edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wong Pansy: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4229] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 It is with regret that I take part in the debate on Part 2 which creates two systems of taxation. The part has been very well argued by the ACT party and my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and Mr Shane Ardern. When one thinks about it the Minister’s objective sounds quite reasonable. He says that eventually most taxpayers will be on a lower tax rate so for administrative purposes why not lower the tax rate for Maori organisations and therefore save those people from having to claim a refund at the end of the process? However the question remains as to why other taxpayers who are also on a lower income level cannot receive the same benefit. That defies logic. There is no logic to that. Other taxpayers in New Zealand on a lower income level would not be able to claim the same benefit. They would have to go to the trouble of filing a tax return and claiming a tax refund etc. That defies logic and is not fair. 
The second reason is even more discouraging. The Minister and the Labour Government is resigned to the fact that the majority of benefactors of Maori organisations will remain in a low income tax bracket. Therefore instead of sending a positive signal to Maori taxpayers to aspire to be high-income earners the Government is conceding that they will remain low-income earners. Recently a report conducted by the independent National Bureau of Economic Research was commissioned by one Government department. It reached a very positive conclusion on the economic performance of Maori organisations. That report stated that those organisations utilise their assets very well. I have some news for the Labour Government which has not read that independently researched report and has continued to put down Maori taxpayers: that economic report states that a lot of Maori organisations are doing very well. So Maori are aspiring to become high-income earners. 
It makes sense that the Government has two choices. One is to bring down the tax rate for all organisations and all taxpayers which would send a positive signal to everybody and show that the Labour Government for a change wants everybody to do well and wants New Zealand to return to the top half of the OECD. So Labour should be prepared to reduce income tax levels to encourage all taxpayers to aspire to become high-income earners. The alternative choice is not to complicate the tax system and the work of the Inland Revenue Department any further by creating two separate systems. Because of the complications involved in that process we end up having to debate once again a bill that runs into more than 100 pages. No doubt during the process a lot of people will be arguing about the definition of a Maori organisation and we will get into all sorts of technical interpretations. Once again it is good news particularly for tax lawyers but what has this particular tax legislation achieved?
Peters Jim: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5159] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support clause 4. Firstly it is consistent with the thrust and intention of the other clauses in the bill. Secondly as one who has recently come from employment and recently been involved in a number of both industry training organisations and other training opportunities I say to my colleagues on my right that this is not the opportunity this is not the right way to conduct the economic debates that they intend to conduct or are conducting. This is a sane sensible equitable way of giving balance both to the employer and to the employee in the training sense. We support this clause.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6872] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Noes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Simich Clem: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19731] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.
Shirley Ken: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6792] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would have preferred to raise this matter in speaking to the previous point of order because it would have related directly to that but you denied me that right. Let me be quite clear at the outset. I am not relitigating your decision. You are the sole judge although I note that Speaker’s ruling 54/2 states: “I can only express the hope that it will not be applied too harshly.” Those were the words of Mr Speaker Statham in 1931 which have stood the test of time. My point is this which I wanted to add: the Business Committee had a situation in which the proposal was that we could perhaps consider a question time with a guaranteed fixed time for finishing—a 6 o’clock Friday sort of an arrangement. The ACT party did not support that because we recognise that these matters need to be debated and that the Government when the House goes into urgency should not be able to get off the hook and run to an agreed time where the presiding officer in the Chair gives a token hour here and a token hour there then closes it down. These are very serious matters for the reasons that have been very eloquently outlined by Mr Jones and the National Party and I can only say in regard to the denial of question time that these matters are important they are overriding court decisions and I urge you in considering Part 2 to not in the words of Mr Statham apply it too harshly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Shirley. As I said to both the Hon Murray McCully and the honourable member Dail Jones it will certainly be taken into consideration. I thank members for their contributions.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7460] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understand that there is to be a split speech between Mr Hughes and Dr Hutchison—3 minutes and 7 minutes.
