edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21548] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Overseas Investment Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 7; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Beyer Georgina: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6314] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21582] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10315] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Jim Peron—Leave for Members to Apologise 
Points of Order — Jim Peron—Leave for Members to Apologise 
[Volume:625;Page:20370] 
Points of Order 
Jim Peron—Leave for Members to Apologise 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the interests of fairness I seek leave because of the attack made by Rodney Hide and Matt Robson on my integrity for those members to have time to apologise to me on the issue of Jim Peron. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member cannot seek leave for other people. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: But I should should I not? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The Standing Orders do not permit that.
Copeland Gordon: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10761] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 This will be my final contribution to the deliberations of this House for 2003. I am sure that some will say: “Thank God for that!” I take the opportunity to wish you Mr Speaker all the very best for Christmas and for 2004 and also to wish that for my fellow MPs. 
United Future supports the introduction of this bill its first reading and its referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think that the updating through this bill of what are already world-class accounting systems is good. We can make some incremental improvements and I strongly endorse the commitment in the bill—which Rodney Hide devoted his speech to—to the improvement of ethics transparency and other anti-corruption measures because we must certainly safeguard those values that are so important to our economy and our society. 
I want to make just one observation about the bill. One night on television during the debate on the foreshore and seabed I heard the Prime Minister tell Paul Holmes that one of the reasons why the Government has gone for the term “public domain” instead of “Crown” in relation to those areas is that it would be inflammatory as far as Maori are concerned to hold them in the title of the Crown. 
It therefore made me wonder why we have adopted the practice in New Zealand of calling our accounts the “Crown accounts”. We call other things “Crown entities”. We have a whole array of different things that are now referred to by the term “Crown” and we have other terms like “sovereign debt” and so on. Back in an earlier time that I am old enough to remember the accounts were simply referred to as the “public accounts”. Debt was just called “Government debt” or “Government bonds”. 
So I wonder whether it is useful in today’s society in New Zealand to refer to all of those entities using the term “Crown” because the impression probably given of that term from a Maori point of view—as they regard the Crown as the other party to the Treaty of Waitangi—is that somehow or other it refers to the reigning monarch. We all know of course that those accounts do not account for the activities of the reigning monarch. They are in fact the accounts of the activities of New Zealanders themselves carried out through the agency of the duly-elected Government. In a very real sense therefore they are the accounts of the people and for the people of New Zealand. 
I will not say much more except that I intend to take the unusual course of making a submission to the select committee on this matter in order to ask whether the term “Crown” is the right one for us in going forward and in considering where we are going as a nation. Is the term helpful is it confusing or is it ambiguous? I will ask those questions so we might give some time to a reconsideration of that aspect. With those few words I take pleasure in signalling United Future’s support for the bill.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8651] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Gambling Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Power Simon: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
Power Simon: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
[Volume:622;Page:18095] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am seeking some guidance from you. I understand from correspondence that has just been passed to me that a problem has been identified with the system for lodging questions for written answer. I am advised that the system is presently refusing to accept questions when they are signed electronically by members. The text completely disappears and repeated attempts to enter the questions have ended in the same result. Bearing in mind the very vague possibility that this could be the last day to lodge written questions two issues arise. Firstly what remedy is available to members who are presently and have previously been involved in lodging written questions for the next sitting day which presumably will not be until February? Secondly what consequence does that have for the time limits around lodging those questions prior to the House rising—whether that be Saturday Tuesday or Wednesday of next week? The question arises as to what remedies are being made available to members particularly as we are nearing the end of the year. I seek the Speaker’s guidance to members who are presently attempting to lodge questions as to how that process will pan out. In particular I seek an assurance that they will not be disadvantaged by what appears to be from the correspondence I have seen a problem with the system. I seek your guidance.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4100] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 45 
Amendment agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: 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:9967] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move  
That the order of the day for the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be postponed until the first members’ day after 1 March 2004 
.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8227] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 252 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
252New section 55A inserted 
The Principal Act is amended by inserting after section 55 the following section: 
55A 
Mandatory condition of licence to operate pharmacy 
It is a condition of every licence to operate a pharmacy that the holder of the licence must not request or require any pharmacist who is employed or engaged in duties at a pharmacy to act in a way that is inconsistent with the applicable professional or ethical standards of pharmacy practice.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14582] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13159] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the No New Private Management of Prisons Act”.
