edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:629;Page:1791] 
Sittings of the House 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I understand that the House will go into urgency on Thursday. Is it the Government’s intention to seek leave for the House to sit until 12 midnight on Thursday and not on Friday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I had a discussion with the shadow Leader of the House this morning and suggested that it might be a sensible idea to seek leave to sit until midnight tomorrow on the assumption that probably the matter on which we are taking urgency the Land Transport Amendment Bill will be dealt with in that time so that members will be free to return to their electorates first thing on Friday morning. Perhaps if I could seek that leave at this point: that the sitting tomorrow night continue past 10 o’clock to midnight. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:629;Page:1791] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I also seek leave and I have had a discussion with Mr Tisch—I have not had a chance to discuss it with the other whips—that the members of the Primary Production Committee meeting outside Wellington are presumed as present within the precincts of Parliament for any party vote held during the sitting of the House this week. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:629;Page:1791] 
Wednesday 15 March 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion and agreement at the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for two matters relating to changes in the drafting of legislation. 
That the Clerk of the House of Representatives when reprinting bills at any stage during their passage through the House or when preparing them for the Royal assent after consultation with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel or (as the case may be) the Commissioner of Inland Revenue may make amendments to bills currently before the House or its committees— 
(a) to incorporate the changes in drafting style adopted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office referred to in the document  
Changes in drafting style: List of proposed changes in drafting style in legislation 
 presented to the House on 15 March 2006; and 
(b) to amend bills by omitting where applicable any clause 1(2) (relating to the principal Act) and substituting a new clause that describes the principal Act being amended— 
but in each case not so as to alter the meaning of the provisions of those bills. 
That a clause in a bill confined to stating that the bill amends an existing Act (a principal Act clause) be treated as a preliminary clause that may be taken together with the title and commencement clauses in committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1143] 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When does she expect to receive the final report from Dr Noel Ingram into allegations of conflicts of interest involving Taito Phillip Field? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Who interjected? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I apologise. I was responding unwittingly to a question from over here. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: So two of you were having a conversation while a member was trying to ask a question. That is the last warning to you all. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Mr Ingram has not yet identified a date for the final report but I am advised that he is making progress. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did the Prime Minister decide that the inquiry could “take as long as it needs” after the 4 October 2005 deadline was missed and why has she not set further deadlines? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do think the inquiry should take as long as it needs. I am rather surprised at National Party members complaining about the time it has taken because originally they complained that Mr Ingram had not been given long enough. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of any reasons that might be causing Dr Ingram to delay his report back regarding this issue; if so has she done anything to try to alleviate those reasons? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. I am aware however that when we hired Mr Ingram he had a lot of other work on his hands. That has also had to be progressed while he has been doing this investigation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr Field is continuing to make immigration representations while he is being investigated; if so what checks are in place to ensure that all of those cases are above board? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not think anyone would expect Mr Field to stop acting as an electorate member of Parliament during the inquiry but I am sure he will act in the light of knowledge that there is an investigation going on in terms of which cases are forwarded to the Minister. The Minister will be considering them carefully in that light as well.
Connell Brian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Connell Brian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1210] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thought that was a very constructive speech. I had a sense that the member had a little bit more to contribute so I seek leave of the House to give him another 10 minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he cannot seek leave for another member.
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1197] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that a speaker may speak for a second time in a debate if it is to clear up a matter raised by a subsequent speaker in that debate and if it is necessary because the person raising that matter has potentially misled the House or misrepresented the person who had spoken previously. I find myself in that position following the outrageous comments from the outgoing member for Te Tai Tokerau—or the late member the list member or whatever he is up there. I just wonder whether you could indicate that to be the case so that our whips may make preparation for it later this evening. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point of order. I think he has achieved what he wanted to achieve. In order to correct a misrepresentation a member needs to be very brief for the member simply tries to negate what was said. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He can be called again according to the Standing Orders. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The speaker before the member? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No the speaker who has been misrepresented. He may have a second call in the debate even if he or she has spoken before in order to rectify an otherwise difficult situation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. I think that Standing Order 106—I am seeing clearly through my glasses—is very clear on this issue so we will move on.
