edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Collins Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8382] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the schedule to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. Members might be interested to note that the Government Administration Committee had to strike out the legal description in the schedule of the property being leased because it omitted approximately half the land covered by the museum. If it had remained it would have been slightly embarrassing for us given all the work that had been done. But it is an indication that the bill came into the House on 12 June 2003 had its first reading and referral to the Government Administration Committee on 25 June 2003 and here we are today 3 September 2003 about to finish it off; that mistake is what happens when things are rushed. 
My having said that it would have been most interesting if we had got rid of the old lease as my colleague Mr Jones has just said and had given the trust board a lease for the tar-sealed part outside the actual museum building which is currently used as a roadway and car-park but no lease for the building! It was one of those interesting little bits that lawyers find most amusing as Mr Jones has just indicated. It just goes to show that when we are drafting these things no matter how carefully they are done by the most skilled people with the most interest in them accidents do happen. 
 This was an accident that fortunately was found out before it was committed to an Act of Parliament which would have been hugely embarrassing not only for all the people involved the trust board and the Department of Internal Affairs but also for the select committee and this House. That is all I wish to say on that particular matter other than that accidents do happen and fortunately one did not happen in this case. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Cosgrove Clayton: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Cosgrove Clayton: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14854] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18732] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I believe that this is one of the difficulties that was highlighted by Mr Brownlee when he questioned the appropriateness of another member in the Chamber making the interpretation. In the actual words that were read out by Mr Brownlee in Maori—notwithstanding that I had some difficulty understanding the Maori; I am not a teacher of Maori as he is—no mention was made of the year 2002. Yet the interpretation that the honourable member Mr Tamihere read out referred to the year 2002. So one could essentially argue the technical point as to the accuracy of his interpretation.
Prebble Richard: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
Prebble Richard: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13464] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order under Standing Order 106 “Misrepresentation” which states: “(1) A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of the member’s speech which has been misquoted misunderstood or misrepresented in the same debate.” I cannot speak in this debate because the ACT party does not have a place but I have now heard two United Future members state to the House that I made statements that poor people should not breed. In fact most of the member’s speech was devoted to that. 
I have gone back and checked my  
Hansard 
 to see whether I made any such statement. There is no such statement in the two representations I have made today and if the member wants to know exactly what I did say I replied to an interjection from Mr David Cunliffe: “I say to Mr Cunliffe the Liberal Party in Australia put forward a benefit breeding programme where the Treasurer said: ‘This is a policy that is going to encourage people to have kids.’ and what happened to that party’s popularity? It went into free fall.” I do not see how those words can be interpreted as me saying to this House that poor people should not be able to breed.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19684] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 This will be a very short contribution. I am not allowed to dispute your ruling so what I will respectfully suggest to you is that you take a course of action that other Speakers have taken and actually look at the  
Hansard 
 and the arguments that have been put to you. I am not suggesting that you need to change your ruling but I do think that you need to look at it to see whether it should not be wider. It is a very serious ruling to accept what Dr Cullen is saying which is that this mechanism is open to the Government because the other alternative is that this is an instruction to the Government. When the Government abuses it it should be open to rebuke including the ultimate rebuke of the matter being sent to the Privileges Committee. That would be a very strong statement to the Government. 
I would also say to Dr Cullen that maybe there were invitations. It was my understanding that we were told that there was not enough space in the place next door for every member. But I am not criticising members who went to the dinner because when the original invitation was put out for a Saturday I thought that the presence of the President of Indonesia was important enough for members to come here on a Saturday for it. I am not saying that it was not an important occasion; I just fail to believe that this House is not capable of having a dinner and being able to sit at the same time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are debating the ruling at this point. I am happy to put my ruling in a written form for members.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10722] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from the Hon Richard Prebble and the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the Government’s announcement of a transport package. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However although the announcement is a significant one I note that an important part of the package is conditional on an agreement being reached with Auckland authorities the resolution of outstanding funding governance and regulatory issues and the passing of legislation to give effect to governance changes. The legislation is planned for April next year. In those circumstances I do not consider that the announcement requires the immediate attention of the House today.
