edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3718] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 84 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
Benson-Pope David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17437] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Civil Union Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Event: Members Sworn 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Volume:618;Page:14293] 
Members Sworn 
Tariana Turia was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took her seat in the House.
Hunt Jonathan: Death with Dignity Bill — First Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Death with Dignity Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7487] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say that there is to be no comment from the gallery. This is a Parliament and only members of Parliament may debate.
Smith Nick: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17986] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Standing Order 284 is very explicit. It states that it is “… the member in charge …” of the bill. The member in charge of this bill whose name is on the front of the bill is Mr David Benson-Pope. I was concerned when I heard the contribution from Mr Larry Baldock indicating that there would be an earlier report-back time. I had listened very carefully to the Minister’s speech and he had not given any indication so that is what alerted me to the fact that the Government was attempting to break the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is clear by the Standing Orders that those instructions and all things relevant to that can be moved only by the Minister so I thank Mr Baldock. The motion now is that the bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee and have the normal report-back date.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Ewen-Street Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ewen-Street Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6209] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I note that the Hon Damien O’Connor has resumed his seat and I seek the leave of the House to ask the questions again that Dr Cullen was unable to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can seek leave for anything. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
Voting 
Correction 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to change the New Zealand First vote on the question that the Commerce Committee have the authority to meet to consider the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). Our vote was incorrectly delivered at the time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to change that vote and have it recorded accordingly. Is there any objection? There is not and it will be done.
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18836] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I reiterate what I said earlier. Most settlements do include references to statutory acknowledgments. This ensures that there is clarity about the matters that should be taken note of by local authorities other appropriate agencies and statutory bodies in terms of the customary and historic relationship of the people with particular places under Crown ownership. I think it is fitting and appropriate that they are included. It is certainly the case that in Ngai Tahu’s settlement there were many pages of such statutory references and acknowledgements in order to ensure that those relationships were properly recorded.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14383] 
6.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: How is the Government working with the community and local government to increase the range of housing available? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The Government has established a $63 million housing innovation fund to help third sector community groups and local government to provide rental housing and homeownership opportunities for low-income families and people with special needs. Over the break the first six projects have been approved providing housing in Auckland New Plymouth Rotorua Hamilton and Palmerston North. Another 31 projects involving local councils and community-based organisations are currently being considered for approval and hopefully they will go ahead this year. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Why is the Government supporting community groups and local authorities to develop social housing? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The real value of working in partnership with like-minded community-based organisations is that we can combine our capital resources and expertise in projects that otherwise would not be able to go ahead. Community groups churches and local government have long played a role in the provision of social housing and with the new funding they are now able to take on that role on a number of occasions when they would not otherwise do so. I should also point out that it will take some time to replace the 13000 houses sold by the National Government during the 1990s and those groups will help us to replace them. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Government carried out any assessment recently as to the level of true housing need in Te Tai Tokerau and what is the Government doing if anything to urgently increase the community-based local government and State housing stock in Northland given the desperate circumstances in which so many people are living? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will mention two pieces of work that members of the House may like to keep their eyes on. The first is the housing strategy that has just been consulted on right throughout the country. The second is work being undertaken through Statistics New Zealand working with Housing New Zealand Corporation where we are undertaking a survey right across the country of what actually constitutes a baseline for adequate housing and adequate building. I will just mention to the member that she said that in Northland there are some difficulties in relation to housing. We have been chasing those stories over the last little while and in the first case I was told of a woman living in a van for 4 months with two daughters aged 14 and 7. I am informed that the emergency housing provider does not believe that person has yet applied for a house from Housing New Zealand Corporation. In other words if we are in a position here of talking about that case Housing New Zealand Corporation which is accused of not dealing with it has had no approach from anybody to deal with it yet and will deal with it as soon as it can contact the person.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12445] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to lay on the Table of the House the master plans for the new Kaitaia Hospital. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Referral to Education and Science Committee 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Referral to Education and Science Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18805] 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill 
Referral to Education and Science Committee 
Debate resumed from 17 February. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration and that the committee finally report the bill to the House by 3 June 2005 since when an amendment has been moved by the Hon Nick Smith to omit the words “and that the committee finally report the bill to the House by 3 June 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee.referred to Education and Science Committee
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 12 
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 12 
[Volume:623;Page:18759] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might help my education on how the House works. It is my understanding that a member can raise a point of order and seek leave to table documents at any time. The leave of the House is not constrained at any time. If Mr Franks wants to come to the House during the next session and seek leave to table papers surely he is able to do so. But for you to ask the House to grant leave for the member even to be able to ask for leave because question time has finished is an absolute nonsense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must agree with the member; I made a mistake. I would just like to urge members to remember that question time is the time to table documents relating to questions. Of course the member can seek leave to table the documents. He can seek leave now. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table a letter dated 3 November 2004 from Mr Peter Kippenberger a regional manager for the Land Transport Safety Authority as it then was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question received yesterday from the Minister of Police concerning drivers’ identities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that written answer. Is there any objection? There is.