Jones Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Jones Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1152] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I continue from what I was saying last night in endorsing the very fine sentiments that were outlined in the Prime Minister’s speech in contrast with the behaviour of Dr Brash and members of the Opposition who have done their darnedest to talk down the promise the talent and the worth of our economy. Obviously we have been saying and will continue to say at every opportunity that one should not believe “Dr Doom” or the lost tribe of the National Party. The economy is doing exceptionally well. GDP is racing ahead. Business profits are exponential. Growth is unrivalled. Investment beggars belief. We are continuing to search for more and more people to fill the growing number of jobs. Our international credit rating sees us enjoying a mouth-watering status in the eyes of our competitors and other members of the OECD. 
A particular point was made last night in relation to the value we place on families and young people and no one has done more damage over the last few months to the aspirations of young people than Mr English who has been wandering around dashing their hopes and undermining the examination system—English by name gibberish by nature. He has been doing everything he can to alienate parents from schoolteachers. Why? When he had the opportunity to develop a system and to promote it he failed. The reality is that the system we have implemented and are promoting and that we will continue to adequately fund is an investment in our young people. 
What did we hear from Mr English during the election campaign? It was that he would have no bar of alleviating the student loan burden. Why? His reason was that he doubted whether students could handle the money. That is an obvious indictment on the man and the less we see or hear from him in the education sector the better it will be for our children. 
What else have we seen? A key element of New Zealand’s identity a key element of our national personality—that is our status in relation to nuclear matters—is being constantly either undermined or confused by members of the National Party. Next I have decided—certainly in the far north—that “Nats” stands for “nuclear at torpedo speed”. We will not agree to weaken or unravel our very proud antinuclear legacy. 
What else have we heard in relation to negativity? We have heard a monstrous unsubstantiated attack on the credibility of our leader from members of the National Party when all they need to do is look at their own behaviour and what they are doing to their own leader. He is dog-tucker.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Television New Zealand—Finance and Expenditure Committee Evidence Health Ministry—Report of Controller and Auditor-General on  Contracting Practices 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Television New Zealand—Finance and Expenditure Committee Evidence Health Ministry—Report of Controller and Auditor-General on  Contracting Practices 
[Volume:629;Page:1152] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The second application is from the Hon Tony Ryall and relates to a report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the Ministry of Health’s contracting practices. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. 
However I am not prepared to grant an urgent debate on this application for two reasons. First the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement is under way. As Speaker’s ruling 166/1 makes clear the fact that a general debate of this nature is before the House while not ruling such a debate out conclusively is a relevant factor counting against acceptance. Secondly the subject of the report can appropriately be examined in the course of the financial reviews of departments currently before committees and then in the financial review debate. Consequently this application is also declined.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Television New Zealand—Finance and Expenditure Committee Evidence Health Ministry—Report of Controller and Auditor-General on  Contracting Practices 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Television New Zealand—Finance and Expenditure Committee Evidence Health Ministry—Report of Controller and Auditor-General on  Contracting Practices 
[Volume:629;Page:1152] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received two applications for debates on matters of urgent public importance. The first is from the Hon Murray McCully and relates to evidence given by the chief executive of Television New Zealand to the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the course of an inquiry into TVNZ. Even accepting that the evidence given by the chief executive is a matter involving ministerial responsibility there is no case for an urgent debate. The matter is still before the committee and the committee will be able to report on it as it sees fit.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1146] 
9.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the basic principle that applies to the taxation of income earned by New Zealand residents? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 New Zealand’s system of income taxation is based on the principle that New Zealand residents are taxed on their worldwide income. 
