining speakers who have yet to have their time could I ask that that sort of nonsense be curtailed? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that.
Benson-Pope David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7010] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: I am pleased to rise in support of this sensible and overdue legislation. 
No one in the country will have missed the irony in the comments of the previous speaker who said that this has not been moved on fast enough. I just wonder why the National Government took no steps in this direction when it was in power for 9 years. This bill is timely for two reasons. Firstly it is timely because it restates our position as a responsible member of the international community and for that reason we support the objectives of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Secondly in ratifying the convention we are clearly stating that by playing our part internationally we are also helping to make New Zealand a cleaner and safer place for our residents and visitors.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15605] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 2 and the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 256 in his name to clause 23 be agreed to.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16488] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments 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. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17938] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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 9. 
Amendment agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Questions for Written Answer 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4130] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I move to question No. 4 I just want to say to Katherine Rich that the replies will be supplied before the House sits tomorrow. 
Question time resumed.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11632] 
4.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What reports has he received on the implementation of the New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2010? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 New Zealand has amazingly two places in the top ten places ranked in the first ever global assessment of sustainable tourism practice which was commissioned by the  
National Geographic  
in conjunction with Leeds Metropolitan University. The South Island has been ranked second in the world with the Bay of Islands placed seventh. A key factor in these rankings was tourism management an issue that the Government and the industry prioritised in our Tourism Strategy 2010. Government tourism and conservation officials are working with the industry as a whole to develop an integrated approach to managing our tourism assets. As can be seen this cooperative approach is working. 
David Parker 
: What do these reports show about the sustainability of our tourism industry? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: What this shows is the importance of our having developed a long-term tourism strategy in partnership with the industry. For the last 4 years the tourism sector has worked together with this Government to ensure that a strategy is in place to actively promote and manage sustainable tourism. This is in marked contrast to the divisive interference of the last batch of National Ministers of Tourism—a style of working I might add that is now obviously the hallmark of that National Party.
Visitors — German Bundestag—Mr Steffen Kampeter 
Visitors — German Bundestag—Mr Steffen Kampeter 
[Volume:617;Page:12835] 
Wednesday 12 May 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
German Bundestag—Mr Steffen Kampeter 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Steffen Kampeter MP from the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish he be welcomed.
Jones Dail: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11059] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I had the privilege of attending one or two Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee meetings on this legislation and the opportunity to question officials on it. I am concerned about the way in which the wording in clause 6 has been arrived at. It seems to be fairly clumsy legislation in that respect. It jumps around the place a little. Being a lawyer I like to see things set out much more clearly than they are in this bill. The first subclause of clause 6 refers to subsection (2) then to section 5(3). We have to work our way through the bill. It seems to be a provision under which New Zealanders have the power to arrest people in a foreign country. 
Obviously the bill is clearly set out in that it relates to members of the police and an overseas operation force. The interpretation provisions in clause 4 are good. One can work one’s way through the minefield. 
New Zealand First is supporting this legislation. I would have appreciated better drafting of clause 6 but I will be interested to hear what any other Government member or other member of the select committee may have to say. We look forward to the passage of the bill.
Hunt Jonathan: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9546] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is that the Criminal— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Person) Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is that the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired) Persons Bill be now read a third time.
Personal Explanations — Question No. 4 to Minister 18 September 
Personal Explanations — Question No. 4 to Minister 18 September 
[Volume:612;Page:8899] 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 4 to Minister 18 September 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 On question for oral answer No. 4 on 18 September our previous sitting day I responded to a supplementary question and referred to a survey on business compliance costs. In the response I may have used the phrase “at least 80 percent”. The response I had presumed I had made and certainly had intended to make in line with my briefing notes was “up to 80 percent”. I have ensured that the  
Hansard 
 records are in line with what I thought I said. I wanted to draw the attention of the House to this as a matter of personal integrity and because I am interested in maintaining the highest standards of debate in this House.
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:9979] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to.Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor to clause 7 be agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Sue Kedgley to omit new section 17(10) in clause 7 be agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8817] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance. You will recall that some little while ago Mr Speaker was recalled to rule on the issue of the form of this bill. In the context of that discussion Mr Speaker offered a view about this bill being of such significance and moment that it required the widest possible debate by the Committee. He made that point two or three times during his comments to the House. Madam Chair you will recall that in the period immediately before the Speaker was recalled the Associate Minister expressed some views—ostensibly to the Committee but I assume they were directed at you—about the breadth of the debate that had just gone on and it was certainly interpreted in this part of the Chamber as being some covert hint to you about limiting the debate on Part 2. 