Pettis Jill: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11279] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18529] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I have been called into this matter I do apologise. I might say that it is easily solvable by the member. He supports the Government. All he has to do is to say: “If you don’t refer my question to the Minister we won’t support you any more.”
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3762] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party; 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Tony Ryall to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) the following new paragraph: 
(d) to enhance shareholder value and maintain ownership options for shareholders.
Ririnui Mita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18917] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 A number of points have come up with all speakers but the most important matter is the one raised by the National Party member in terms of the land in question. The definition of customary rights states: “including the following: (a) rights to occupy land; and (b) rights in relation to the use of: (i) land: (ii) natural or physical resources”. The member’s concern was that the definition does not identify any particular blocks of land. It can apply only to the lands that are part of the cultural redress package which is part of the settlement. There are no other lands concerned. They are listed in the schedule and if the member cares to look through the bill she will find them. 
Sandra Goudie 
: That’s not what the definition states. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: It cannot apply to any land other than the land that is subject to the settlement. 
Sandra Goudie 
: That’s not what the definition states. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Are we having an across-the-floor discussion Madam Chairperson? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. That was helpful in terms of clarification. I ask the Minister to continue. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Can you ask the Minister to put the microphone closer to him. He is one Minister we appreciate listening to over here. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: As I said to Sandra Goudie of the National Party the land in question is the land that is included as part of the Ngati Awa settlement. The lands are identified in the schedule of the settlement. It cannot apply to any other lands because Ngati Awa does not own them. It only talks about the lands that are part of its settlement.
Hartley Ann: Visitors — Australia—Deputy Speaker Parliament of Victoria 
Hartley Ann: Visitors — Australia—Deputy Speaker Parliament of Victoria 
[Volume:618;Page:14248] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is my pleasure to inform members that Mr Peter Loney Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Victoria Australia is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members would like to welcome him.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9185. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Murray McCully seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the release of the State Services Commission’s report on its review of Te Puni Kokiri. This is a particular matter of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The report relates to part 1 of a three-part review of Te Puni Kokiri being undertaken by the State Services Commissioner. Although it has material that may be of interest to members and that they may wish to take a parliamentary opportunity to explore I do not consider it requires the House to hold an urgent debate on it today. I therefore decline the application.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15626] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to Part 5 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
139ADisputes relating to coastline claim by defined takiwa iwi 
(1)Nothing in this Part applies to a dispute in relation to a coastal claim submitted under clause 7A of Schedule 5 (coastline claims for takiwa of defined takiwa iwi) if— 
(a)The existence of the dispute is not notified in writing to the mandated iwi organisation of the defined takiwa iwi within 1 year after the coastal claim to which the dispute relates was submitted to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Limited; or  
(b)the dispute is— 
(i)based on facts or evidence that have previously been raised in proceedings before a Court that relate to whether the area described in the relevant takiwa defining deed of settlement or takiwa defining enactment is in fact the takiwa of the defined takiwa iwi; and 
(ii)the proceedings did not result in a finding that that area is not the takiwa of the defined takiwa iwi. 