Beyer Georgina: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Beyer Georgina: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6088. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill. It never hurts to reflect on some of what this bill is about. The objective of the integration of these two particular agencies reflects the need for New Zealand business to be internationally competitive whether markets are domestic or off shore or both. It also recognises that a strong focus on internationalism and on growing New Zealand export earnings is critical to improving New Zealand’s overall economic growth. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4046] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 74 
Noes 43 
Bill read a first time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.
Tisch Lindsay: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20593] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 This is not a very big bill; it is only a page long. The debate will probably not go for very long. I seek the leave of the Committee to have a wide-ranging debate—if the Minister is happy with that—but then vote separately on the clauses when the time comes. If you are comfortable with that I think it would be appropriate given the size of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Do members agree with that? They do. There is no objection.
Bradford Sue: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Bradford Sue: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4931] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to say how pleased we are to see the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) finally through its third reading debate today. I know that there are a lot of veterans out there who have been waiting for this long overdue piece of legislation to become law. It is very timely that it is finally happening just a couple of weeks before Anzac Day 2003. 
This bill helps consolidate the legislation dealing with veterans’ entitlements under the War Pensions Act and away from the morass of social welfare law. While I hold my own reservations about the negative way in which beneficiaries are viewed by all too many in our community I can also understand why veterans want the dignity of recognition separately and in their own right. Although the legislation around the actual machinery of payment of war pensions stays with the 1964 Social Security Act the fact that this bill ensures that the overarching law will be clearly distinguished from the Act is welcomed by submitters and I think by all MPs who sat on the Social Services Committee. 
The Green Party is also pleased that this bill finally puts people in receipt of war pensions on the same footing as other people on income support in terms of giving those of working age the right to work either voluntarily or in a paid job and having their pension abated. But the bill also distinguishes war veterans from other beneficiaries in that it makes special provision for them to be able to work any number of hours without having their entitlement to the war pension taken away from them. Again this reinforces the fact that veterans have a special status because of what they have sacrificed for their country and I believe no one in this House will ever begrudge them that. 
Finally I would like to acknowledge firstly the people who had the courage to make oral and written submissions on this bill to our select committee. It was very emotional to hear from some of those people. Some of them were getting on in years and it was touching to see people who had made the effort to come to Wellington and speak to the committee directly and to hear their voices. I also acknowledge as others have done the Office of Veterans Affairs the officials who helped guide us through the bill the other members of the select committee and all the other MPs in this House who support this bill which has been a long time coming.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8949] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clauses 50B and 50C be agreed to.
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14755] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Baldock Larry: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4522] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The member who spoke before me has perhaps made some excellent points. His experience of wine may be a little deeper than mine but I trust that the member will make those points when the main wine bill returns to the House—that is of course if the 111 submissions that have been made to the Primary Production Committee on that bill do not carry the points that he has made. 
This bill as has been said many times comes from the Wine Bill and was Part 5 of that bill. According to the commentary it “provides interim amendments to the Wine Makers Act 1981 that facilitate continued entry of grape-wine into overseas markets.” The need to enact this part of the reform with some urgency is dictated by the European Commission’s new labelling regulation 753/2002 which outlines the conditions of use of particular statements on labels of wine imported to the European Union. The regulation combines a plethora of current European Union wine-labelling regulations into one and although many of the criteria are not new they are expected to be rigorously enforced. The regulation came into effect on 1 January 2003 when the provisions of this bill were originally envisaged to commence. 
The labelling regime is very important to the European market. The wine must come from where the label says it comes from as it is the culture of the Continent to attach some strong affiliations to the wines of different lands. The type of grape is also important. For varietals the wine must be made of 85 percent of the grape variety shown on the label. If there are two grape varieties mentioned their names must be listed in descending order. In addition there is now a need to show a lot number or bottling identification on wine going to Europe for the purposes of quality control. The concern is to identify wines that have had more than one bottling under the same label. If an earlier bottling or lot has scored a gold medal is it fair trading to give the impression that the bottling 9 months later is the same wine? Although all the submissions to the select committee that commented on Part 5 opposed the European Union regulation viewing it as a non-tariff barrier to trade they recognised the need for this bill to be enacted separately and speedily in order to ensure continued access to the European Union. 
There are now over 400 wineries in New Zealand and over 40 percent of sales are in the international marketplace. That is equivalent to 21 million litres at a return of $300 million. Those exports have tripled over a decade and as a party United Future does not want to stand in the way of future growth.