Shane Jones 
: Has he received any reports suggesting that this principle be altered? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I receive many reports obviously from people who do not want to be taxed at all but I have seen two particular reports. The first dated 8 February 2006 suggested: “… there is no rationale for taxing Kiwi investments offshore at all.” The second dated 9 February 2006 read: “His suggestion that I want to abandon the current regime that taxes dividends on foreign-held shares is nonsense.” Both reports are from John Key which shows that changing the leader will merely mean that flip-flops will be prettier in the future. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister believe that whatever changes are made to the “grey list” countries going forward should include Australia or does he believe that Australia warrants a special status going forward in terms of overseas taxation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that any changes going forward will include Australia. I think it is likely that a special case will be made in respect of Australia as part of the single economic market project.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
[Volume:629;Page:1135] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure you do not need my guidance on that Mr Hide. I will leave that to your own discretion.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
[Volume:629;Page:1135] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Should I do that in writing to the chairman?
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
[Volume:629;Page:1135] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your advice. On 16 December last year I wrote to the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Mr Shane Jones to complain about his attacks on a witness Mr Ian Fraser who had appeared before that committee. He had as chairman attacked Ian Fraser while chairing the meeting then subsequently in the media. 
Today was the first meeting of the Finance and Expenditure Committee since I wrote my letter to him. I had every expectation that the committee would consider my letter. We did not consider it. When I asked Mr Jones about this he peremptorily closed the meeting and when I asked him what had happened to my letter he replied that he had ripped it up. 
In the ordinary course of events I would write to him again to complain about his ripping up a letter from a member of Parliament to the chair of a committee but I am afraid that his arrogance is such that he might rip that letter up too. I ask you Madam Speaker for some advice on what a member of Parliament who is sitting on a select committee should do when he or she writes a letter to a chairman in order to put a matter before the committee and the chairman just rips it up without showing it to the committee.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
[Volume:629;Page:1135] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That matter must be dealt with by the committee as I am sure the member is aware. The Speaker as the member will be fully aware does not intervene until asked to do so by the committee itself. Matters must be considered again by the committee so it all should be taken up at that point.
Urgent Debates Declined — Television New Zealand—Finance and Expenditure Committee Evidence Health Ministry—Report of Controller and Auditor-General on  Contracting Practices 
Urgent Debates Declined — Television New Zealand—Finance and Expenditure Committee Evidence Health Ministry—Report of Controller and Auditor-General on  Contracting Practices 
[Volume:629;Page:1152] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Television New Zealand—Finance and Expenditure Committee Evidence 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received two applications for debates on matters of urgent public importance. The first is from the Hon Murray McCully and relates to evidence given by the chief executive of Television New Zealand to the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the course of an inquiry into TVNZ. Even accepting that the evidence given by the chief executive is a matter involving ministerial responsibility there is no case for an urgent debate. The matter is still before the committee and the committee will be able to report on it as it sees fit. 
Health Ministry—Report of Controller and Auditor-General on  Contracting Practices 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The second application is from the Hon Tony Ryall and relates to a report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the Ministry of Health’s contracting practices. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. 
However I am not prepared to grant an urgent debate on this application for two reasons. First the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement is under way. As Speaker’s ruling 166/1 makes clear the fact that a general debate of this nature is before the House while not ruling such a debate out conclusively is a relevant factor counting against acceptance. Secondly the subject of the report can appropriately be examined in the course of the financial reviews of departments currently before committees and then in the financial review debate. Consequently this application is also declined.
Points of Order — Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
Points of Order — Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
[Volume:629;Page:1135] 
Wednesday 15 February 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Finance and Expenditure Committee—Complaints Procedure 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your advice. On 16 December last year I wrote to the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Mr Shane Jones to complain about his attacks on a witness Mr Ian Fraser who had appeared before that committee. He had as chairman attacked Ian Fraser while chairing the meeting then subsequently in the media. 
Today was the first meeting of the Finance and Expenditure Committee since I wrote my letter to him. I had every expectation that the committee would consider my letter. We did not consider it. When I asked Mr Jones about this he peremptorily closed the meeting and when I asked him what had happened to my letter he replied that he had ripped it up. 