Chadwick Steve: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6227] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on this bill. This bill provides protection now for training employees of all ages who are currently exempt from minimum wage protection. In that current state they can invariably be paid very little while they are training or nothing. This bill proposes protections for them that are long overdue. I am pleased to speak in support of this bill.
McNair Craig: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
McNair Craig: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:8020] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I do not want to spend too much time on this bill but I will just briefly thank my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is always a little bit different in Parliament when all the parties in the House are supporting a bill together. I do not want to say too much apart from the fact that I am glad that there are amendments that will strengthen the powers of the bank register banks and supervise registered banks. I will go through a few points and then sit down. The amendments will allow the bank to consider extra information when registering banks; improve the bank’s powers to investigate and direct banks that are in financial difficulty or which are failing to meet disclosure requirements; improve supervisory abilities to obtain information; improve the bank’s ability to deal with bank failure; and update offence and penalty provisions. New Zealand First supports this bill. We believe that it is a good bill to vote for.
Dyson Ruth: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16578] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Field Taito Phillip: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12125] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 The last speaker Wayne Mapp is an indication of backward thinking by the National Party that proved to be disastrous in the past decade it was in power. We are supportive of this move because contrary to what the previous speaker talked about—centralisation—this move goes towards a more effective and consistent approach to improving participation levels in early childhood education. This is critical to my communities of Pacific people because our children have the lowest participation levels and it is only this Government’s policies approach and up to date thinking that has resulted in significant improvement in those participation levels. 
Under National it was around 60 percent—appalling—compared with everybody else who had around 85 percent participation levels. This Government has significantly improved that and it is now approaching 80 percent which is nearly a 20 percent improvement from the situation under the National Government. So I am very supportive of this move where there will be a more consistent approach throughout the whole Ministry of Education to work together to improve those participation levels. 
I want to acknowledge the work Brian Donnelly did in this area when he was Associate Minister of Education. Unfortunately it was probably too little too late although it did establish some improvement in my electorate. I congratulate him on his support in the establishment of some of the early childhood education centres in my electorate. But nevertheless— 
Hon Member 
: It was done years ago. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: That is right but I also want to acknowledge the work of the current Minister of Education Trevor Mallard because only a few months ago he set a record of over $1 million dedicated to the establishment of three pre-schools in the south Auckland - Mangere area. That is a continued approach to improving participation levels. I think that this move will significantly— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: After David Tua lobbied me I had to do it. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: But I think it was justified despite the little bit of influence from certain prominent people in the community. I would say that this move means better coordination better consistency and people working together to benefit everyone and particularly our children who are not yet at school.
Simich Clem: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Simich Clem: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8513] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is an amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 287(1AA) and (1) but I rule that amendment out of order given the decision on the previous vote. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 288(2) be agreed to.
Barker Rick: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21879] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10009] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to omit new section 23A(4) in clause 8A be agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8279] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8171] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Field Taito Phillip: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11064] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am very pleased to contribute briefly in support of the bill. There is a gap in our legislation that needs to deal with particular offences or misconduct that may occur when people are serving in an operation—in this case the Solomon Islands. We know that New Zealand is contributing to the restoration of law and order in the Solomon Islands as are other Pacific nations. It is only appropriate that those who go there to represent New Zealand respect the laws of that country as well as New Zealand law. Through this bill New Zealand will exercise jurisdiction over police and civilian personnel serving overseas. I am very pleased that the select committee has done a good job and that there is unanimous support for this bill amongst all the parties. I support the bill.
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14251] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
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. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14249] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put.
Donald Rod: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Donald Rod: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4389] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When you consider the inevitable closure motion I would like you to take into account the alternation in the Chamber between those who support the bill and those who oppose—and we are the only ones who oppose. I further ask you to consider that since I last spoke the Greens have been challenged by Richard Worth Richard Prebble and Tony Ryall and I believe that natural justice suggests we should have the opportunity to rebut those challenges. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member but I do not need his assistance on this.
Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11892] 
Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Donald Rod: Urgent Debates — Member for TamakiMakaurau—Standing Down as Minister 
Donald Rod: Urgent Debates — Member for TamakiMakaurau—Standing Down as Minister 
[Volume:621;Page:16243] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 A significant number of very serious accusations have been made in relation to John Tamihere’s actions both before and since he left the Waipareira Trust. It is appropriate that those be dealt with by way of a thorough investigation by someone with the appropriate expertise. The Government is therefore to be congratulated on moving swiftly to set up an inquiry on ensuring that the terms of reference cover all known and likely accusations and on the relatively tight time frame within which Douglas White QC must report. But let us face it—the Government had no alternative. 
If any of the accusations are true then they will be of great concern not only to this Parliament but to all the people of New Zealand and especially to taxpayers and recipients of the services provided by the Waipareira Trust. I know myself that it would have been immoral and totally unacceptable for me to have used my employer at the time Trade Aid to bankroll my first election campaign especially as that organisation was in receipt of Government grants to support its work with the poor and disadvantaged. But it is not for this Parliament to act as a kangaroo court on these matters. As Dr Cullen said we do not live in “Alice in Wonderland” and therefore the sequence of events should be evidence a verdict and then if appropriate sentencing. 
Whatever the outcome of the formal investigation John Tamihere has to live with having made a categorical public statement that he would not accept a golden handshake before the election and then proceeding to accept one after the election. John Tamihere has been a role model to many people both Maori and Pakeha. He has let them down and he has let himself down. Ultimately the public will judge Mr Tamihere on the morality rather than the legality of his behaviour. He should reflect on that as he makes a political decision about his future.
Dalziel Lianne: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Dalziel Lianne: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:13836] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call in this debate simply to endorse the Border Security Bill. I was heartened to hear the ACT party confirm that the free market does not always provide answers to the questions we often have to confront as a nation especially when we have more international ports of entry and departure in this country per head of population than any other country in the world. Imagine Sydney having as many ports of entry and departure as New Zealand has in terms of its international airports and ports. It is absolutely outrageous for the ACT party to make a speech like that but then not have the same view on health education and all those other fundamental things in this country that we hold dear to our hearts. 
I want to talk about the Immigration Amendment Bill because I noticed that that member did not even mention it. I fully support the Advance Passenger Screening system and the Advance Passenger Processing programme that has been put in place in order to implement the system. Concern has been expressed in this House about the loss of privacy with those very large airline databases and I want to make a comment about this. 
 I spoke at a privacy conference last year. Justice Michael Kirby from the High Court of Australia whom many members of this House will be familiar with was on the panel and he made a very good point. In our countries we have the right to walk down the street—any street—without having to produce an identity card to a police officer or a security officer. That is an important freedom that we in New Zealand share with Australia and it is a freedom that is well worth holding on to. I do not know that anyone wants this country to become a police State. 
This legislation justifies measures that exclude certain people from entering our countries and I thought that Justice Michael Kirby put it very well when he said that we do have the right to look at who is coming into our country and the right to make those decisions. As I have said on more than one occasion we have a right to know who is here where those people have come from and why they are here. This bill should go a long way to ensuring that those who wish to enter our country under false identities to seek residence in this country by back-door entry will be stopped before they board the plane.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6767] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17703] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Aquaculture Reform Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:608;Page:5983] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House might give us some indication of when the Responsible Gambling Bill will be coming back before the House. There is quite a bit of public concern about it particularly in the sporting community. A number of letters are coming out of the various trusts affected by this stating that they are unable to make grants for summer sport pending the legislation being passed. Can the Minister indicate when he might let the sporting community of New Zealand know just when the bad news is to hit?
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19542] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take an exceptionally brief call in strong support of the second reading of this bill because of the three significant changes it makes to the social security system. 
Firstly there are changes to the accommodation supplement. Secondly we can ensure that benefit applicants who work for part of the year are not financially disadvantaged. That is very important in terms of the seasonal workers that a number of our electorates cover. Thirdly there are changes in the area of child support that will make a big difference to children in sole parent families. 
I support the second reading of this bill.