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12149] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14582] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have another amendment in the name of the honourable Ian Ewen-Street. It is an amendment to omit and substitute new schedule 14. However I have ruled it out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision made on clause 67. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4634] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Counter-Terrorism Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13 ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8 Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Carter David: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Carter David: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8804] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I rise with pleasure to support the passing of the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill. It is interesting that this bill is before Parliament but it is not surprising that we are modernising something that was set in place over 70 years ago. As has been discussed by most contributors to tonight’s debate we are moving forward now that the Robert McDougall Gallery which was the major art gallery for Christchurch has been replaced by a magnificent new structure approximately a kilometre away. Clearly because it involves legislation it has been necessary to bring a local bill back to Parliament so that we can talk sensibly about the future of the Robert McDougall Gallery building. 
A number of Labour Party members have questioned why such a small and insignificant bill needs to come before Parliament but it is a very important bill for Christchurch. The second point I want to make is that the debate surrounding this legislation will go down in history as the most incredible debate we have ever seen. I can imagine many students of politics and law hauling out  
Hansard 
 and reading it— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Night after night. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: —if they have nothing better to do—with absolute amazement at what has occurred. Two amazing precedents have been established tonight. I am making a second contribution in a second reading debate and I never thought I would see that. [ 
Interruption 
] As I say it will be read by students for a long period of time. 
The second more interesting point is that we have also seen through a 30-minute series of points of order the very interesting situation of a document being tabled and subsequently withdrawn. In time when people study this particular legislation— 
Rodney Hide 
: In the member’s time in Parliament has he ever seen leave sought for untabling documents? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Rodney Hide asks if I have ever seen that and I have not. That is the point I am making—this is a precedent. It is absolutely amazing; it is history in the making. People will be staggered that those of us who have been privileged to make a contribution in this debate have made two precedents within a bill that was really not a major one. I take the opportunity of noting the two precedents that have been established. I hope in a way that the management of the House will improve substantially so that those precedents will not be recreated. 
I hope that we will see the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill passed tonight because that is what the people of Christchurch who are associated with the arts community want to see. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill name changed to Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill.
Points of Order — Personal Explanations Microphones 
Points of Order — Personal Explanations Microphones 
[Volume:608;Page:5241] 
Points of Order 
Personal Explanations 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a matter with some care and I think I am raising it within the Standing Orders. I ask you to give advice to the House about when a member ought to give a personal explanation to the whole House especially when it is partly to protect the reputation of other members. One of my members of Parliament is a member of a select committee at which a matter has arisen that is not open to the public but the media appears to know all about it. I will not say what the matter is but I am having MPs being doorstepped and asked whether they are the MP in question or whether they know about the matter. 
It appears to me that a member of Parliament who has apparently found himself in a conflict of interest situation has a duty not just to that select committee but to the House as a whole partly to allow the other members of that committee to be relieved from an intolerable situation. There are media outside this Chamber I understand doorstepping MPs coming into the Chamber and asking them for an explanation. A member has the opportunity to make a personal explanation and in a situation such as that he should make that explanation in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point of order. It is an important point. I will have a look at it. The background which I certainly was not aware of has been indicated to me briefly. Of course the short answer is that it is up to the member himself but I will say that I will look at the matter further for the benefit of the House because I think an important point has been raised. 
Microphones 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not too sure whether the microphone system is working properly today. Those of us in this area of the House are finding it very very difficult indeed to hear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will try to see whether anything can be done about that matter. Thank you for raising that with me. It means we will have to be that little bit quieter.
English Bill: Urgent Debates Declined — Iraq—Apology to United States 
English Bill: Urgent Debates Declined — Iraq—Apology to United States 
[Volume:607;Page:4908] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I accept your ruling that in your view this is not a matter of sufficient importance for the immediate attention of the House but I do seek leave for the House to debate it because of its importance to the country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is certainly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5506] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will make a few brief comments on the commencement clause particularly in response to Jeannette Fitzsimons’ comments. I think what we in this Committee are still not understanding—and this is what we in United Future are delighted to try to bring into the Parliament—is an understanding of how MMP really does work. The reason this bill was sitting around for so long was because two parties would not give each other any ground at all. The Greens held the process up because they refused to budge on their ideology on the issue of limited notification. They could have had the good measures that the people of New Zealand are waiting for if they had been simply willing to give a little. 