In the ordinary course of events I would write to him again to complain about his ripping up a letter from a member of Parliament to the chair of a committee but I am afraid that his arrogance is such that he might rip that letter up too. I ask you Madam Speaker for some advice on what a member of Parliament who is sitting on a select committee should do when he or she writes a letter to a chairman in order to put a matter before the committee and the chairman just rips it up without showing it to the committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That matter must be dealt with by the committee as I am sure the member is aware. The Speaker as the member will be fully aware does not intervene until asked to do so by the committee itself. Matters must be considered again by the committee so it all should be taken up at that point. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Should I do that in writing to the chairman? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure you do not need my guidance on that Mr Hide. I will leave that to your own discretion.
Cullen Michael: Income Tax Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Income Tax Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12741] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The current bill the Income Tax Bill contains the redrafted parts from Part F to the end of the bill which I think is Part Z by sheer coincidence and re-enacts and consolidates earlier parts renumbering various sections. It is the culmination of 15 years’ work towards making New Zealand’s most widely consulted law more accessible and user-friendly. 
The Income Tax Act is a very old piece of legislation dating back to 1891. Over the years it has been hugely amended and recast and expanded significantly to reflect the changing nature of tax and business. It was not until the early 1990s that the legislation was comprehensively reviewed from a basic structural and presentational perspective by the Valabh committee the consultative committee on the taxation of income from capital. That committee’s report highlighted various weaknesses in the legislation and proposed a number of solutions. These included reorganising the legislation into a more logical and coherent structure and consolidating certain parts of the legislation. It also recommended a commitment to modern drafting techniques and plain language in redrafting. 
A major feature of this mammoth exercise has been the close collaboration through all stages of the project between the public and private tax sectors. Submissions from professional groups and individuals have played an important part in resolving a range of issues during the project including the issue of transitional structural policy and technical and drafting questions. The guiding principle throughout has been not to change the law as expressed in the current tax legislation but to re-enact it in as user-friendly a form as possible. The resulting bill hopefully to be enacted later is a tribute to the process and to the people involved in bringing the bill to its second reading: the members of the rewrite advisory panel under Sir Ivor Richardson the drafters the tax specialists in both the private and public sectors and the successive Ministers of Revenue I think beginning with the Hon Wyatt Creech. He was the Minister who began this process of the rewrite of the Income Tax Act. 
I finish by pointing out that we are the only country in the world that has successfully completed this project. Other countries have attempted to do so but have had to abandon the project part-way through. That in part is because some of those countries have much more complex tax legislation than New Zealand—surprising as that may seem to many users of our tax legislation—and it is actually very very difficult to complete the process.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:643;Page:12740] 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: What is the timetable for the committee’s consideration of the Electoral Finance Bill? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): 
 The bill is still before the committee. Consideration of all aspects of the bill is ongoing and a number of further meetings are planned. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the committee be considering further involvement of the Human Rights Commission in its consideration; if so what and how? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes; the Justice and Electoral Committee will be inviting the Human Rights Commission to have further involvement in its consideration of the Electoral Finance Bill. The committee today authorised advisers on the bill to consult the Human Rights Commission and resolved to seek further comment from the commission on some of the committee consideration thus far. I thank the MP for Epsom for his constructive role. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the member give this House an assurance that all departmental reports will be provided to committee members in a timely manner so that the reports may be properly considered prior to deliberation or will committee members be forced to have to continue to endure her chaotic chairmanship? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that last comment was appropriate. Would the member please withdraw it. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I withdraw. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: As the member is aware or should be aware that is committee business and is discussed in committee by committee members. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee which shows that Rodney Hide is a member and was there but only for 15 minutes so why on earth is he asking these questions? 