Copeland Gordon: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5228] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I think we have reached the stage where we can talk about the advertising of commercial sexual services. I was amazed that this subject was not mentioned in the bill. I am left with two possibilities in respect of its promoters: either their agenda and desire is to see prostitution flourish—in the way for example that I would like to see dairy exports or the knowledge-based industries flourish—or they are simply naive and have not thought through the consequences of decriminalisation without controls on advertising. There is no place in this House for naivety. 
Should this bill be passed—and I hope it will not—let us at least ban advertising. Otherwise there will be graphic quarter-page or even half-page advertisements in our daily newspapers on television radio the Internet and even in the Yellow Pages. Human nature being what it is those advertisements will push the limits and borders of pornography. I predict that advertisements on the Internet will be hard-core porn linked to the address or telephone number of the local brothel or hooker. After all the single goal of advertising is to stimulate demand by each and every means and the ingenuity of admen knows no bounds. 
Do we want our children and grandchildren exposed to such material? My answer is no. What is the answer of members? For me the protection of children is a bottom-line non-negotiable given. Children deserve the opportunity to live the beautiful God-given period of innocence that is the essence of being a child. In my view it is evil in any shape or form to sexualise children. It is wrong and we must protect them. To do otherwise would be unconscionable. 
My amendment is based on the smoke-free legislation. If this House of Parliament can pass law to ban the advertising of tobacco then we certainly need it for prostitution. On any kind of moral scale it is on a completely different level and is to say the least way down the scale on any decent measuring of morality. If my amendment does not go through I would like to ask those members of this House who have voted in favour of the bill to date to think about changing their opinion. As I have said if we do not put some restraints on advertising material in this bill then we would be foolish in the extreme and be risking that beautiful innocence that our children and grandchildren have a right to enjoy.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19687] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 As a person who spoke at the Business Committee my recollection is that I gave a general indication that the Government would look at other mechanisms to achieve its objectives not specifically this one. I can certainly say and can assure the House that I had no communication with the Speaker about the action I took at 7.30 last night. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to review  
Hansard 
. My recollection is that the allegation was of collusion and that is what objection was taken to. Of course the matter was raised at the Business Committee but no decision was taken. I looked for members when I came into the House and when the point of order was raised by the National whip.
Beyer Georgina: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5525] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I shall take a very brief call to acknowledge the debate as being predictable tonight. The grizzling about the length of time that this bill has taken to come before the House is a bit rich given that the members currently in Opposition when they were in the various forms of Government during the 1990s had quite some time to deal with amendments to the Act during their time in office but did not. So that has been addressed. 
I really want to acknowledge the work of the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee of the last Parliament not all of whom are still members of this House. Most of us—and I was a part of that select committee—were the people who heard the submissions that have been talked about. I acknowledge the input of a member who is no longer in the House Mr Joe Hawke. He was very keen as far as the Maori issues in this bill were concerned—and this is in response a little bit to Georgina te Heuheu’s comments before. It was quite an achievement small though it may seem that we increased the status of iwi planning documents. Instead of local authorities being required to “have regard to” those documents in their planning documents the wording has been changed to “must take account of”. That may sound small and insignificant to some people but it is quite significant in many respects to the credibility of iwi planning documents and things like that. I acknowledge Joe Hawke and I say many of the other members of the select committee did not object to that. 
On the issue of wahi tapu ancestral historical sites and things like that I remember citing an example of a situation that occurred when I was Mayor of Carterton District and had to do a hearing application for a coastal area. Often some applicants would find it advantageous or otherwise when Maori would use the last straw. Sometimes Maori were seen as the saviours because of being iwi who could stop something going ahead by being prohibitive or who could slow things down. On that particular occasion a Maori person who was objecting to the application concerning a matter in the Carterton District sort of spread his arms wide and said it was all wahi tapu. 