(2)A party to a dispute in relation to a coastline claim submitted under clause 7A of Schedule 5 may not commence proceedings in any Court in relation to the dispute if— 
(a)1 year has elapsed since the coastal claim to which the dispute relates was submitted to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Limited; or 
(b)subsection (1)(b) applies to the dispute.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15165] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek some advise from you. A very specific question was asked of the Minister Mr Mallard. It related to the cumulative amount of extra tax collected by the Government between 1999 and 2004. Mr Mallard replied that the amount was some $12 billion. His own figures indicate that the amount is in fact some $34 billion. I know you are going to tell us that if we think there has been some sort of breach we should write to you and take it down the privileges line. Could there not be some simpler way whereby the Minister is notified that he has made a terrible mistake and could come down to the House in a timely manner and correct his answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is up to the Minister.
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20336] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a short call to support the third reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). One of the reasons why I am pleased to take a call is that this is yet another piece of legislation in the area of cover for those who have workplace injuries. The Labour-Progressive Government has made a huge difference in its term of office in making sure we have a fair and comprehensive scheme. Rather than rush to do all of that in one approach we have been very careful to go out and consult to find models that work and to make sure we can give comprehensive cover to all New Zealanders. 
I was interested to hear Mrs Rich the current accident compensation spokesperson for the National Party refer back to National’s 1990s policy and signal to the House the direction in which National would take policy in this area. That is as close I think as we can get to a policy statement from the Opposition these days. I think we need to remind ourselves that one of the key points about the accident compensation scheme is its comprehensive nature. The member tried to argue for private schemes like the one advocated by her very close friend and bench mate Murray McCully when he was the accident compensation Minister. Of course he was advised by HIH in Australia a firm that was doing so well that it went belly up and no longer exists today. So National would have been very pure in terms of ideology but it certainly would not have extended cover to New Zealand workers if it had continued to follow that approach. 
The Labour-Progressive Government is very pleased to take another positive step forward in injury prevention rehabilitation and compensation. This bill delivers that. A very good job was done by the Health Committee and by the Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson. I commend the bill to the House for its third reading.
Points of Order — Ministerial Statements 
Points of Order — Ministerial Statements 
[Volume:609;Page:6698] 
Points of Order 
Ministerial Statements 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise to the member for raising a point of order but I do so on a matter that is very important. Standing Order 341 “Ministerial statements” states that a matter of significant public importance can be brought to the House’s attention immediately by a Minister. I have been asked to go to a meeting at 4 p.m. and I now find from the media that the Government has put out a major statement today stating that our whole basis for immigration has been altered—we have gone from a points system to a skills-based system—and that MPs will be briefed at 4 p.m. Madam Speaker you understand exactly the significance of what the Government has done. It has decided to put out a statement too late for the asking of parliamentary questions and will then allow us to go into urgency. Our immigration policy has been turned on its head and the media has been told about it yet we members of Parliament get a briefing after the media. 
I want to draw to your attention that Speakers in the British House of Commons—and this will make you a Speaker that the Opposition will like—have in the strongest terms condemned that sort of action by the Government. Speakers there have ruled that Ministers should make those announcements to the House first and then to the nation. Now we are in a situation whereby the Government puts out a statement that we cannot scrutinise and on which we cannot have any parliamentary discussion since we are all going into urgency. I want you to suggest that the proper thing for the Minister of Immigration to do is to come down to the House take a call under Standing Order 341 and important as this debate is interrupt it and let us know—as she has apparently been able to tell the media—that our immigration system has been turned on its head this afternoon. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The critical point in Standing Order 341(1) is that a Minister may make a statement. It is entirely for the Minister to decide to come to the House take a call and make a statement when and if a Minister chooses to do so. It is not for the House to call a Minister down to do so. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 19/1 (Supplement) which states: “While it is eminently good practice for Ministers to make important policy announcements in the House it is not by any means a convention in New Zealand.”
Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18389] 
Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8402] 
12.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What if any concerns has New Zealand expressed about the outcome of the trial in Indonesia of the alleged spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I have expressed concern that the person widely regarded as being the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah Abu Bakar Bashir received a short sentence of 4 years for lesser offences instead of the life sentence he could have received if found guilty of the terrorist acts and being leader of the terrorist organisation that he was charged with. Jemaah Islamiah with links to al-Qaeda and responsibility for plotting terrorist attacks across South-east Asia poses a major threat to security in the region. The inability of the Indonesian prosecution to satisfy the court that Bashir was the leader of Jemaah Islamiah did not produce the definitive outcome and the ability to impose a long deterrent sentence for terrorism that many had hoped for. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What information is there to suggest that Bashir has clear links with or influence over terrorist groups? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is a range of information that points to those links. One pointer is that many of those on the police most-wanted lists for terrorist suspects in South-east Asia are graduates of Bashir’s religious school in Central Java. While he may not have had operational control over terrorist activities people argue that charismatic imams such as Bashir motivate those who actually carry out terrorist acts. Finally the judges in the trial accepted that Bashir was aware of and had approved Jemaah Islamiah activities such as military training in Afghanistan despite his purported denial that Jemaah Islamiah even existed. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister received any advice from our embassy in Indonesia concerning the implications of the light sentence handed out to the Jemaah Islamiah leader and what does that say about Indonesia’s commitment or otherwise to the elimination of terrorism in this region of the world? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I would not go so far as to say that the outcome of this court trial represented a lack of commitment by Indonesia to dealing with the organisation and with terrorism. After all the major country in which these terrorist activities are taking place is Indonesia. It has badly damaged its economy and most of the victims—for example 11 out of the 12 victims in the bombing of the Marriott Hotel by Jemaah Islamiah—were Indonesian workers. I think the failure was the failure to produce the level of evidence needed to get the conviction that most people wanted to see. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek leave to be able to ask another question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member seeks leave to be able to ask another question Is there any objection? There is.
Shirley Ken: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8785] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I do not have a lot to say about this bill. It is a local bill and the really fundamental question is why it actually needs to come to this Parliament. That is a fairly fundamental question. 
We have had a number of entertaining speeches where we have gone into the vagaries and inadequacies of the health sector and into the issue of refugees and immigrants. But personally I find this bill to be very narrow and very specific. It is a local bill and in essence clause 7 is the key part. It affects the rights and prerogatives of the Crown by repealing section 54 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act of 1925. All that essentially means is that what would have happened to the Robert McDougall Gallery if it ceased to be used for the purpose of an art gallery is that it would have reverted to the Crown. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered that and really there is a lot of satisfaction that the Christchurch City Council is the appropriate body to look after the building. 
Christchurch members have already made the observation that the city is developing a sort of arts sector as it were along a kilometre or so of “Christchurch Boulevard” adjacent to Hagley Park. As this gallery is adjacent to the botanic gardens I actually believe and ACT believes that these are matters that should be dealt with at the local level. We should not spend the time of our national Parliament on this bill. I do not mean to say that it deals with trivia but these are strictly minor matters. I just want to put in a plug that in the future we should look to strip ourselves of jurisdiction over these sorts of matters. 
Some local bills are important and do need to come to this Parliament. Our Standing Orders make provision for local bills and so they should. But I think there are at times very very local matters that should not come here—and I see that the Leader of the House is nodding in agreement with my submission. I do think there are matters that can and should be dealt with by local councils and this in my view would be one of them. 
ACT supports this bill. We see no mischief or any problem with regard to the bill. There is a commonsense recommendation from the select committee and we will support it.
Franks Stephen: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21945] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
:  
I certainly wish to endorse some of the comments from Mr Mark. I cannot resist a small comment before I pass to the substance. Yes arrogance does seem to have been thrashed out of the other side. Those members are a lot more humble. But the mantle of arrogance seems to have moved. It has not got lost in the Chamber; it has just shifted across to the kingmaker but never mind. We will see how it goes in 2 or 3 months’ time. But in looking at this bill which increases the collectibility of fines I certainly endorse the comments about missed opportunities that Mr Mark made. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15419] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5558] 
10.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What advice has she received on the response to the Government’s discussion document  
Better Regulation of the Building Industry in New Zealand 
? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Over 300 submissions were received by the Ministry of Economic Development in response to this paper and overall submissions have been very supportive of the proposals and the direction this Government is taking. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What were the themes reflected in the submissions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The main themes of the submissions were the need for competent and good-quality tradespeople support for building practitioner registration and the need for better more accessible good-quality information. Along the lines of the document the people of New Zealand are saying we need to build it right first time. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In the light of the fact that none of the recommendations in the document suggest that the Building Industry Authority should become part of her department what advice did she get from the building industry that suggested the Building Industry Authority should be swallowed up by her department and given her bench mate’s track record in this area why should New Zealanders believe that she will do any better? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: When I announced that the Building Industry Authority was to come within a Government department not necessarily the Ministry of Economic Development the announcement was received in two different ways. There were groups within the building industry that felt that would make it too close to the Government and there were those groups that felt it did not bring it close enough—that the Building Industry Authority had not been acting strongly enough as a regulator in this area.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17082] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendments to the amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 41 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new subclause (2).