Before we commence that debate I want your assurance that you will be guided by the Speaker’s injunction and not the political advice of the Minister and given the number of members—there is a very high number of members here for this time of the evening—who are keen to take part in this debate that you will ensure that every single member who wishes to speak in this debate will have the opportunity to do so and that you will not be looking to closures for some weeks yet on this particular part.
Dyson Ruth: General Debate 
Dyson Ruth: General Debate 
[Volume:623;Page:18488] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Richard Long went into Don Brash’s office and said: “Don I’ve got a cunning plan.” and off Dr Brash went to put that cunning plan into action. Judith Collins believes that that cunning plan was successful because sacking Katherine Rich got Helen Clark off the front page. That is what Judith Collins has been saying around the place. It worked. It got Helen Clark off the front page. 
If that was the strategy I say: “Well done!” to the Long-McCully strategy team. It was a very very cunning plan. They will be hoping for a very very early election because if their strategy is to sack National’s competent spokespersons in order to raise the party’s media profile Dr Brash is in trouble because he does not have very many left. If we include his entire caucus rather than just the competent one or two and if he sacked one member a week he would still be in trouble by the middle of August. Frankly he would run out of colleagues to sack. 
According to an increasing number of the National Party caucus perhaps the sackings should start at the top. It is time for Dr Brash to face up to the fact that he has been a total failure as a leader. He is desperate he is indecisive and he is divisive. He does not know what to do and he certainly does not know how to do it. 
Brian Connell—who apparently is a National member of Parliament—almost got it right when he said that the decision to dump Katherine Rich was stupid. But frankly it was more than stupid. It was just plain nasty. Simon Power got dumped and he stayed on the front bench. Bill English got dumped and he stayed on the front bench. Nick Smith got dumped and he is on the front bench. Georgina te Heuheu got sacked and she is on the back bench. Lynda Scott got dumped and she is on the back bench. And then out completely. Katherine Rich got sacked and she is off the front bench. What is the difference? 
What is the problem with women in the National Party? When Dr Brash was asked directly on  
Nine to Noon 
 whether he had a problem with women he said: “Ah ah I don’t believe that’s the case.” Then he was asked whether he was out of touch with women voters and he said in his usual decisive way: “Ah I don’t believe so.” Then he enlightened us all by adding: “Well Georgina certainly is a woman and Katherine is as well.” Frankly I say to Dr Brash that we had already noticed and we have noticed his treatment of them. 
The National Party historian Barry Gustafson said in the paper recently: “You had four prominent women I thought you could take to the next election but it’s a bit like bottles on the wall and you’re down to your last bottle.” I do not think anyone in the House could have put it better than a  
Southland Times 
 article that stated: “Replacing Mrs Rich with Ms Collins is hardly a case of taking an opportunity to trade up.” It was a big mistake—yet another on Dr Brash’s long list.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Breach of Privilege—Television One 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Breach of Privilege—Television One 
[Volume:625;Page:20656] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I certainly did not want to litigate the breach of privilege in the House. I did want to suggest to you that it is quite serious with Television One reporting what it has reported. I can satisfy you that I have written to you again with further evidence following Television One’s reports last night and have actually suggested that if you are not prepared to take David Benson-Pope to the Privileges Committee then you certainly have to look at taking Television One news.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16481] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
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:11342] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 In view of the fact that Peter Brown has already said he will not permit it there is no point in going ahead. So I will leave it.
Ririnui Mita: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22082] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call on this bill the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill and like my Government colleagues I stand to oppose it. The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Act which came into force in December of last year provides for the protection of workers volunteers and the public from the effects of second-hand smoke. That being the case we have to ask ourselves why this bill was introduced to the House. I heard the Green speaker Keith Locke earlier on describe this bill as frivolous and I think he is quite right. 
The speaker from United Future talked about property rights. Well what about the rights of the workers volunteers and the general public to go about their workplace responsibilities and daily lives without being inhibited by somebody who smokes blowing smoke in their space? Those are the most important rights that any Parliament can protect. 