Duynhoven Harry: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12211] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I thank Mr Brown for his helpful suggestions. In his handwritten amendment he has proposed a new clause 18A which we need to complement the change that we made earlier so I recommend we support that. I do not support his proposal to insert new clause 17A providing for communicating with shipping agents because they are not defined in the code. There is nothing to stop the designated authority from communicating anyway with the shipping agent locally—that is not a problem. For a variety of reasons I am sorry that the Government does not go with the rest of Mr Brown’s amendments. 
However I want to talk specifically to the proposal to delete subclause (2) of clause 36. I am afraid that the Government cannot agree to that because it is specifically required in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. It would be most unwise to take that out in line with the consistency of the remarks that Mr Brown made previously. I draw members’ attention to the minor technical change to clause 42 which is outlined in my amendment on the Table. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to insert new clause 17A be agreed to: 
17ACommunicating with ship operators 
For the purposes of this Act a person may give a notice or direction to or otherwise communicate with a ship operator for a ship by giving the notice or direction to or communicating with the shipping agent for the ship.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7299] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 6 Dianne Yates. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Lynne Pillay on behalf of— 
Lynne Pillay 
: My question is to the Minister of Women’s Affairs. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Dianne Yates is in the Chamber. She was down to ask the question; she must ask it. I am sorry. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Hide you are about to leave the Chamber. You make too much noise and that is a frequent occurrence. I have given a ruling. I am on my feet and I will not have any nonsense at all. Dianne Yates will please ask the question as she is in the Chamber.
Hobbs Marian: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15850] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Can I just take up the point that was reasonably and rationally raised by the last speaker on the question of the independence of the Commerce Commission. The chair of the Electricity Commission is an associate member of the Commerce Commission only in respect of Part 4A matters which relate to price control under the Commerce Act. The Minister cannot give directions on Part 4A either to the Commerce Commission or to the Electricity Commission. So when the chair of the Electricity Commission is sitting on the Commerce Commission for Part 4A matters he or she as a member of the Commerce Commission is not subject to direction and is therefore independent.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21557] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 12 
ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 7. 
Amendments agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20524] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.
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:20985] 
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 20(1) be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (a) the following new subparagraph: 
(iii)Victim Support; and”.
Brown Peter: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Brown Peter: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11018] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We might have misheard but when Dr Cullen started his speech there was a degree of noise. We believe he said—and we take offence at this—that New Zealand First was part of cutting the pensions for the elderly. We are in no way associated with that and we strongly object. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made a debating point. It is not a point of order.
Pettis Jill: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3730] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Chadwick Steve: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17413] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call in the third reading of this bill. This is yet another promise delivered from the Labour Government. The older people in our communities know that we went out in 1999 and said that this is exactly what we would do. If only the Opposition understood about fiscal responsibility. When we got into Government and began to cost this bill in order to keep the promise we found the cost to be exorbitant. With the fiscally responsible hands of Dr Cullen on the tiller and the urgings of Ruth Dyson as the Minister responsible for older persons we have delivered a package today that the older people in our communities will be more than happy with. They also do understand because they are sensible and wise that we will implement this strategy over time. I am delighted to have this bill in the House today. I support it.
Locke Keith: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19886] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party in the name of Metiria Turei has moved some amendments to this part all of which restore some measure of the environmental protections for marine reserves that are missing from the bill. Most notably we think that the guardians should include a member of the New Zealand Conservation Authority. The Fiordland Marine Guardians grew out of the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment to which the Sustainable Management Fund grant was made. Clearly the latter group was most concerned with the sustainability of the fish that people consider valuable to catch. 
The final form of the plan on which this bill is based recognised in a modest way the need to sustainably manage the marine environment for other purposes—specifically to protect the unique biodiversity of the fiords. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is better equipped to advocate for this and to ensure that this purpose is not downgraded to people primarily interested in extractive activities be they recreational or commercial. We also recommend changing the review period to enable a review to occur no earlier than 3 years and no later than 5 years. That is sufficient time to assess the effectiveness of the management regime that will be put into law by this bill. The review should be time limited being completed within a year of its start. 
In schedule 3 we recommended that the automatic right to land aircraft in the marine reserves be taken out. It is absolutely irresponsible to allow an unlimited number of aircraft to land and take off within the marine reserves without any controls. The requirement for a concession could affect the control necessary to protect both the natural environment and the experience of that environment for the people who go there. Tour buses need concessions to drive into national parks and planes require the same to land in national parks. Likewise aircraft should require some level of permission from the Department of Conservation before landing in marine reserve areas. 