Document not tabled.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:643;Page:12737] 
10.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports of increases in the number of health bureaucrats? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have repeatedly. Only yesterday Tony Ryall tried one more time to run the cliché that there are armies of bureaucrats running the health system. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: There are! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Unfortunately for Mr Ryall Mr Smith and anyone else who likes to believe this cliché the facts get in the way of their prejudice. Let me offer them a couple of examples. The first is that the Ministry of Health which is of course the biggest collection of bureaucrats manages to soak up less than 2 percent of the health budget; more than 98 percent of the health budget gets through to the front line. The second fact is that across the whole sector in recent years the proportion of health professionals has risen as a proportion of the total workforce and the proportion of management administration and support staff has declined as a proportion of the total workforce. That is the case. Those are the facts. They are in the annual report. But wait there is one more little thing to be kept in mind here and that is that if there were still further reductions in management administration and support staff we would get into trouble because then we would have nurses answering the phones or doing the laundry and that would not be very cost-effective would it? 
Maryan Street 
: Can the Minister advise the House again what the country gets for the massive reinvestment in health? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Immunisations are up; smoking is down; life expectancy has increased; 7000 more Kiwis got elective surgical services this year; general practitioner fees have halved; most prescriptions are down from $15 to $3; 27 new hospitals are being or have been built; 1000 more women are getting breast screening; and 50000 more kids are getting fruit in schools each day. The list goes on and on. It is never enough but those are facts and they are all gains on where we were at the time of the change in Government. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: I seek leave to table two reports by the Minister of Health. The first report states “Wrong again Ryall” and the second report admits that the Minister got it wrong. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those reports. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Since the Prime Minister promised to cut a swathe through the health bureaucracy how many more people are employed in the Ministry of Health today compared with 6 years ago? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Since the Prime Minister said that it was important to cut a swathe through the health bureaucracy this system has taken out an entire layer of bureaucrats. It used to be called the Health Funding Authority before that it was called the Transitional Health Authority and before that we had four regional health authorities. Guess what? They have all gone.
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
[Volume:643;Page:12722] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As he would know the Clerk and I have discussed this and those remarks will be made on another occasion in another place. 
Motion agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Dunne Peter: Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
[Volume:643;Page:12722] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I concur absolutely with the comments. I do not wish to make a contribution to the motion as such—but not because I do not fully support it—but I recall that on the occasion of the retirement of Mr McGee’s predecessor the House by leave did grant Mr Littlejohn the opportunity to make a few words of comment in reply. I wonder whether Mr McGee might wish to avail himself of a similar opportunity were the House to provide it.
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
[Volume:643;Page:12722] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well it is non-debatable but it is obviously being debated. Does anyone else therefore wish to make a contribution?
English Bill: Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
English Bill: Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
[Volume:643;Page:12722] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I know that the motion is non-debatable but I think I should take the opportunity in recognition of the Clerk’s long and excellent service over many years—which will be recognised this afternoon at another function—simply to record the Opposition’s full support of the motion.
Cullen Michael: Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Cullen Michael: Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
[Volume:643;Page:12721] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this House place on record its appreciation of the long and distinguished service of David McGee as Clerk of the House congratulates him on his appointment as Ombudsman and wishes him and his family all the best for the future. 
[ 
Applause 
]
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Code of Conduct—Members of Parliament 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Code of Conduct—Members of Parliament 
[Volume:643;Page:12721] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have no desire to rark up issues that for all intents and purposes have been dealt with but I do not think your comments relating to the matter were helpful. In this instance there has been one apology and that is the only apology that is necessary. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well the House has heard my comments and the member’s.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Code of Conduct—Members of Parliament 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Code of Conduct—Members of Parliament 
[Volume:643;Page:12721] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As he knows the code of conduct that has been proposed is before the Standing Orders Committee and will be considered there. I am sure the matter will be taken into account. Obviously all members are aware of the unfortunate incident that happened yesterday. I understand that the members have apologised and have been spoken to by their respective parties. I think I should point out that as Speaker I do not have jurisdiction over the lobbies; they are the members’ territory. But I make the observation that the behaviour of the members reflects badly not only on themselves but—unfairly and unfortunately—on Parliament as an institution.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Code of Conduct—Members of Parliament 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Code of Conduct—Members of Parliament 
[Volume:643;Page:12721] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the light of the reported events of yesterday and of the code of conduct that was submitted to this Parliament by the United Future Green Maori and ACT parties earlier in the year will you be drawing to the attention of the House the need for members to keep matters relating to other members’ families out of debate to prevent a repetition of yesterday’s events?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:643;Page:12721] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think those people who have ever been victims of real terrorism would regard that remark as particularly lightweight.