The member who sponsored this bill which I call her swansong is unaware of the support that the public in general has for the current Smoke-free Environments Act. It is quite widely accepted in those places that she promotes an exemption for that smoking is just not allowed. Workers can go about their work without being inhibited. Some workers may be harassed by employers who seek their support for smoking in clubs and pressure them into agreeing to allow people who enjoy a cigarette to smoke in their space. Those smokers can go outside to a car-park or to a paddock down the road and enjoy themselves there uninhibited. 
 So this bill really has no place in this House and certainly this habit has no place in today’s society. Statistics are telling us that each year one-third of Maori deaths are attributed to smoking either directly or indirectly. Amongst Maori communities there is huge support for the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Act in that even on marae where smoking was quite common and accepted it now is just not accepted and is not done. In fact the younger generation are continually reminding those who come on to marae to leave their cigarettes in the car and are telling them that if they feel like a smoke they should go outside to have one.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17936] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Donald Rod: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Act—Review 
Donald Rod: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Act—Review 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
I seek leave to table two documents. One is the European Commission request to New Zealand that we remove Overseas Investment Commission control of rural land and remove the $10 million level of scrutiny. The second document is Robert Zoellick’s letter to the United States Senate.
Pillay Lynne: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14182] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney: General Debates 
Hide Rodney: General Debates 
[Volume:613;Page:10158] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
I am sorry to disappoint Trevor Mallard but I just could not stop myself. I fell asleep right through that 5 minutes because that speech was so terrible. I did not hear a thing.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13044] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 198 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1).
Hide Rodney: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6109. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the report  
Litany of Lies in Parliament 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Locke Keith: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12289] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a short call to respond to a point made by Gerry Eckhoff. He said he would not have the slightest problem with his emails being intercepted. Sometimes people use the argument that if they have nothing to hide why bother? There is a number of dimensions to the Green critique of this legislation. One of them is this straight question of personal privacy. Everyone has affairs he or she wants to remain private. We use computers and emails very extensively. Our whole life is often on our computers including very personal stuff—love life and all kinds of things that we do not want people intruding into. It is all very well to say: “Well if I’m squeaky clean and nothing I’m doing in private is going to get me into trouble with the law then I don’t need to worry about whether my emails are intercepted.” but one thing that is true in our society is that all these agencies are operated by real people with the full range of human emotions and foibles and everything else. 
One thing struck me when a former employee of the Communications Security Establishment in Canada which is the equivalent of the Government Communications Security Bureau here came to New Zealand a couple of years ago. He said that a lot of this interception stuff is rather boring so when he and his colleagues came across personal titbits sex stuff and what not they would watch or listen in. It is just human reality that there is interest in personal things. We have experiences going right back to the British royal family with the “Squidgy” tapes and everything else of people taking an interest wrong though it might be in the personal affairs sex life etc. of others. 
The problem is that the technology being authorised here involves such a large scale of interception and fine-tuning who is being intercepted through various filters—email origin destination numbers keyword combinations etc.—that the surveillance can be used in non-political areas. Up to this present time I have been dealing more with the political area of interception but even in the non-political area of personal privacy people can pry into our lives unnecessarily. There is provision in this bill for hacking by the Government Communications Security Bureau or the Security Intelligence Service—that is remote access to one’s computer and one does not even know. That could result in people searching around in other people’s files and taking an interest not just in political things but in very personal things. We do not need to go down that track if it is not warranted and the Green Party does not think it is warranted in the present circumstances in New Zealand.
Woolerton R Doug: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Woolerton R Doug: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17535] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Like the previous speaker I have not taken part in this debate to date and I want to mention just a couple of matters. I am opposed to the Civil Union Bill and I too think the issue should be put to a referendum. One could ask why the Government would not want to do that. We know that this Labour Government is the most poll-driven Government ever. So it cannot be said that it does not know what the majority of New Zealanders think on this issue. In fact the majority of people think that this bill should not be passed. That is why there will not be a referendum. 
This Labour Government sees itself as a Government that should legislate for minorities. It wants to be elected by the majority it seeks the vote of the majority then having got that vote it sees its role its only role as legislating for minorities. I will not go through the list of legislation that has been passed under that thought process because everybody in this Parliament and in the country knows that is what has happened over the past few years. So this legislation is not about what the people think; this is not about what the majority thinks; this is about what this particular Government thinks. 
