edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Beyer Georgina: Death with Dignity Bill — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Death with Dignity Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7489] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is with pride that I take a call on this member’s bill which I intend to support going through to a select committee. From thereon I am torn but I believe that this bill deserves the dignity of at least being debated. I believe that this country is ready to have this full debate and for the bill to have the scrutiny of the select committee process to proceed so that maybe once and for all we could settle this matter in a fully discussed way—albeit I understand we could dispatch it from this House tonight never to be seen again for many many years. 
I also acknowledge Peter Brown for his courage commitment and what I believe to be humane intent in bringing this bill forward toward the House. It takes a great deal of courage to deal with a matter as profound as this and considering we have recently had a conscience debate issue I would have to say that between that matter and this one this of course is the more profound at the end of the day. It is not often that anyone would like to be given the opportunity to decide whether he or she wishes—and excuse the expression if I offend anyone—to play God in these matters. I am sure they are matters that will be traversed if this bill is successful in going through to the select committee. 
Knowing that there are many people on both sides of the argument who have much to say I believe that the country is mature enough in the social and moral advances it has made so far to be given the respect to be able to join in this debate rather than for the debate to be the personal preserve of those of us who sit in this House. For example I am looking forward to hearing from the palliative care sector and from the medical sector. I know they have a lot of stuff out there now but I really want to hear more. I also look forward to hearing from those who are in full support of the bill already—right through to the conclusion of this bill being successful—who will promote it as a humane issue. 
In conclusion I add the very important point that Mr Brown made in his speech which was that this is not euthanasia; this is voluntary euthanasia. I would like to think that as a person who I believe is humanitarian in my approach to life and who indeed believes in human rights I might have the personal choice to make my own decision about those matters when the time comes. However that may not be the case for everybody and I have heard some very good points made already this evening in that regard. But we will not get to the bottom of this really until we have a full and open public debate.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 28 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Messages from Governor-General 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Messages from Governor-General 
[Volume:617;Page:13450] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Can you tell us whether it is usual for this to happen—firstly that the recommendation is announced to the House immediately after the passing of a first reading; and secondly can you tell us why the House has to know this if in fact it is only a recommendation that does not have to be listened to? Are we now in the position where we can debate the Governor-General’s recommendation? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that it is my understanding it has always been done this way. It is perfectly in order. The Constitution Act requires it to be so.
Brash Don: Obituaries — Pope John Paul II 
Brash Don: Obituaries — Pope John Paul II 
[Volume:624;Page:19548] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The National Party strongly supports the motion moved by the Prime Minister. Pope John Paul II was one of the most remarkable men in the second half of the 20th century. He was a man of enormous personal courage. He was born into a Catholic family in Poland and at a time when many Polish Catholics were anti-Semitic he stood out as not being anti-Semitic. Indeed he volunteered to play for the Jewish side in the Catholic-Jewish soccer games of the time. He began classes in a seminary in 1942 at the age of 22 when the Nazis occupied Poland and were actively killing Catholic priests who opposed them. 
He was a man who had a profound effect on world history. He became the 264th Pope in 1978 the first non-Italian in almost five centuries and he was the Pope for 26½ years—the third longest-serving Pontificate in the history of the papacy. He travelled the world very extensively and met with a large number of political leaders. He influenced the international debate on a whole range of issues but he will probably be best remembered certainly by non-Catholics as the man who perhaps more than any other contributed to the fall of the Iron Curtain. Certainly Mikhail Gorbachev once said that the collapse of the Iron Curtain would have been impossible without Pope John Paul II. 
On behalf of the National Party I extend my condolences to New Zealand Catholics and to Catholics around the world.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16184] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Anderton Jim: General Debates 
Anderton Jim: General Debates 
[Volume:617;Page:12856] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I seek leave to table briefing notes to the former Minister of Finance and Minister of Social Welfare in 1991 about raising the age of entitlement to superannuation to 75. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Choudhary Ashraf: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8097] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17353] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Visitors — Australia—Deputy Speaker Parliament of Victoria 
Visitors — Australia—Deputy Speaker Parliament of Victoria 
[Volume:618;Page:14248] 
Visitors 
Australia—Deputy Speaker Parliament of Victoria 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is my pleasure to inform members that Mr Peter Loney Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Victoria Australia is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members would like to welcome him.
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6735] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and that the committee have authority to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c) and that the committee report back to the House on or before 25 August 2003 
.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12995] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 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 the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(e)delivering punishment.