United Future is able to introduce this bill with the Government now because we do not hold the Government to ransom. We acknowledge that we are eight members in this Committee that we have only a certain percentage of the voters of New Zealand behind us and that we do what we can to advance the things that are of benefit to New Zealand. We will never get all we want in any negotiation but I have lived a great deal of my life on a very very good principle and I hope members in this Committee might listen to it this evening. It is based on the idea that if we give it shall be given unto us. If one gives first one may get back something that is very very valuable and rewarding. People may treat us differently if we are prepared to meet them halfway. That is something we want to introduce to this MMP Parliament and this bill is an excellent example of that. The people of New Zealand will not get everything they wanted but they will get some improvements to the Resource Management Act which they have long been waiting for.
Peck Mark: Business of the House 
Peck Mark: Business of the House 
[Volume:619;Page:15028] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for members’ notice of motion No. 3 in my name be taken at the conclusion of the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a reference to the members’ notice of motion about the Southern Institute of Technology. Leave is sought for that action to be taken. Is there any objection? There is none. So that will come after members’ order of the day No. 2.
Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13385] 
Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
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:17049] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1).
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11993] 
3.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: What are the tenure arrangements for judges appointed to the Supreme Court? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Attorney-General 
: Judges of the Supreme Court like other judges have permanent tenure until the age of 68. They can be dismissed for incapacity or misconduct on a motion of Parliament but this has never happened. The system emphasises the independence of the judiciary and the strong convention that judges are not subject to political manipulation. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can judges also be removed by legislation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No judge has ever been removed by legislation. However if appeals to the Privy Council were to be restored as promised by Dr Brash on the  
Holmes 
 programme the Supreme Court would have to be abolished by legislation with the loss of what are widely acknowledged to be the best legal minds in the country. That would be bizarre although we might find some sort of precedent for that in Zimbabwe. 
Richard Worth 
: Is the Attorney-General not aware that in a number of Western democracies courts have been closed down and the judges reabsorbed into the legal system; and why would it be any different in this case because Supreme Court judges have tenure as High Court judges under section 20 of the Supreme Court Act? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is correct that Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges—both categories of judges—have tenure as High Court judges but I assume the member is suggesting therefore that the five best judges in the country would be made High Court judges doing lesser cases. That is equally absurd. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What bush lawyer gave him the advice that if the Privy Council were restored these people would automatically be lost to the judiciary system when that is not the case? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are five Supreme Court judges. If the Supreme Court were to be abolished the Court of Appeal is currently fully tenured by judges and they would have to become as the previous questioner suggested High Court judges. To suggest that the five most experienced and skilful judges in the country would become High Court judges is frankly a stupid idea. 
Darren Hughes 
: Would there be any other problems associated with the abolition of the Supreme Court? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. Frankly that idea is absurd and unworkable. First and foremost it would rely on New Zealand regaining access to the Privy Council. Currently there are 15 countries with access to the Privy Council. When the small Caribbean States withdraw this year there will be five. Of those five Tuvalu and Kiribati have not had an appeal in 20 years and New Zealand trying to retie the apron strings to the United Kingdom would make us the laughing stock of the world.
Franks Stephen: Motions — Privileges Committee Proceedings—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Franks Stephen: Motions — Privileges Committee Proceedings—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:611;Page:8740] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to move as a non-debatable motion members’ motion No. 3 in my name “That this House instruct the Privileges Committee to monitor the proceedings against Hon Dr Nick Smith in respect of alleged contempt of the Family Court so as to ensure that the freedom of speech of members of this House is fully protected …”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to move that motion without debate. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No leave is either granted or not granted. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19098] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke  
Shirley  
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Benson-Pope  (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher  
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Chadwick  
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs  
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes  
Rich(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald  
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Dunne(P) 
King 
Roy  
Teller: 
Duynhoven  
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 44 
Adams(P) 
Copeland(P) 
Newman  
Smith N  
Alexander(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Eckhoff  
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
English(P) 
Perry  
Turia(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters J 
Turner(P) 
Brown  
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth  
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones(P) 
Scott(P) 
Collins(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M 
Tisch  
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12024] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 29 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21340] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report of the Government Administration Committee on the 2003/04 financial review of the Building Industry Authority be noted. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Report noted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The 3 hours for the debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has expired. I shall report this debate to the House.