It is even more than that because under an MMP way of governing there are not only constituencies but also interest groups. The people who are affected by this bill are an interest group that the Labour Party in particular sees as its own. So it is in the Labour Government’s interest to pass this legislation not just for all the wonderful reasons we hear the proponents of this bill putting forward in the House not only for the good of the country but for their own particular votes. This is an area that the Government sees itself as having locked up for itself. Labour has pandered to this group of people and it now has to deliver to this group of people. That is the way it is. Whether that is right or wrong depends on one’s view. I do not view it as being right. I view it as being wrong and I am voting against this bill for that reason and a number of others. 
New Zealand First believes that these sorts of issues should be put to a referendum—indeed a binding referendum—and we have gone so far as to adopt that as policy. But because the Government knows that it would not like the result it is not interested in that course of action. Then we could have a great big philosophical debate about whether the Government is governing in the interests of the majority for the minority or whether it is governing in the interests of the majority for the majority or whether it is governing in its own interests. I suggest that it is certainly not governing in the interests of the majority.
Pettis Jill: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5156] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter Chris: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11262] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Visitors — Premier of Niue 
Visitors — Premier of Niue 
[Volume:607;Page:4405] 
Wednesday 26 March 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Premier of Niue 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Young Vivian Premier of Niue is within the precincts of the Chamber accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I am sure members would wish he be welcomed. 
The Hon Young Vivian accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Hereora Dave: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hereora Dave: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6315] 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19642] 
9. Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
 on behalf of  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does Wellington have enough police; if so why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Last year crime in the Wellington area dropped by 11 percent. That is the sign of a well-led well-resourced police service and the public are well pleased with that. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: In the light of that answer how does he explain the fact that Wellington’s front-line police numbers are so depleted that public confidence is down as measured police are speaking out about chronic shortages and the mayor is pleading with Ministers for additional staff? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police and leaders always want additional staff. However I can tell the member that Wellington residents when asked in a recent survey about their sense of freedom from crime in the home after dark felt the safest—94 percent thought that. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Has the Minister received any reports about policing in the Wellington area? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes. Just today the National Party candidate for Wellington Central said: “I have had a wonderful experience. I was burgled just the other day and the fingerprinting guys were awesome. They came within 2 hours.” That was on Linda Clark’s show this morning. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Which other Wellington local authority leaders apart from the Mayor of Wellington have raised concerns with the Minister about staffing in their areas? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Mayors over the last 5 years have come with issues and I have always listened and that is why crime is down by 11 percent in the Wellington area.
Power Simon: Visiting Forces Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Visiting Forces Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:13755] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I will not take a full 5-minute call the Government senior whip will be relieved to know. I do want to ask the Minister in the chair one question and given that this is not the Minister’s legislation I will give him the opportunity to seek some advice. The proposed bill strikes out its applying in Tokelau. The new clause 24 says that this bill is not in force in Tokelau. It states down the bottom in very small print “Compare: 1939 No 36 s 7”. So I did and I have it here. The original Visiting Forces Act 1939 did apply in Tokelau. In fact it applied in the Cook Islands and Tokelau as if those forces were part of home forces. That is the only issue I wish to raise. I wonder whether the Minister would be good enough to reassure the House that that particular clause will not get us into any difficulty in the future.
Urgent Debates Declined — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Unallocated Cases Pike RiverCoalmine Proposal 
Urgent Debates Declined — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Unallocated Cases Pike RiverCoalmine Proposal 
[Volume:616;Page:11644] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Child Youth and Family Services Department—Unallocated Cases 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Dr Muriel Newman seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the Department of Child Youth and Family Services’ management of its waiting list of unallocated cases of potential child abuse. As has been ruled on many occasions before a continuing issue such as unemployment figures for example and in this case the management of waiting lists cannot give rise to a debate under Standing Order 373. There being no particular case of recent occurrence this application is declined. 
Pike River—Coalmine Proposal 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate the Government’s conditional approval for access arrangements for the Pike River coalmine proposal. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to a debate on this subject over other business before the House. This application is also declined.
