edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12047] 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Women’s Affairs and Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Simon Power 
: Is it acceptable for the Minister of Women’s Affairs to call another woman an “irresponsible tart” and what confidence should the New Zealand public have in a Minister who makes what the Prime Minister herself has termed “gratuitous and silly comments”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The word “irresponsible” was acceptable. The word “tart” was not just as it was wrong when National Party bosses were reported as using that word about me at a party conference 2 years ago. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: If it is not acceptable for a Minister to call a member of Parliament a tart is it acceptable that a situation has now arisen whereby because the Minister’s comments have been broadcast so widely she has brought not only all Ministers of the Crown into disrepute but all parliamentarians as well; and does the Prime Minister not believe that the only honourable course of action for the Minister to take is for her now to apologise to this Parliament for the embarrassment and offence her comments have caused? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that the Minister has sent a letter to the select committee and she has repeated in that her apology personally to the member. Needless to say I did not get such a letter from the National Party 2 years ago. 
Simon Power 
: How can she have confidence in a Minister of Women’s Affairs who falsely accused another member of using the word “scrubber” to describe women but was quite happy to use the word “tart” to describe women? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The use of silly and inappropriate words by members of Parliament would not be restricted to just those two. Unfortunately it is quite a regular occurrence and I imagine will be as long as we have a democracy in a Parliament in this country.
Points of Order — Iraq—Debate 
Points of Order — Iraq—Debate 
[Volume:606;Page:3976] 
Points of Order 
Iraq—Debate 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House at the conclusion of the debate on the Budget Policy Statement to set aside its normal business and hold a 2-hour debate on the situation in Iraq. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This matter has been discussed by way of leave in the House on several occasions and I point out that the request has been defeated twice by the Government previously. Albeit that Mr Dunne may say he is not part of the Government it is not surprising that the seeking of leave has been defeated today. However as there seems to be a willingness from the Government to have a debate on Iraq I would move that we have a debate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Seek leave. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave that we have a debate on Iraq and that the House sets aside time immediately after question time tomorrow—Government time as it is a Government issue; the only people who can make a decision about New Zealand’s participation in or contribution to any conflict in Iraq are those in Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very hard to believe that this issue is being treated in such a frivolous fashion. The National Party having failed in its seeking of leave I seek leave that the original leave sought by Mr Dunne now be put again to the House and we will take the House’s direction on it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought and I understand that what Mr Dunne said was that after the Budget Policy Statement there be—[ 
Interruption 
] Leave was sought to put Mr Dunne’s question again. Perhaps Mr Dunne can state it because he alone knows exactly what it is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I assist the House by saying that we are reluctant to support our having this debate in members’ time. I want to make that very very clear. It is unacceptable that the Government wishes to move that a debate on something that it must make a decision on be held in members’ time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is not a debatable issue. I am putting leave. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are in the middle of a point of order— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have sought leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought and we have to go from there. Please be seated. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I am speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No; leave has been sought and leave must be put when it is sought. Would Mr Dunne please state his request for leave. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I sought leave for the House to set aside its normal business at the conclusion of the Budget Policy Statement and hold a 2-hour debate on the question of Iraq. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Pettis Jill: Sittings of the House 
Pettis Jill: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:619;Page:14655] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
After discussion with other members and in light of the progress we have made on members’ day I seek leave for the House to rise at this time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose and it is opposed. Leave is not granted.
O'Connor Damien: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16137] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5184] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to cast your mind back to the last sitting week before the Easter adjournment when on two of those days we had an issue relating to the Prime Minister being questioned. On the third day of that sitting week the information the House had been seeking from the Prime Minister was given in part anyway by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I raised a point of order at that time and you said you would give a considered ruling on it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I will. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I raise the matter again now because we have had a similar situation with Mr Chris Carter who refused to give information that the whole House had. So it would be appropriate if you could give that ruling because it may well get us over these predicaments that we find ourselves in. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I promise I will do that.