Hide Rodney: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
Hide Rodney: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
[Volume:619;Page:14716] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to put the ACT party’s wholehearted support behind the motion deploring the attacks and condemning anti-Semitism. We also go further. We are very concerned at the anti-Israel sentiment that is growing in the West. My party wholeheartedly supports the right of the State of Israel to exist. As a democracy ourselves we must support Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East. Sadly attacks on Israel have become another outlet for anti-Semitism. 
The ACT party has a vision for New Zealand of a free and tolerant society where all races and religions are treated equally. As a people we are falling short of that vision. We must all now realise that anti-Semitism is a reality here in New Zealand. We must all now realise that attacks on Israel will be interpreted by irresponsible elements as justification for anti-Semitism. We must all now be very very careful. We must not tolerate these attacks. We must stand side by side with the Jewish community and the evil perpetrators of those foul attacks must be brought to justice.
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5143] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 76 
Noes 40 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Tony Ryall to subclause (1) be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by inserting after the words “Minimum Wage” the words “(Repeal of Training Exemption)”.
Simich Clem: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19614] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Power for raising that matter. Could members please quieten down a bit so that Mr Power and others can hear Jill Pettis. 
JILL PETTIS 
: It has taken 12 years for somebody to ask me to speak up but never mind. I thank the member for his assistance. 
Should the unimaginable occur and ACT be in a position to do something of importance in this country it would never pass any settlement or facilitate the passing of any settlement bill because that would heal the sore. ACT does not want to heal the sore; it wants to lift off the scab all the time. That is an ugly expression but ACT members have no desire for peace progress settlement or communities moving forward—not at all. I would have thought that after all this time they would be able to move on in a philosophical sense because it is important to move on. 
While we are in the process of talking about the future it is important to remember the past and acknowledge that this very significant part of New Zealand has maintained that significance because of the generosity and foresight of te Heuheu Tukino an early paramount chief who bequeathed to the nation some of the most significant geography in our country. It has remained in perpetuity to be enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people both New Zealanders and international travellers alike. It is a World Heritage Site and that is very significant. Whenever my relatively small whanau—my children and myself—travelled through that part of the country and we tramped there when they were younger I used to say to the children: “You know you can always come back here because we have Te Ati Haunui-a-Paparangi ancestry.” My hapu is Ngati Pamoana. 
We used to say to my husband—their father—that this was land where we knew we could tramp swim and camp because of our ancestral connection. So this is a very special part of the country to me. Although I am not from Tuwharetoa I have some connection through the upper reaches of the Whanganui River. 
This bill is back before the House partly because the National Government in drawing up and signing a trust deed with Tuwharetoa in 1992 giving the tribe property rights in Lake Taupo failed to be explicit about what it was signing away. Therefore we have had to enter into negotiations to resolve any uncertainties. One of the important parts of this bill is the resolution of uncertainties. The settlement package contains a formal Crown apology and redress which includes the return of significant sites and appropriate levels of funding as well. 
This is an important bill. It is not large in its significance overall but nevertheless it is important. I am pleased we have had a good and constructive debate this evening. I look forward to its progress through the House as quickly as is achievable.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5083] 
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 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 71 be agreed to.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4488] 
3.  
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: Is the Government supporting an expedition to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Sir Edmund Hillary’s ascent of Everest; if so how? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 Yes the Hillary Mekong from source to sea expedition will start in Tibet in June. Five adventurous young New Zealanders will spend 80 days travelling the 4500 kilometres from Tibet to Vietnam. They will walk mountain bike and kayak the entire length of the Mekong River. They will be the first people ever to do so. Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC) will provide up to $100000 for this inspirational adventure. 
Dave Hereora 
: What is the purpose of the SPARC Hillary expedition? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday I was asked by Mr Brownlee whether I would be indicating to anyone when there were interjections while questions were being asked. I am not going to do so because two of the people who interjected on this occasion were from his own party. A member asking a question is to be heard in silence. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes there are a number of purposes. The key purpose is to honour Sir Edmund Hillary. The expedition aims to raise the profile of physical activity to encourage young New Zealanders into trying physical activity and to create inspirational new role models who do things for the first time. Resources will be available for teachers of 11 and 12-year-olds and there will be further expeditions every second year. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given the decision to abandon the use of Sir Edmund’s name in relation to the national sporting and recreational body named in recognition of his achievements is there any plan in addition to the expedition to take any further step in honouring Sir Edmund? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. 
Stephen Franks 
: In the light of that answer if the support was a genuine respect for Sir Edmund’s achievement and not an attempt to gain or retrieve political credit by association why did the Government not honour this most respected New Zealander by leaving his name on the independent Hillary Commission instead of calling it SPARC and turning it into a Government poodle? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the only poodle in this House is that member when he is following Richard Prebble around picking up— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Minister knows he has gone too far. He will withdraw that comment and then he will answer the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. From memory this House made a unanimous decision on that question.