Marine reserves are our national parks of the sea. The potential for disaster is enormous and could be easily remedied with the exercise of a little bit of control. These marine reserves deserve the same level of protection as any other national park in our country. In schedules 6 7 and 8 we have restored the anchoring restrictions to the “china shops”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are discussing Part 3. The member should be debating Part 3. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Does that not include the schedules? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is schedule 13 only.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6790] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:622;Page:17686] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I just make it clear that the Government will be making available House time if necessary should parties change their mind. I note that New Zealand First also declined to join the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee but later joined it in a very positive fashion.
Chadwick Steve: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11202] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill.
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:608;Page:5714] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I name the Hon Dr Nick Smith for defying the Chair. The question now is  
That the Hon Dr Nick Smith be suspended from the service of the House.
Dalziel Lianne: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6716] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Care of Children Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: An amendment has been received from Metiria Turei to omit the words “Government Administration” and substitute the words “Justice and Electoral”.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Floods Lower North Island—Government Response Minister of Immigration — Resignation 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Floods Lower North Island—Government Response Minister of Immigration — Resignation 
[Volume:615;Page:11225] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point. I can accept one application. I have accepted Mr English’s.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:20495] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We will be happy to vote for the member if he tells us why. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8166] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to clause 170(c) be agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9164. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes is he intending to make to the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act and why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 A bill will be introduced before the House rises this year that will make a number of changes. Most important it will dramatically increase the penalties for producing distributing and possessing child pornography. This is necessary to respond to to denounce and to deter the proliferation of child pornography through the Internet. It represents our position of zero tolerance towards those who would exploit and degrade children for sexual purposes. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Will the bill include measures recommended by the Government Administration Committee with regard to covert filming and hate speech? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. Both those things are important matters but they do not belong in censorship legislation. Covert filming should be made illegal but it is more appropriately dealt with through privacy and criminal legislation. We have asked the Law Commission to report on that by January next year. Hate speech needs to be considered in the context of the Human Rights Act alongside current provisions dealing with comments provoking racial hatred. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it acceptable to have two homosexuals in charge of censorship in this country; if not will the Minister consider replacing one or both of them in order to better reflect New Zealand society as against Labour Party structure? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are entitled to ask questions in silence. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have no knowledge of nor interest in a person’s sexual orientation. I regard that as irrelevant to the job. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister concede that had the Government acted sooner individuals like Lower Hutt’s Kevin Edwards who was caught with over 5000 pictures of young boys being sexually abused might now be doing more jail time than a mere 6 months and does he intend to change the Act to ensure that individuals such as Mr Edwards serve their convictions consecutively instead of concurrently; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I guess we could say that it would have been great if we had introduced the legislation 10 years ago. We did not. We are closely following other countries that have introduced similar legislation as a precedent. What this legislation will do is increase the penalty for the production trading and distribution of pornography from a maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment to 10 years—that is a tenfold increase—and for those in possession of child pornography from a fine of $20000 to up to 2 years’ imprisonment. They are both dramatic but I believe necessary increases.
Power Simon: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20559] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I appreciate your ruling and I would appreciate your raising the matter directly with the Speaker. Although it was a matter for the committee at the time the report was done it is now a matter for the House to decide whether the course of action followed by the Justice and Electoral Committee was appropriate and that is the issue I raise.
Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Procedure 
Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9967] 
Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the second reading of the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill be postponed until after private and local order of the day No. 1. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15626] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to Part 5 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
145BRetention of quota by defined takiwa iwi pending dispute resolution 
(1)This section applies to quota allocated to the mandated iwi organisation of a defined takiwa iwi if the entitlement of that organisation to that quota is the subject of— 
(a)a dispute to which this Part applies in relation to a coastline claim submitted under clause 7A of the Schedule 5 (coastal claims for takiwa of defined takiwa iwi); or 
(b)proceedings in a Court in relation to such a dispute the commencement of which is not prohibited by section 139A(2). 
(2)The mandated iwi organisation of a defined takiwa iwi must not transfer mortgage charge or encumber any quote to which this section applies before the earlier of— 
(a)the date on which— 
(i)the dispute is resolved under this Part; or 
(ii)judgment is given in the proceedings or the proceedings are withdrawn; and 
(b)2 years after— 
(i)the dispute in relation to the quote is notified in writing to the mandated iwi organisation of the defined takiwa iwi; or 
(ii)the proceedings are commenced. 
(3)A Court must not make any order preventing the mandated iwi organisation of a defined takiwa iwi from transferring mortgaging charging or encumbering any quota to which this section applies after the expiry of the period specified in subsection (2)(b). 