Locke Keith: Business Statement 
Locke Keith: Business Statement 
[Volume:643;Page:12721] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Will the Government be giving urgency to a new bill that I understand is in preparation after yesterday’s events—that is the “Parliamentary Terrorism Suppression Bill”?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:643;Page:12721] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 6 November priority will be given to the first reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill if it is not finished today and to the remaining stages of the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) the Court Martial Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill the Human Tissue Bill and the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Resignations — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
[Volume:643;Page:12721] 
Resignations 
Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this House place on record its appreciation of the long and distinguished service of David McGee as Clerk of the House congratulates him on his appointment as Ombudsman and wishes him and his family all the best for the future. 
[ 
Applause 
] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I know that the motion is non-debatable but I think I should take the opportunity in recognition of the Clerk’s long and excellent service over many years—which will be recognised this afternoon at another function—simply to record the Opposition’s full support of the motion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well it is non-debatable but it is obviously being debated. Does anyone else therefore wish to make a contribution? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I concur absolutely with the comments. I do not wish to make a contribution to the motion as such—but not because I do not fully support it—but I recall that on the occasion of the retirement of Mr McGee’s predecessor the House by leave did grant Mr Littlejohn the opportunity to make a few words of comment in reply. I wonder whether Mr McGee might wish to avail himself of a similar opportunity were the House to provide it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As he would know the Clerk and I have discussed this and those remarks will be made on another occasion in another place. 
Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Code of Conduct—Members of Parliament 
Points of Order — Code of Conduct—Members of Parliament 
[Volume:643;Page:12721] 
Points of Order 
Code of Conduct—Members of Parliament 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the light of the reported events of yesterday and of the code of conduct that was submitted to this Parliament by the United Future Green Maori and ACT parties earlier in the year will you be drawing to the attention of the House the need for members to keep matters relating to other members’ families out of debate to prevent a repetition of yesterday’s events? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As he knows the code of conduct that has been proposed is before the Standing Orders Committee and will be considered there. I am sure the matter will be taken into account. Obviously all members are aware of the unfortunate incident that happened yesterday. I understand that the members have apologised and have been spoken to by their respective parties. I think I should point out that as Speaker I do not have jurisdiction over the lobbies; they are the members’ territory. But I make the observation that the behaviour of the members reflects badly not only on themselves but—unfairly and unfortunately—on Parliament as an institution. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have no desire to rark up issues that for all intents and purposes have been dealt with but I do not think your comments relating to the matter were helpful. In this instance there has been one apology and that is the only apology that is necessary. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well the House has heard my comments and the member’s.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:643;Page:12721] 
Thursday 25 October 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 6 November priority will be given to the first reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill if it is not finished today and to the remaining stages of the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Court Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) the Court Martial Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill the Human Tissue Bill and the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Will the Government be giving urgency to a new bill that I understand is in preparation after yesterday’s events—that is the “Parliamentary Terrorism Suppression Bill”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think those people who have ever been victims of real terrorism would regard that remark as particularly lightweight.
Tisch Lindsay: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12637] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 In the few minutes remaining I want to dwell very quickly on a couple of issues but first I would say that this legislation is piecemeal law reform that falls well short of what good legislation regarding the emergence of technology especially the Internet should be doing. In fact this goes back to the year 2000. One would have thought that a bill of this sort at this time would cater for all the issues that have been brought forward through submissions but in fact it does not. 
Although we note that the introduction in the bill’s commentary states: “The Ministry of Economic Development advised us that this legislation will be reviewed in five years’ time to ensure that copyright legislation in New Zealand keeps pace with technological advances.” the point I make here is that in the 21st century we should be far more proactive than we have been. I want first to draw the House’s attention to some issues that have not been resolved and they were issues that were spelt out to the Ministry of Economic Development. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Human Tissue Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Question agreed to.