Donald Rod: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Donald Rod: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7674] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. A decision was made yesterday at the Business Committee about the speaking order for this debate. A roster was tabled by the senior Government whip at the Business Committee meeting specifically because of the problems we had in the last time-limited debate. In that debate the ACT party took an extra call and took up an extra 9 minutes of speaking time that it was not allocated plus a lot of points of order which cost our party and other parties dearly. We lost 12 minutes of debating time in that debate. So yesterday a roster was tabled and an agreement was reached by the Business Committee. We expect that agreement to be honoured which means that this call should be a Green Party call. We reinforce that request on the basis that we consistently cast nine votes in this House and the ACT party casts eight votes and therefore we should be speaking before the ACT party.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5167] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In relation to this question I ask you to consider your prerogative as set out under Speaker’s ruling 116/1. We sent this question down to the Clerk’s Office this morning addressed to the Minister of Finance the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. The question asks for a clarification of a statement he made in the House yesterday yet seemingly in accordance with other Speakers’ rulings there has been a decision that this question be transferred. We accept that in some cases the Government does have an absolute right to do that but clearly Speaker’s ruling 116/1 does not make that right totally absolute. 
Speaker’s ruling 115/4 states: “The Minister primarily concerned is presumed to be the person to decide whether it is a question related to that portfolio or whether it is misdirected.” If we follow the logic the Government appears to have worked today we would be in a situation of Dr Michael Cullen receiving a question relating to something he has said then deciding that he has no idea why he said it or what it was about and referring it to the Minister of Energy for him to give some clarification about what the Minister of Finance meant. There is provision as I said under Speaker’s ruling 116/1 for the Speaker to refuse to transfer a question on the basis that it would be an abuse. How can it be anything but an abuse if a Minister is not prepared to stand up and answer a question in this House about a statement he has made to this House?
Simich Clem: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20516] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr McNair’s speech has ended.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation: House of Assembly Tasmania Parliamentary Committee B on Foreign Affairs Defence and National Security Timor-Leste 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation: House of Assembly Tasmania Parliamentary Committee B on Foreign Affairs Defence and National Security Timor-Leste 
[Volume:613;Page:9919] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have pleasure in informing members that Parliamentary Committee B on Foreign Affairs Defence and National Security from Timor-Leste led by the Chairman Mr Jose Manuel Fernandes is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed.
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: 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.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Although Mr Benson-Pope is the senior Government whip he is a relatively new member and I tell him that it is very inappropriate to talk about a member’s absence from a meeting at Parliament. We all have multiple obligations around this place and we try to fill them according to the need we perceive. There was a National Party representative at the Business Committee meeting. Are you prepared to rule right now Mr Speaker that if there is an agreed order we will somehow suspend the Standing Orders which are very specific? The Standing Orders state that the Speaker recognises the first person on his or her feet to take a call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is the Speaker’s discretion as to who is called. I had chosen to call Murray Smith. United Future is often treated as a Government party and it is on the basis of proportionality that the debates are set out anyway.
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21678] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a press release dated 28 May 2003 entitled “Kiwis rack up huge traffic fines” which shows that 556 people owed over $10000. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16227] 
8.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What reports if any has he received on the success of the Sustainable Farming Fund? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I have received an assessment of the benefits arising from the Sustainable Farming Fund projects undertaken by Business and Economic Research Ltd. It has found the actual and potential benefits to be between $300 million and $500 million per annum from a sample of projects. This makes the Government’s investment of about $10 million a year more than worthwhile. 
David Parker 
: How likely is it that those potential benefits will be achieved? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Business and Economic Research Ltd assesses the likelihood of that as high because of the high regard in which the fund is held and the way it works—that is by requiring significant community and stakeholder involvement which is increasing producer and community capability and cohesion. The fund was established because of a Labour Party election promise and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to fostering growth and opportunities in our rural communities. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is the Sustainable Farming Fund used to encourage the fencing and planting of the riparian margins of streams passing through farmland in order to decrease the impact of effluent and fertiliser runoff on water quality; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I cannot say—because over 300 projects have been funded—whether there have been projects on that specific topic but I think it quite likely that there have been. Certainly applications covering all such areas could be considered.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8168] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 7 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 7 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12359] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: An amendment to clause 14 in the name of Rodney Hide is out of order as the question has already been decided. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after “by repealing section 117A”.