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates — Report by Secretary of Labour—Immigration Service 
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates — Report by Secretary of Labour—Immigration Service 
[Volume:611;Page:8340] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the report of 6 June 2003 relating to parliamentary questions to the Minister of Maori Affairs which I received today. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Troops—Withdrawal from Iraq 
Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Troops—Withdrawal from Iraq 
[Volume:620;Page:15754] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
New Zealand Troops—Withdrawal from Iraq 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the reported pulling out of New Zealand troops from Iraq. Newspaper speculation on a matter is not in itself a particular case of recent occurrence that would give grounds for a debate. In this case the Minister of Defence is reported as having said that New Zealand is at the end of a commitment to provide aid and assistance to Iraq and I am prepared to accept that that comment is a particular case involving ministerial responsibility. However I do not consider that the drawing to a close of a commitment is in itself of sufficient importance to require a debate to be held on the matter today. The application is therefore denied. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reconsider on the grounds that there is no more serious decision a Government can make than to send servicemen and servicewomen into harm’s way overseas. Likewise whatever your view is a decision to bring the troops home and not provide a replacement is also a very serious decision for any Government to make. This decision is going to be debated up and down New Zealand and around the world. It will become debatable potentially in terms of the Australian elections and indeed the United States presidential elections. We expect in a parliamentary democracy that the Government would come down to the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member come to his point tersely. The member is challenging my ruling. It does not need to be debated in the House today. That is my ruling. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: All I am asking is: when does it get debated and under what circumstances? What we learn is from the  
Dominion Post 
 newspaper. We read about it there and we do not hear about it in this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is often the occasion. I am saying that this matter does not need to be debated in the House today.
Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8857] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will not take a point of order on the closure. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I am not making a point of order on the closure. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Lindsay Tisch called for a point of order first.
Peters Jim: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Jim: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4583] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to the bill I just want to cover some aspects quite quickly. Firstly this issue does concern local authorities greatly. Therefore it was no surprise to me to find that 25 local authorities had made submissions to the select committee. Secondly I also know from discussions that took place at that time that a number of those local authorities were not happy with what they thought was light-handed treatment with regard to the possible consequences of street racing. 
The Hon Dover Samuels and John Carter like myself will have received over recent months a great deal of correspondence from the Kaitaia district relating to these very matters. At the end the inability for various reasons of the local police station to act in the minds of people correctly resulted almost in their taking their own actions with regard to matters of this nature and similar. Therefore I find it very surprising to come to the House and hear a determined call by the ACT party—which has some adherents in our district for some reason particularly in the Kerikeri district—to adopt a completely laissez-faire hands-off no-action approach. In fact its zero tolerance is zero tolerance in relation to any ability to carry out what seems to me to be very sensible consequences as outlined in the select committee. 
There is nothing in clause 4 or clause 5 that should cause anyone any concern. There is no great attack there upon anyone’s liberty. In fact with regard to the earlier debate about the purpose clause the substituted clauses pick up exactly what was intended. In clause 5 subsection (2) of section 22A which is about preventing persons from engaging in unauthorised street or drag racing states: “A person must not without reasonable excuse intentionally pour . . .”—it covers that aspect —“any other substance likely to cause a vehicle to undergo loss of traction.” Again subsection (3) states: “A person must not without reasonable excuse operate a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law.” 
Some of the issues that were raised earlier and are implicit here are ones that should not cause any sound right-thinking person any problem with regard to the retention of one’s personal liberty or one’s person. So I speak on behalf of New Zealand First to give further support to Part 2. Again I express my surprise living and working in the Northland district as I do where the ACT party has some support and had support at the last election to find that ACT opposes this bill. I believe that its supporters particularly those in Kerikeri would be quite shocked at ACT’s extreme liberal no-care attitude in respect of an issue that in our district has caused great concern and needs an appropriate remedy such as this bill intends.