Peters Winston: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Peters Winston: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16368] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 What the member has said is not really any more informative than when I first asked the question. I want to know whether she is putting the leave that the vote be split and the votes be recorded. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is that what the member is indicating?
Jones Dail: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20004] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the third reading of the Public Records Bill. New Zealand First supports the bill. 
To be in Opposition is also to be responsible. It is quite specious to oppose the bill for one trifling issue which has not even been accurately stated by the National Party. State-owned enterprises have to keep records because they are in business. After 25 years those records can be made available. I was in Parliament 25 years ago in 1980 and I cannot even remember what we debated then. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes one or two members might not have been born at that stage. To say that something that was done commercially 25 years ago by a State-owned enterprise by an organisation that has Government input should not be released is really trifling with the House. It shows the irresponsible nature of the National Party in Opposition. New Zealand First is in Opposition. We want to be in Opposition responsibly and any responsible Opposition should support a bill of which 99.9 percent is required by New Zealand if we are to maintain ourselves as a civilised society. 
I touched on the Maori aspects of this legislation at the second reading. I was staggered that the Maori Party should vote against this bill. There was slight confusion when the vote was taken on the second reading but it has become clear that the Maori Party opposes it. How can anyone in New Zealand—European Maori Chinese or whatever—oppose legislation that relates to the history of New Zealand? I would have expected the Maori Party especially to let us know why it opposes a bill that states in clause 3: “The purposes of this Act are—…(f) to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi …”. We are not talking about partnership; we are talking about the spirit of partnership and the Maori Party opposes this bill. Clause 7 has a lengthy exposition on the Treaty of Waitangi: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi …” followed by four different paragraphs and the Maori Party opposes it. I would have expected the Maori Party to take a call to explain why it opposes this legislation. I am very disappointed; that after all is what we are paid to do—to be here and explain our views. I would have expected the Maori Party to do just that in the same way that New Zealand First is doing. 
We in New Zealand First are here for the future. This bill is taking us into the future. We have heard today about an education policy that will take us into the past. I have seen Rod Oram’s article in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
that discussed a certain political party’s economic policy which will take it into the past. We in New Zealand First are here for the future. Together with the people of New Zealand we can achieve things and we are doing that in supporting this bill today.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20531] 
2.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does the Ministry of Health monitor the physiotherapy industry; if not why not? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) 
  
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: No. The responsibility lies with the Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand which is an independent statutory board under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that many physiotherapists are being treated like crooks and fraudsters in this country with no evidence whatsoever and if she is not aware of that could she make herself aware of it and investigate what the background is? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: No. But if the member is referring to a specific or personal case I would be more than happy to hear from him and respond to him formally. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that because of the roughshod treatment that has been dished out by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) with the full knowledge of the Minister for ACC many physiotherapists are contemplating leaving the industry as several already have; if she is not aware would she take positive action to address this? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The positive action that I will take is to refer the matter to the Minister for ACC. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the Blair Government is putting a high priority on physiotherapy and encouraging more and more people into the industry but that we here through ACC with the Minister’s knowledge are doing the exact reverse; if he is not aware of that will he personally with the Minister of Health sit down and discuss these issues with physiotherapist organisations? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I am not aware of that but I would be more than happy to sit down and discuss these matters with physiotherapists.
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:10307] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. Craig McNair has been seeking the call.