Hereora Dave: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
Hereora Dave: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4353] 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand in support of the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13029] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 80 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 80.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14469] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to have anything further on this matter. I myself will have a look at the issue and listen to the tape and if I find that somebody has misled the House I will be making the appropriate comments to the House. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know whether it is because it is Thursday afternoon or it is raining or it is windy but there are some very very funny comments being made in the House today that are out of order.
Cullen Michael: Responses — Mr T R Harrison BEM JP 
Cullen Michael: Responses — Mr T R Harrison BEM JP 
[Volume:615;Page:10861] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15276] 
Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
[Volume:620;Page:16100] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to refer you to Standing Order 373 which deals with the issue of applications for urgent debates. That Standing Order requires that a written statement must be made 1 hour prior to the day’s sitting which would have been 2 o’clock. Given that the Minister’s press release came out after that time it would have been practically impossible for any member of this House to meet the Standing Order for an urgent debate to be lodged yesterday—plainly impossible—so I seek some clarification. Is the reason for your declining the debate because you do not see it as urgent and that is perfectly within your discretion or is it that we should have done it yesterday which would have been impossible?
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
[Volume:620;Page:15448] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank all members for their contributions. I deliberately allowed this debate to go on because I did make quite a substantial ruling at the start of the day. I refer people to their Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. There are very few members of this House who have had much more than a cursory glimpse at the Standing Orders. There are some honourable exceptions to that and I would like to thank the Hon Richard Prebble for his particular comments and the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
I refer members first to Speaker’s ruling 144/5 ruled first by Speaker Harrison 24 years ago and then by Speaker Gray: “A Minister is not obliged to seek the call in answer to a question if the Minister does not intend to answer it. In these circumstances the Minister is treated as having refused to answer. There is no obligation to give reasons for a refusal to answer although it is preferable to do so. To avoid a series of supplementary questions it may be preferable to indicate the refusal to answer on a point of order.” Now that is of course the extreme end. I have always tried to make parliamentary question time worthwhile for those who are listening and for those who are participating. But members must remember that the scope of question time has expanded in recent years. Members can now ask opinions and include hypothetical material. Dr Cullen is right; I can remember when Speaker Wall ruled out all but one supplementary question because he was interpreting the rule absolutely to the letter. I do not want to have to do that. 
Questions no longer have to seek just factual material. It is therefore inevitable that there will be greater dissatisfaction with the replies to questions of much greater scope. Ministers have said from time to time that they cannot answer a question. I judge whether an answer seeks to address the question and from time to time I do require Ministers to expand on the answer and to answer the question and that is as I have always thought my job to be. It is up to members to criticise Ministers’ replies. Ministers have always said: “I need notice of that question.” I have heard that phrase used since I first came into this House in 1967 and heard my first debates. It is not the Speaker’s role to judge whether answers are consistent with each other; that provision could only come into play if a Minister flatly refuses to answer. It does not happen very often. A Minister makes a political judgment and of course he or she can be roundly criticised for that. Now I think that has answered most of the points that have been made.
Shirley Ken: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19828] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If National just wants to change its vote the other parties do not need to vote again do they? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: My understanding is that Part 1 as amended was agreed to on the voices and therefore that we need to conduct a full vote. 
Part 1Amendments to Building Act 2004 ( 
recommitted 
)
Mackey Moana: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mackey Moana: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16685] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill — Third Readings 
Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:13824] 
Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bills read a third time.