(4)If after the expiry of the period specified in subsection (2)(b) a Court gives judgment against the mandated iwi organisation of a defined takiwa iwi in relation to a dispute or proceedings relating to quota to which this section applies the Court must not order the mandated iwi organisation of the defined takiwa iwi— 
(a)to transfer all or any of the quota to the person in whose favour the judgment is given; or 
(b)to pay compensation to that person in respect of loss of income from the quota.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4816] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
Noes 7 
Bill read a second time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 7.
Robertson H V Ross: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12881] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that voting lists are available at the Table if members wish to see them. That is the normal convention in the Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] The Committee is becoming a little bit too noisy. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 61/2 and 61/5. There is to be no comment at all when votes are being taken.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8228] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 in the name of Heather Roy to new section 105C(2) in clause 254 be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:616;Page:11775] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Income Tax Bill to be set down for 30 March to be up to a maximum of 3 hours and for the House to proceed directly after the Committee stage to a motion from the Minister in charge for the third reading of the bill after which the debate is to be adjourned until 8 April without the bill being reprinted under Standing Order 266(2). I am referring to the bill on the Table. Members will understand why in a bill of this sort which does not introduce any new policy it is desirable to avoid reprinting it between the two stages.
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21909] 
8.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the total cost to date of the computer system and software for the National Immunisation Register including the cost of fixing the reported 150 bugs remedying compatibility issues and correcting data records and how much is recoverable from suppliers in penalties remedies or non-performance fees? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that the cost of developing the computer software for the National Immunisation Register is $4.256 million spread over 3 years. This is split into two systems: the National Immunisation Register with a cost of $3.213 million and the school-based vaccination system with a cost of $1.043 million. I am further advised that there have been no costs to fix the bugs. Those fixes have been completed at the vendor’s cost as required in the contract. There are no current compatibility issues that the ministry is aware of. There are no additional costs to the project for correcting data records. The contract allows for recovery of funds if required for non-performance. 
Heather Roy 
: Is it true that the Ministry of Health is paying a support contract of $25000 per month for the computer system for the National Immunisation Register that this is higher than the normal market value and that the contractor is required to fix all bugs in a timely manner or incur a $1000-a-day penalty—but that bugs are not being fixed and that no penalties have been charged—and what explanation can the Minister possibly give for this? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister have any idea how many children who have had immunisations have not been placed on the register and conversely how many children who have not had immunisations have been placed on the register; and how could she have bragged about that register only last Friday at Wairakei when she must have known about the shambles surrounding it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can brag about the Immunisation Register because it was asked for in the mid-1990s and was declined by Bill English as not being needed yet anybody who knows anything about increasing immunisation rates knows that it is needed. Any bugs in the system were expected during its establishment. It has been in place for 11 months and those problems are being sorted out. 
Heather Roy 
: Did Orion Systems International receive that contract through a closed-tender process and is that company also the supplier of the computer system and software for the other failed project the health provider index information technology project—or have the Minister’s officials not told her of that failure either? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not have that information with me mainly because I do not get involved in contracts. I do know that Orion has done a lot of work in the health system and is one of New Zealand’s finest information technology companies. I have no idea why ACT is chasing after the company as if it has done something wrong.
Peck Mark: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peck Mark: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7377] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support this bill.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7800] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except the Rt Hon Helen Clark”. 
A party vote 
was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to.
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:20992] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to the amendment to clause 16(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “1 July 2007” and substitute the words “3 July 2007”.
Copeland Gordon: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Copeland Gordon: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17804. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I too would like to make a brief comment on clause 17 “Levy notices”. As the Minister in the chair Dr Cullen has pointed out it is an amazing situation in that from Prime Minister Rob Muldoon in 1983 right through to Prime Minister Helen Clark in 2004 these levies have been consistently miscalculated. Since that is a span of some 21 years I think the Government would be wise to figure out exactly how that sort of situation can be avoided in the future. I wonder for example whether the auditors of the Alcohol Advisory Council should have a specific function every year to check to make sure that the levies are being calculated correctly. Although the amounts are relatively small it is in principle a fairly serious matter if a miscalculation continues for 21 years under a number of different regimes. 
The only other thing I noticed in clause 17—and the Minister in the chair may be able to tell me about this—is that the references in the Act are to the Alcohol Advisory Council Act of 1976 but the actual levy notices from 1983 to year 2000 refer to the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council levy notice before they then revert back to using the word “Alcohol”. So I am not sure whether that signifies some change in the status of the personnel of the council but it is just a curious fact that we also decided to call something the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council levy for all those years and then switch back to something that seems a bit more reasonable.