Hon David Carter 
: That’s a worry. 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: It was so I think trying to make some definitions and to bring some clarity to what many Opposition members are arguing for and against is helpful despite one’s opinions about the Opposition.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7636] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The problem with Mr Prebble’s request to the Government was that he did not ask the Government to give an assurance that it would not legislate before the House had considered the report. I am afraid that that was an omission on his part. But the real issue that concerns me Mr Speaker is the suggestion that you should make up your mind according to the Solicitor-General’s legal opinion. I want to give you two reasons that you should not consider that as a final arbiter of the correct course to take. I will give you references to the cases. They are the wine-box case and the Quality Inn affair in which the Solicitor-General—though he might sit in the Court of Appeal today—was demonstrably wrong.
Vote: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19935] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16064] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — Member for TamakiMakaurau—Response to Allegations 
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — Member for TamakiMakaurau—Response to Allegations 
[Volume:621;Page:16514] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to ask Mr John Tamihere two questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11671] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17822. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16356] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; United Future 5. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 3; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Bill English to clause 75(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “9 months” and substitute the expression “5 years”.
Prebble Richard: General Debates 
Prebble Richard: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8538] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 First of all you can dismiss the points raised by the Leader of the House because the statements made by Opposition members during the Leader of the Opposition’s speech certainly were not breaking up his speech. So it was a frivolous point of order. 
I am disturbed to hear that a whip approached you during a speech to try to influence your rulings—if that is correct it is very wrong. No one may approach the Speaker except by raising a point of order. So if an Opposition whip did try to approach you he should not and he most certainly should not on a matter of order—that has to be done by way of a point of order. Having said that I think you should actually rebuke Mr Mallard. He is sitting in a position of prominence where he can interject over the live microphone of the Speaker. He has a strong voice. What I particularly object to about Mr Mallard’s interjections is that they are grossly out of order. He cannot ask where a member is—and that is what he was doing. He was calling out and asking where a member of Parliament is. That is an interjection that is out of order. When he was pulled up he then repeated it which again was out of order. I think it would be a reasonable ruling if you were to say to Mr Mallard that if he wishes to stay in this debate for the rest of the afternoon he should be silent unless he gets a call.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8657] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Who is to be the judge in this matter? That is my point. This is a very serious allegation that has been made by someone and it involves the Speaker’s office and the police. Am I to take it that you will be the judge of this matter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Am I to take it that you think it is an appropriate a proper and a fitting situation that you judge it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not. The House will judge it and that is where it should be.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4232] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 2 be agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5402] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour please say “Aye” to the contrary—
Woolerton R Doug: General Debates 
Woolerton R Doug: General Debates 
[Volume:606;Page:3799] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 On the face of it the recent incident regarding John Tamihere and his speech to the Knowledge Wave conference just looks like one Minister involving himself in another Minister’s business. But I believe it goes far deeper than that and gives us an interesting insight into the reasoning of that member. Unlike Katherine Rich I believe that member comes from the old school of dumb debate where one keeps on yelling and does nothing. Far from being the capitalist he pretends to be that member is the oldest style of socialist this House has ever seen. We have not seen a socialist of that order for many years. I have just about not seen one in my lifetime.  
This member is not progressing Maori interests one jot. He is posturing. He is going around talking about his mana about what he believes should be done and about what John Tamihere has done. But when Helen Clark comes along she may not be able to speak on a marae but my God she can certainly tell a Maori Minister what she thinks of him and shove him right back in the box from whence he came. Not only that she demanded—and got—a full apology from John Tamihere. One can only imagine what that has done to the mana of this so-called urban warrior. This urban warrior thing with John Tamihere is a myth. Rightly or wrongly that will not stop him because we know that this guy does not learn too quickly. We can tell that by his list of convictions and by the fact that his Waipareira Trust had to have accountants in there looking over the books. This guy does not learn too quickly and Helen Clark should sack him forthwith.  
I want to turn briefly to the speech that Labour said was not given at the Knowledge Wave conference. The thoughts within this speech are certainly not the thoughts of some new-age guy. As I said before this Minister is old-time red socialist politics to his boots. I want those members who got a copy of his speech before it was wiped off the Internet by the Labour Party to look towards the bottom of page 4. Karl Marx would be really proud of the stuff in this speech. We are well and truly back into the collective. That is how it goes in John Tamihere land and that is how it goes with old-time socialists.  