Benson-Pope David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10530] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Franks Stephen: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9009] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a two-part bill with schedules. There are 42 clauses in the part we are dealing with at the moment. I am anxious to get a bit of an indication from you before I speak—and I suspect others may also need it—as to whether you would be inclined to allow more than one speech. I know that the Standing Orders encourage members to think that they can have up to four and that commonly the debate on the commencement provisions and the early phase may be very short but I want to draw to your attention—and despite what Mr Worth said it is not a bill with which you have been previously involved—that the whole substance of the bill is in this part. It does govern the way in which I would address— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have the member’s point of order. As the presiding officer I am the sole judge of relevancy as to whether I take the closure. I am considering the issue at the present stage but I have not yet been convinced that there needs to be a closure motion.
Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6645] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 This bill establishes a formal Accident Compensation Corporation petrol levy. People get hurt really badly in motor vehicle accidents and that costs this country a lot. The damage lasts longer the vehicles cost more to repair and it costs more to rehabilitate the victims compared with any other class of injury. More serious injuries occur in motor accidents than in any other class of accident. This is a common-sense bill and I commend it to the House.
Mackey Moana: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12199] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to rise to support the third reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). I also want to congratulate the select committee on the work it did on this bill. I think the amendments that have been made at the select committee are extremely useful and will contribute to the usefulness of the bill as a whole. 
The bill corrects an anomaly that exists in respect of collective negotiations for teachers. I think it is extraordinarily unfair to expect boards of trustees to have to make a call or have the power to decide whether teachers are paid when they are on strike. It is often a very emotional issue. Not surprisingly they are very reluctant to exercise that power. This bill means that striking teachers will be treated the same as any other employees who go on strike. In fact we could say that it is “one law for all workers” and that is why I find it very strange that National and ACT are not willing to support the bill. This bill will go a long way towards making the roles of boards of trustees a lot easier. 
I support the bill and look forward to the rest of its passage through the House.
Peters Jim: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Jim: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10424] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Again I take a very short call on behalf of New Zealand First. I note for the benefit of the Committee clause 5. The reason clause 5 is of minor importance is that it reflects the actual intention that was in the bequest and will of Dr Trimble so many years ago. Clause 5 also in this new unanimous subparagraph (vi) reflects the thinking of the Local Government and Environment Committee that a will or bequest ought to be carried through—no matter how many years ago it was stated—in the complete and comprehensive terms of the intention of that testator. 
We had a suggestion made to the committee that the present council may have wished to have built a public stadium a sports ground or something else which would have been far far removed from the original intention of Dr Trimble. Bringing that to the minds of the Committee or of any people in other councils who are contemplating a change from the original intention of bequests they are handling I say that the integrity of the will and the integrity of its intention have been preserved here with the addition of “amenity and protection planting and their maintenance:”.
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8997] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will. I can remember when I was a student and came down here in 1959 to listen to a debate where the Government of the day was referred to as “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves”. Of course that was out of order and was ruled as such by the then Speaker in 1959. Until 1995 the rule was even more stringent—that is only electorates could be used. With MMP for collective terms the rule is Standing Order 117 which states there must be no personal reflections. It is within the bounds of the wit and intelligence of members here to say what they want to say without having to refer to that sort of comment and I do not want that any further. I do not need any further assistance.
Tanczos Nandor: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7961] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am seeking some assistance from you to clarify your ruling on the points of order that occurred previously in relation to the speech made by my colleague Sue Kedgley. When a member claims that a statement has been made about him or her and seeks that the member who made the statement should have to withdraw and apologise I would have thought that in the interests of natural justice the member who is accused of making the statement should have the opportunity to clarify what their statement was in order that the chair can then determine whether that statement breaches the Standing Orders. The second part of my point of order is that I would have expected that the point of order made by the Hon Peter Dunne was in relation to “an imputation of improper motives against a member”—Standing Order 117. I know there are Standing Orders referring to the influence of outside parties on members—that is clearly outside of the Standing Orders. However I make the point that my colleague Sue Kedgley did not impute any improper motives or any influence of an outside party on Mr Dunne. She simply compared his words to the words that other people had used. I want your clarification that that is a breach of the Standing Orders. My impression is that the situation was misrepresented to you by the Hon Peter Dunne.
Cullen Michael: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5116] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I support the member; I think the lights are turned down a little bit too low for safety and comfort. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. I am going to direct that the lights be turned up to sufficient luminosity to enable members to go about their work.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17908] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.