Samuels Dover: General Debates 
Samuels Dover: General Debates 
[Volume:607;Page:4217] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a communication statement from Hemana Waaka the director of Maori Sportscasting International stating that the function was not for political reasons and that some of the suggestions made by Rodney Hide are incorrect and fabricated. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4831] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 10 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
Noes 8 
Clauses 1 to 10 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 74. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9733] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Adams Paul: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
Adams Paul: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4443] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 The current shop trading regime was established by the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act which removed the restrictions on trading on Sundays public holidays and between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. generally. The Act was originally intended to repeal all restrictions but the current remaining restrictions Christmas Day Good Friday Easter Sunday and before 1 p.m. on Anzac Day were later added by a Supplementary Order Paper and passed on a conscience vote. The decision to retain some restrictions required the retention of a system of exemptions. One type of exemption was area exemptions for tourist shopping. However only tourist exemptions already in existence at that time were retained and Rotorua was not included as an existing tourist area. 
The purpose of this bill is to allow shops in the Rotorua district to open on Easter Sunday during the period from 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. I note that the Commerce Committee has not reached a conclusion but has noted that shop trading has traditionally been dealt with on a conscience basis. A working-party has been set up to fully review the law relating to shop trading and it considers that the sensible approach would be to wait for that work to be completed. I note from a letter to all MPs from the National Distribution Union that it also supports this view as does the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the New Zealand Retailers Association. 
Arguments for supporting the bill include the need to respond to local commercial and tourist demands and the need to address some of the anomalies in the Act and enable some areas to trade over Easter. Arguments against include religious grounds—Easter is one of the most significant days on the Christian calendar—the need for retail employees to have some guaranteed days off for family and recreational reasons and indeed the need to just stop and take a breath in a very fast and frantic world. I think there is a huge unseen cost in human terms of having a workforce that is expected to work 24 hours a day 7 days per week. I believe that all those issues need to be taken into consideration as part of a wider review of the Act. Therefore I encourage members to vote against this bill and wait for the completion of the working-party review so that we can review our shop trading legislation fully rather than doing it city by city as with this bill.
Hereora Dave: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16134] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3668] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8079] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 122 in the name of Pita Paraone to omit paragraph (b) of the definition of “scope of practice” in clause 5(1) be agreed to.
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8144] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on this. I am really pleased that two of the Maori members of the Government are here in the Committee though I wonder whether their presence has anything to do with a possible amendment relating to which courts health professionals may take their case. Could it be the Maori Land Court? That seems to be a topic of discussion at the moment. [ 
Interruption 
] Never mind; we will just wait and see. 
First of all my concern with this part is in relation to the likely cost. I think that the processes that are required by both the High Court and the District Court will certainly impose some costs on the health professionals who want to take their case to that level. My major concern is that we have a saying here in our country that we are judged by our peers so I seek some clarification in terms of where the basis for the appeal or the court action is in relation to the vocation of the individual—I want to know whether that is in question. Will those who sit in judgment have the vocational skills to be able to judge? In saying that I am not being critical of our judiciary system; I am talking about a sense of fairness and of being judged by our peers. 
We heard one or two examples about foreign medical practitioners in particular who may not be approved by their peers to practise in this country and who may argue for their right to practise on the basis of their professional competency. Will those who sit in the court have the skill to make that kind of a decision? Will the practitioner go away feeling that he or she has had a fair go at this? Given that that may not happen there is the possibility that the matter may get referred back to the group that gave rise to the original appeal. In my mind that will not only prolong the process but it will add costs. I just wanted to make those two points about being judged by one’s peers and about the costs that will be incurred not only by the appellant himself or herself but by the system in terms of money and the allocation of resources.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20280] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit from the new subsection 32(2) to be substituted by this clause the words: 
“(c)personal injury that is solely attributable to a resource allocation decision:”.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Question No. 2—Minister's Answer 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Question No. 2—Minister's Answer 
[Volume:619;Page:14895] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Earlier I agreed to look at the transcript of question No. 2. The Minister was asked whether his officials were right or wrong to be concerned about pre-signed cheques. He replied: “They sure are” and then said: “I would endorse their being very concerned about those kinds of behaviours.” I agree with Mr Hide that the words “They sure are” taken alone could be ambiguous but the subsequent part of the Minister’s reply made it perfectly clear that he agreed with his officials’ concerns and the answer did address the question.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17895. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to.