Benson-Pope David: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5421] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 This is just a very brief observation if I may on the matters raised by Mr Sowry by way of correction. In the case of the title debate which lasted exactly 1 hour there were 12 calls. The debate on Part 1 which has just been completed ran for 19 calls and took 1 hour and 11 minutes so the matter that Mr Sowry raised was not in fact accurate.
Burton Mark: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Procedure 
Burton Mark: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:609;Page:7082] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave that at the conclusion of debate on all stages of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) the House move directly to Government order of the day No. 11 the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. That is so ordered.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5331] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 45 
Abstentions 9 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17770. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
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. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:614;Page:10359] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I see that the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs to whom this question is addressed is not in the Chamber and accordingly I seek the leave of the House that this question be held over until the next sitting day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer this question. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Criminal Procedure Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14227] 
A party votewas called for on the question  
That the Criminal Procedure Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Law and Order Committee.
Simich Clem: General Debate 
Simich Clem: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20240] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that but the swap is by arrangement between the parties concerned and those spots are all tradable.
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:6887] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 4(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b)(iv) of section 2(1) from the definition of  
goods 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19881] 
9.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and Employment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What persuasion did she use on Mr Maharey to get him to change from his Monday night position stated in the  
Evening Standard 
 that he was not accepting an apology from Mr Tamihere to his position on Tuesday morning when he said he was drawing a line under the issue and moving on because the Prime Minister had told him to do so. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Tamihere came to caucus and made a humble apology. My colleague Mr Maharey is a very generous man. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Has John Tamihere retracted his description of Steve Maharey as “smarmy”; if not what is the basis for her statement: “Everybody likes John.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Tamihere has humbly apologised for the statements that he has made. Indeed it is true that Mr Tamihere can be a very likeable person. As the Prime Minister said he can also stumble in a big way. Unlike some people in this place he does know when he stumbles as well. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically used the word “retracted” not “apologised”. The Minister might have addressed the question if I had asked whether Mr Tamihere had apologised. He did not address the question given that I asked whether Mr Tamihere had retracted the statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When was the last time the Prime Minister spent 2 hours with Mr Maharey and was her experience one that left her walking away with screeds of paper none the wiser from his very clever and smarmy dialogue and knowing that the whole conversation was of no substance at all? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that the last occasion the Prime Minister spent 2 hours with Mr Maharey would have been on Monday morning at Cabinet. She would have come away as she has come away on a number of occasions recently knowing that Mr Maharey has contributed to a drop in the number of people on the unemployment benefit from 164000 to 60000 that he has introduced the first major benefit reform package since 1938 and that he has helped to drive unemployment down to the lowest level in the OECD. He is not only hard-working and conscientious but highly successful.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6983] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “with” the words “certain requirements of”.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11999] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I might advise that the Minister requested me on radio this morning to seek leave and I suggest that I seek it again. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the member have the writer’s permission? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am saying that the Minister invited me to table— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is irrelevant as to what happened earlier— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes—big say on the radio but not now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is one word away from leaving. He is lucky I am generous. Leave was denied and that is all there is to it.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
[Volume:620;Page:15382] 
1.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: What criteria did the committee use to determine which submitters out of the thousands of submissions received would be allowed to submit orally on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 The committee determined that a representative group of submitters be heard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Now that the imperative to get the bill back before the House at the date of early November is no longer a requirement will he allow more submitters who wish to make their feelings known to the committee to present their case? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: That is a matter for the committee to determine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow one more supplementary question and the largest party asking for it will get it. I call Dail Jones. [ 
Interruption 
] I will carry it round otherwise; there are only two supplementary questions on each of these questions and Mr Dail Jones is from the largest party seeking to ask a question.  