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12607] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12607] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12607] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12606] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I join the other speakers who have paid tribute to the Green Party and to Keith Locke for his advocacy on a consistent and principled basis for the provisions of this legislation. I commend the other parties in the House that have joined with the Government to support the repeal of the sedition legislation based on the very detailed and well-reasoned provisions of the Law Commission. I am sorry that in the end we were not able to persuade Mr Mark and his party of the merits of the decision to push for repeal but it is encouraging that there has quite clearly been for the most part a good-humoured acceptance of the need to hear the arguments and respond to them. That is always something that the public respond to well when they listen to this House. It is a shame in my view as a relative newcomer to this place that there is not more of that sort of thing and less of the ad hominem argument that is all too often a feature of debates even in the Committee stage. 
A previous speaker referred to a reforming Attorney-General of the 1960s who certainly made some good progress but obviously we should record our thanks to the great reforming Attorney-General of the 1980s Sir Geoffrey Palmer without whom we would not have had the Law Commission sedition report and the present legislation. So with those brief comments I conclude my contribution on the Committee stage of this bill.
Burton Mark: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12603] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 As has been noted of course the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill will bring into force on 1 January 2008 this measure that repeals the sedition laws of New Zealand. In so doing it amends the Crimes Act 1961. 
I too want to acknowledge the sincerity of the work and the views that many of my colleagues around the House have brought to this matter. It was interesting and not only a measure of sincerity but also astute political timing I think to spot the train coming and to announce its arrival just before it got to the station. But the Greens United Future ACT and the Maori Party did that and they did it with a certain amount of flair. I acknowledge their political acumen for that. In no way does it detract from the sincerity of the views that the members themselves hold; I believe that to be the case. 
I think Mr Finlayson could perhaps have brought his praise to Mr Locke had he left alone the reference— 
Darren Hughes 
: Yes that’s the only reason he said the first part. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Well that is right. If Mr Finlayson had left alone the reference to the Electoral Finance Bill then his praise may have had the ring of genuine sincerity about it. But of course he could not let that one go by. 
As a result I will have to respond to the member on it and I will say just this. There is plenty of opportunity yet for debate on the Electoral Finance Bill. That bill in contrast to this bill is one that is most timely. It is very much relevant to this Parliament and to this country’s electoral system because it is about protecting the right and the voice of ordinary New Zealanders to be heard and not to be overwhelmed by vested interest and vast sums of money which can be wielded like an electoral weapon by the few to overcome stifle and drown out the voices of the many. There is absolutely—absolutely—no valid comparison between that bill and this one. 
I will not go down that path any further but I would simply say to members that it is timely that we progress with the abolition of these provisions whose repeal is now long overdue. I think that the statute book will be as one or two members have already said a little tidier and a little more modern for their passing.
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12601] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Locke Keith: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12600] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was listening to Russell Fairbrother speaking and I say that I think it is worthwhile looking at the two streams that are leading us to this decision tonight. One is that we are removing from our democratic parliamentary system those laws restraining free speech that have been applied during the period of our democratic Government in the 1900s. 
When we look at the actual provisions we see that in another sense it is a case of the parliamentary system maturing and moving away from the monarchy. It is no accident to see when we look at section 81 of the Crimes Act which states: “To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against Her Majesty or the Government of New Zealand …” that Her Majesty comes first. It is true that Her Majesty is the official head of State. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is a very narrow debate. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes but it relates to our court system and our parliamentary system in that this legislation represents a maturing of parliamentary democracy away from the traditional system that existed in earlier centuries particularly in Britain where the monarchy had more powers vis-à-vis the Parliament. Sedition laws were originally brought in and carried through to today to protect the monarch against the development of the Parliament and against criticism in the Parliament and amongst the people. I think it would be useful to look at this as a maturing of our democracy in the parliamentary sense.