I apologise for reading the recipe but I must: “Step 1: Money from the Government.” This stuff always starts with money from the Government. “Step 2: Intervene between the Government and the recipient. On TV they call this putting yourself in the frame. The money flows through your hands or the hands of your trust to the recipient. It is very important to do that because one cannot move on to Step 3. “Step 3: Arrange bulk discounts.” It is there in the speech: “Purchase things collectively especially essentials—foods and medicines.” There is plenty of room here for a shrewd businessman and he or she will be doing good for all those poor impoverished downtrodden people—especially I suggest the architect of such a scheme. “Step 4: Sell this to the people as new-age. This step is very important.”
[Volume:618;Page:14400] 
Kei te tu atu ki te tautoko I teneiwiki ara tumanako kia whakaatungia te reo Maori ki te motu katoa. I stand up to support Maori Language Week.
Pettis Jill: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Pettis Jill: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10295] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16964] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was an absolutely disgraceful interjection from the deputy leader of the National Party. I suggest that you require him to withdraw and apologise. You know exactly what he said. I will not repeat it in the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Did the member make an offensive remark?
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15576] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 This question stands in my name and was originally addressed to the Prime Minister. It was accepted by the Clerk’s Office in that form. I was later advised that it had been transferred to the Minister of Justice. The question was addressed to the Prime Minister because it deals with an offer from the National Party to support the Government in very important legislation. Only the Prime Minister I suggest can answer that question appropriately. I therefore seek leave of the House to have the question transferred to the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to do that. Is there any objection? There is.
Collins Judith: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6600] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I have spoken against this bill since it first came back into the House and I do so again tonight because in my opinion this bill does not achieve the worthy goals that its promoter Tim Barnett has sought to achieve. 
For many many years and for many decades and many centuries there has been prostitution and I believe that there will be prostitution for many decades and centuries to come. Whenever there are people who are impoverished disadvantaged the victims of sexual abuse as children or victims of domestic violence there is a culture that encourages prostitution. People who become prostitutes are very seldom people with many choices. They are very seldom people who can say: “Shall I take that job or that job? Which university shall I attend? Which particular degree shall I achieve?” With some exceptions—but only a few—most prostitutes are the most disadvantaged people in society. 
This bill we are debating tonight has the worthy aim of helping those people but it does not actually do that and that is what is so disappointing. After 2¾ years in this Parliament and after thousands and thousands of dollars have been spent on it with trips here there and everywhere this bill does not achieve that aim. Does it do anything to stop abuse by pimps? No it does not; it now allows pimps to be legal. At least under the current law prostitution is legal but pimping is not nor is solicitation. Do we really want that to be legal? 
When we visit Sydney and King’s Cross and see young girls as I have who could not be more than 13 or 14 prostituting themselves up and down the main street do we want to see that here? We do not have to go very far do we? We can see it almost any night of the week in places like Manurewa and Papatoetoe because we have a law that with exceptions is currently not enforced. When the current law is not even enforced what hope is there for these people in this bill that it will ever be enforced? What hope is there for prostitutes that safe-sex practices will be enforced? What possible hope will there be? None! This bill allows pimps and soliciting. It is an attempt to normalise what is not normal. 
Prostitution is not something that has to be. It has been brought about by people being disadvantaged and by other people being more powerful and using that power over them. Anyone who thinks differently need only look at history to see that one of the first things that conquering armies do is set up brothels. That is exactly what they do because it is all about the powerful taking from the powerless.
Tisch Lindsay: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16213] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have already started the vote. The Clerk has asked which parties are voting. I have cast 27 votes opposed. We have had some points of order already. I do not know how far we have gone with the vote and I do not think— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No vote has been called yet. The Clerk is conducting a vote.
Hughes Darren: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hughes Darren: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6282] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.