Dail Jones 
: Did the committee delegate to a subcommittee the decision relating to the submitters who would make a submission and was the National Party represented at that subcommittee; if so by whom? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: A subcommittee of three was formed and Mr Gerry Brownlee was one of those three. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was outvoted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should be very careful before he makes comments like that as that is a privileged matter because the bill has not been reported back to the House.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8714] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 47A be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Brownlee Gerry: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3722] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 National supports this bill. It is worth picking up on the point that the Hon Ken Shirley made. This bill has sat on the Order Paper for a very long time. The Government has not seen it as any sort of a priority at all. No doubt Government members have gone around the countryside spooking up audiences getting them a little bit agitated about the situation and saying: “As soon as we can get through it we will.” The Government has had lots and lots of opportunities. We have had plenty of occasions when the House has been in urgency when as Mr Donald said the bill could have been put through all of its stages. In the last 4 years we have had numerous occasions where the House has lifted either before 6 o’clock or before 10 o’clock. It would have been very easy for the Leader of the House to slip this on to the Order Paper knowing full well that he had the support of all parties here. The House needs to stick to the agreement that was reached last week in the Business Committee and let the bill go through stage by stage this week. At the end of the day it will not affect the date from which the payout to these people is available.  
I want to pick up on a comment made by Mr McNair. He thought that it was appropriate for him to give the House a bit of a history lesson. A history lesson for him would be that some 5 or 6 years ago there was a member in this House who brought a member’s bill forward to deal with this particular issue—Jill White from Palmerston North. That bill did not go through at the time because there were a number of things in it that probably caused a bit of a problem. But let me tell Mr McNair that it was the leader of New Zealand First the Treasurer of the day who exercised the veto effectively although not formally on that occasion. The high and mighty attitude that New Zealand First has displayed today is somewhat an effort in false piety. If Mr McNair would like to apologise to the National Party for his ruthless comments then I would be prepared to yield to him now.  
As I said this is an interesting bill and we support it. I have had widows in my electorate office who were in the situation of not being able get more than the half-pension and were facing the prospect in the latter years of life—in their 60s—of remarrying and losing all the income stream that they had. That seems to be fundamentally unfair. The bill addresses that and I am very pleased for those constituents of mine who will benefit from it. At the end of the day we are talking about contributions that have been made from their household income and in many other laws that household income is communal property belonging to them both. This puts that to right. 
Bill read a second time.
Barker Rick: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7772] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of points. Firstly to pick up the point raised and to amplify the point touched on by Mr Prebble I want to say that it is my intention to write to the Justice and Electoral Committee and to give it time to consider this issue. I do not think it is as simple and straightforward as Mr Prebble indicated. If we were to set an expiry date in the very near future it might not give the committee sufficient time to consider the issue. 
 There are also contradictions in respect of the position put forward by Mr Dunne. If somebody stands at the election who holds a passport other than a New Zealand passport and no one in the electorate knows about it then that is perfectly acceptable. If someone picks up a passport he or she is entitled to after the election that somehow is not. That seems to me to be a paradox. 
If Mr Prebble’s point is that no one should hold a passport to another country or hold alternative citizenship—which is the point he is making—then the law does not reflect that. If that is the view Mr Prebble has and if the majority of this Parliament agrees with it prior to the next election then those will be the rules and they will be well understood. But it is an issue that the Justice and Electoral Committee should have an appropriate amount of time to go through and think seriously about. 
As for the dates in this bill they are simply to say that this legislation will come into effect when the Governor-General decides and will expire at the time the polls close on election day. I am very confident that the Justice and Electoral Committee will have had a report to the House by that stage and that we will have considered the legislation and determined a completely fresh set of rules.