Fairbrother Russell: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21981] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 Of course what that member skilfully avoided saying was that the Minister for Courts did not reply as Mr Franks told us in his preceding speech. So there was no interference by the Minister in the actions of the court. The fact that a clerk may be mistaken if the allegation is correct and write a letter that is not acted on by the Minister does not make for interference by a Minister in the judicial process. If this was in fact a well-intentioned inquiry by the member of Parliament he would have then written to the head of bench. Because the member sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee when the whole issue of judicial performance was considered he knows entirely the steps to take in order to get that which he requires. Of course judges after due consideration are not obliged to make available to the public for their prurient interests or their political interests that which takes place in a court. The fact that the matter was dealt with in court and was not appealed or reviewed by the prosecution suggests that the issue that that man is now trying to build is quite out of proportion to the facts of the case known by both the prosecutor and clearly the defence and by the judge. So we have once more an issue of perception and of factual reality that is quite different from that now being advanced in this Committee.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 28 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21360] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call to respond to my colleague from New Zealand First Peter Brown to thank him for his quite careful remarks but also because it is on the record to correct him on one of his remarks if I may. The member said this legislation makes charging a fee illegal and I just want the Committee to be very clear that it already is. That is already the case. This law makes things no worse. What it does do is to provide a regulatory framework by which we can progressively make things better. As society changes as attitudes towards drink-driving tighten up as good RSAs and other service organisations around the country seek to take responsibility for their club membership and as that becomes a more and more expensive thing for them to do and therefore their desire to charge becomes greater so too must the regulation keep up. That is why the passage of this legislation matters. We can then have the development of the regulatory framework to keep it abreast of the changing needs of society. I thank the member for his remarks and correct him on just one of them. This bill does not make anything worse. It does the opposite. It lays the framework to make things progressively more flexible and more responsive to the needs of society.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20132] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2)  
divided into Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2)  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 352.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18372] 
5.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What evidence does he have that new sentencing laws are providing greater protection to the community from serious and recidivist offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 There is a wide range of evidence that new laws are both tougher and more effective in dealing with high-risk offenders. The latest evidence is that preventive detention a lifelong indeterminate sentence for this category of offender that means that somebody can be locked up till the day he or she dies is being used far more frequently. Last year 34 offenders received the sentence nearly twice the highest number of serious offenders given this sentence in any previous year. The number of offenders who received this sentence in the last 2 years was about as many as those who had received it in the previous 5 years combined. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How does the new sentencing legislation promote the greater use of preventive detention? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Sentencing Act broadens the eligibility for preventive detention to cover those aged 18 and over and those without a previous qualifying offence. It also extends the number of sexual and violent offences that qualify an offender for the sentence from 17 to 38. As a result it is being used far more frequently now for violent offending including for the first time aggravated robbery kidnapping and the use of a firearm against a law enforcement officer.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11581] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House returns on Tuesday 16 March priority will be given to the third reading of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill and the remaining stages of the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill to the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) and to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. I will be seeking the support of all parties to take through all stages quickly a Tax Administration Act amendment bill that will enable the Inland Revenue Department to react positively to the situation in flood-affected areas.
Donnelly Brian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9069] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call to explain New Zealand First’s position in terms of these next three parts and the schedule. I particularly want to point out to my colleagues in National that we did negotiate with the Chair that the commencement date and Part 2 were the significant parts of this bill; we asked for extensive opportunities to debate the issues in those two areas and the Chair really did accommodate us. So therefore we believe that it is only right and proper now to reduce the amount of debate around these last three parts largely because they are consequential parts and as my colleague Simon Power has said there were no great cries from submitters that they needed drastic change or anything else. Most people saw them as just consequential flowing on from the legislation itself. New Zealand First is not going to take multiple calls on these three parts.
Dalziel Lianne: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16561] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have to say that that would be one of the most sanctimonious contributions I have heard in this House made by somebody who likes to describe herself as a spokesperson on families. The utter inconsistency is absolutely breathtaking. On the one hand the National Party is telling one constituency that this bill does not go far enough and on the other hand that it does not agree with one word of the existing legislation. So it does not support the bill at all. 
I think that that is utterly inconsistent with the practice of those members in National’s own party. Sure Katherine Rich did not get paid parental leave but she was paid her full salary while she was having her babies—not once but twice. For weeks on end she was happy to receive her pay as a member of Parliament but she is not happy to see ordinary working women in this country and men who provide parental support when their babies are born with 12 weeks’—now 14 weeks’—paid leave. 
This bill is a fantastic effort on the part of this Government which is really doing something to help young families and working parents and enable them to settle in with their new babies and then to return to the workforce. I think that this Minister Ruth Dyson who has been utterly and consistently determined to deliver improvements to the paid parental leave scheme is somebody who I trust will deliver to the self-employed in the future—but there has to be a new way of finding that out. 
One thing that the very interesting previous speaker did not mention was what National would do about people who were entitled to paid parental leave but who did not take that leave. When self-employed people have been interviewed about the subject they have said that taking 12 or 14 weeks off work would be detrimental to their businesses and that the negative impacts would outweigh the benefits of receiving paid parental leave. When we actually talk to individuals we find it is very clear that a lot more work needs to be done on that but I am confident that Ruth Dyson will deliver on it.
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17098] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members should take a big deep breath and then breathe through their noses.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17085] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 19 
Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7191] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Justice be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Vote agreed to.
Tizard Judith: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19954] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Charities Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:617;Page:13424] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill and any bills into which that bill may be divided.  
Urgency is moved in order that certainty can be provided for both the system changes that come into effect on 1 October and the fiscal consequences of the measures contained therein. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to
Hunt Jonathan: General Debate 
Hunt Jonathan: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16336] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is of course where we get into difficulty because Mr Cosgrove alone can seek leave and he has to give the terms under which he wants to give the speech. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell members that he alone can seek leave in the terms that he wants to seek leave for and if he wants to do that now he can. But he makes that condition and the House can then judge.