Hughes Darren: Consumer Credit Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Consumer Credit Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3522] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am very pleased to support the Consumer Credit Bill’s first reading in Parliament. This is a modernisation of the law in this area that the Minister of Consumers Affairs the Hon. Judith Tizard has brought to Parliament to replace two very old pieces of legislation—the Hire Purchase Act of 1971 and the Credit Contracts Act of 1981 which I think is pretty old too. I am very pleased that that old credit legislation is being updated by Parliament. This bill will go to the Commerce Committee of which I am a member and through the submission process I look forward to picking up on the points that Sue Bradford has raised.
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4451] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would just like to get some clarification on how wide ranging the debate will be post the debate on the title and whether members will get more than one opportunity to take a call. There are a number of things that need to be identified.
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:21015] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “from 1 January 2005 and applies to all actions currently before the courts including any actions commenced before the 1 January 2005 which have not yet been concluded and further applies to any such actions which are currently the subject of an appeal before any court”.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Extension of House Sitting Times 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Extension of House Sitting Times 
[Volume:608;Page:5294] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member that the Deputy Speaker was in the process of putting the question so Standing Order 51 does apply. But the question had not actually been put so other members could still intervene and seek the call. The best result has been arrived at in the sense that the interrupted debate is still before the House as Order of the Day No. 3. Whenever the House has taken a decision whether it technically should or should not have been sitting is beside the point. The decision stands until rescinded by the House. I will have another look at that matter but that is my initial ruling.
Swain Paul: Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill — First Reading  
Swain Paul: Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill — First Reading  
[Volume:618;Page:13785] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance. 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13926] 
12.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What trends have there been in the number of young people on the unemployment benefit? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am sure the House will be delighted to know that the trends are good. In May 1999 there were 15322 18 to 19-year-olds who were unemployed. In May of this year 5991 people in the same age group were unemployed—a drop of over 61 percent. The same is true for young people between the ages of 20 and 24: in 1999 there were over 30000 people in this age group who were on the unemployment benefit; in May this year this number was down to just over 11500 which is also a drop of 62 percent. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Is the Minister confident the downward trend will be continued? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes I am. Earlier this year I asked Work and Income to develop strategies to help young New Zealanders move off the benefit and into jobs quickly. This has been done. An outstanding tool-box has been implemented in each region to provide young people with the skills and opportunities to move into permanent work. This stands in stark contrast to the 1990s when young people were left in misery on the unemployment scrap heap. This Government is giving young people hope and opportunity for a good future. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that figures released by his office reveal that since the year 2000 the number of under-20-year-olds on the sickness benefit has increased by 34 percent and the number of those on the invalids benefit has increased by 28 percent; and what is his explanation for the increase? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I do not quite agree with the percentages. I think they are slightly less than that. I do agree that the numbers have increased but I can tell the member that the proportion of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit is less today than it was then. We are making some progress at least. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister disturbed that the increasing number of under-20-year-olds on sickness and invalids benefits follows a broader trend across all age groups including a comparable 20 percent of youth claiming a benefit due to stress or depression; if so why is the Government consigning people who should be at the height of fitness and health to a benefit before they really begin their working lives? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Government is not consigning people—as the member said—to a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit. To get one of those benefits people have to fail a medical test. What the Government is doing is enhancing its case management. We want to work with those young people to ensure that they can overcome those issues and get productive and meaningful jobs.
Carter Chris: Personal Explanations — Ruapehu Lahar 
Carter Chris: Personal Explanations — Ruapehu Lahar 
[Volume:615;Page:11413] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave under Standing Order 343 to give a personal statement to clarify an answer I gave to a supplementary question on Question No. 8 today regarding the Ruapehu lahar. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want a point of clarification. This is the second one in half an hour. Could we have an indication of how many more are coming today? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it is quite clear. Leave has been sought. We are aware of whom it is coming from and of the nature of it. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Today I said that the Government is taking every step it possibly can to avoid what is a natural phenomenon. I would like to clarify that I intended to say that the Government is taking every step it possibly can to avoid harm from what is a natural phenomenon.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19100] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Shirley  
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich  
Barnett(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher  
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Chadwick  
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia 
Robertson(P) 
Donald  
Hughes  
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Roy  
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 50 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Franks  
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters J 
Turner(P) 
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Power(P) 
Wong(P) 
Brown  
Hutchison(P) 
Prebble  
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Jones(P) 
Rich(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Key(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Mapp(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith M 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Newman  
Sowry(P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch  
Amendments agreed to.