Ward Mike: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Ward Mike: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7947] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I am a reformed smoker. I gave up some time back and I would remind those members who are speaking against this bill that much of the freedom from smoking they now enjoy has not always been there. Once upon a time people smoked in other people’s homes all the time. The staffroom in the school I taught in was a smoking staffroom and everybody put up with it. Larry Baldock spoke on behalf of children and I point out that smokers up and down the country smoked in their homes—it was a normal thing to do. However the culture has changed because people decided that it was not right and not fair to non-smokers. Now all of us can be fairly sure that when people come into our homes they will not light up. People no longer light up in the staffrooms up and down the country; they respect the rights of others. 
There is only one place where that is not the case and that is in the pubs. I like going into pubs but I do not like coming out smelling like an ashtray. I do not like going home taking off my clothes and waking up the next morning and finding that they still smell. The smokers I know say that they do not enjoy that density of smoke either. As a former smoker I can recall that it was not a lot of fun being surrounded by other people smoking. 
This bill is in the interests of all of us. Smoking is an exceedingly unhealthy habit. Imposing one’s smoke on other people is an exceedingly unfriendly thing to do and most people realise that. They will get used to it in the pubs and they will get used to it very quickly but I find the support of United Future members for this bill particularly strange. They seem to think that it is OK to go on smoking in bars but it is not OK. 
This is a good bill. I thank Ms Chadwick for her efforts. On behalf of those of us who no longer smoke I say well done. Ms Chadwick is in a long line of people who have been doing a grand job in making this place a little healthier for all of us.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8946] 
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 142 in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to add new subsection (5) to new section 38A in clause 18 be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Answers Maori Language—Interpretation Points of Order—Minister’s Answers 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Answers Maori Language—Interpretation Points of Order—Minister’s Answers 
[Volume:615;Page:11495] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: During question No. 11 on 26 February which was last Thursday a number of points arose out of the interpretation of a reply by the Minister of Maori Affairs and I undertook to respond to them. The Hon Roger Sowry raised the question of whether a member whose speech has been incorrectly interpreted is under an obligation to correct that interpretation. If the member gives his or her own interpretation then the answer is yes. In the same way that any member who gives wrong information to the House is under an obligation to clear the matter up as soon as the error is appreciated—Speaker’s ruling 163/6—a member who gives an incorrect interpretation must do so too but where the interpretation is given by an interpreter I cannot hold that any such onus falls on the member. As Speaker’s ruling 34/3 makes plain members do not own the interpretations of their speeches and are not responsible for them. I would hope however that members would on a point of order clear up any misunderstanding arising out of an interpretation of a speech. 
A further point was raised as to whether when the Minister’s speech was translated for inclusion in  
Hansard 
 I would come back to the House if it revealed any unparliamentary language. There was unparliamentary language used—the Minister addressed another member in the second person—but the Minister cleared this up himself by a personal explanation later in the day. That matter is now closed. 
I wish to add some general remarks about interpretation. As Speakers’ rulings 34/4 and 34/5 make clear an interpretation especially one given off the cuff is always liable to be rough and ready. Members must make allowance for that. We must appreciate too that the process of interpretation is not merely a matter of transliterating word for word from one language into another. Especially with languages as different in their origins as English and Maori this is not possible. I am satisfied that the interpretation given last week did convey the broad sense of what the Minister said. 
The one deficiency was a peculiarly parliamentary point—the personal pronoun the Minister used was not conveyed. In most settings whether someone is speaking in the second person or the third person is unimportant; in this Chamber it can be critical. The Clerk has spoken to the interpreters about the particular parliamentary context in which an interpretation is given and attention will be paid to that in the future. If members would like a copy of either ruling the Clerk will provide it to them.
Wilson Margaret: Authority to Administer Oath 
Wilson Margaret: Authority to Administer Oath 
[Volume:624;Page:18953] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I take this opportunity to inform the House that I have received the following commission from Her Excellency the Governor-General authorising me to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House. 
The authorisation reads— 
Pursuant to section 11 of the Constitution Act 1986 I The Honourable Dame Silvia Cartwright Governor-General of New Zealand hereby authorise you the Honourable Margaret Anne Wilson Speaker of the House of Representatives to administer to members of Parliament the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen required to be taken or made by every such member before that member shall be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives. 
Helen Clark Prime Minister 
Authorised Silvia Cartwright Governor-General 3 March 2005