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6181] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 21 
Awatere Huata 
Duynhoven 
Samuels (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Baldock  
Gallagher  
Simich  
Turner 
Carter D 
Laban (P) 
Smith L 
Choudhary (P) 
Mapp  
Smith M 
Copeland 
Peck (P) 
Smith N 
Teller: 
Dunne (P) 
Robertson (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Yates 
Noes 94 
Adams (P) 
Donnelly 
Jones (P) 
Rich 
Alexander  
Duncan (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Ririnui 
Anderton (P)  
Dyson (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Robson (P) 
Ardern (P)  
Eckhoff (P) 
Key (P) 
Roy 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
King 
Scott 
Barnett 
Fairbrother (P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley 
Benson-Pope 
Field 
Mackey (P) 
Sowry 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Stewart  
Bradford 
Franks 
Mahuta  
Sutton (P) 
Brash (P) 
Goff 
Mallard (P) 
Swain (P) 
Brown  
Gosche (P) 
Mark (P)  
Tanczos 
Brownlee 
Goudie 
McNair (P) 
Tisch (P)  
Burton (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Newman (P)  
Tizard (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
O’Connor (P) 
Turei (P) 
Catchpole 
Hawkins (P) 
Ogilvy  
Turia (P) 
Chadwick 
Heatley (P) 
Okeroa 
Ward (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hereora 
Paraone (P)  
Williamson (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Hide 
Parker (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Collins  
Hobbs (P) 
Perry (P) 
Wong (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Woolerton (P)  
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Worth (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hughes 
Pillay (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Power (P) 
Teller: 
Donald (P) 
Hutchison 
Prebble (P) 
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of Marc Alexander has been ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision. The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of Larry Baldock to omit clause 5 has been withdrawn. 
We now move to the amendment in the name of Sue Bradford on Supplementary Order Paper 90 to insert a new clause 6BA concerning restrictions on advertising of commercial sexual services. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 90 in the name of Sue Bradford to insert new clause 6BA and heading above be agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14290] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 for consideration that the committee have the authority to meet 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 notwithstanding Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:4067] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Has he received any reports about brake failures on Tranz Rail locomotives; if so does he have confidence that Tranz Rail is operating safely so that people are not in danger? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes. I received a report from the Transport Accident Investigation Commission relating to brake failure on a Tranz Rail locomotive. The report concluded that in view of the safety actions taken by Tranz Rail following the incident—the first of its kind in 30 years—no safety recommendations regarding the accident are necessary. I am also advised by the Land Transport Safety Authority that it is satisfied Tranz Rail has taken suitable safety action to remedy the immediate concern. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister think he can give such an assurance of safety to the travelling public when brake parts are falling off Tranz Rail trains and in one case are found lying on the tracks in Kaiapoi by a member of the public? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes there have been concerns which is why the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and the Land Transport Safety Authority have investigated. I am advised that Tranz Rail has now put in a series of operational matters in order to be able to overcome the problems that the member has raised. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What advice has the Minister received from the Land Transport Safety Authority on the actions it has taken to remedy the immediate concerns? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am advised by the Land Transport Safety Authority that Tranz Rail has taken the following steps: the incorrect component of the train in question was replaced immediately; Tranz Rail has advised the Transport Accident Investigation Commission that full brake tests will be mandatory in future where any part of the brake system is called into question; and Tranz Rail will be recommending to the locomotive technical committee that component replacements be brought forward from 864000 kilometres to 432000 kilometres. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister concerned that a conscientious private citizen in North Canterbury who lives in Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate tried to contact Tranz Rail about brake damage but was fobbed off and was unable to talk to anyone in authority in that shonky outfit which has the worst safety record of almost any company in the country; what does he think of that state of affairs? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are concerns about some of the safety issues as advised in the report. If the member could provide us with some details about that particular case I would be happy to investigate it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In an endeavour to help the Minister I seek leave to table the shoes and brake lining that were found at Kaiapoi and are marked Tranz Rail—so they are not 30 years old—and the affidavit of the man who found them. 
Items and affidavit by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12967] 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Leader of the House 
: Can he advise when the Government plans to introduce the civil union bill to the House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I expect that the bill will be introduced some time in mid-June. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Leader of the House been informed as to whether any part of the bill relating to “degrees of sexuality” is likely to affect those who are “slightly heterosexual” the same as it would affect those who are “absolutely heterosexual”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: From my knowledge of the bill I suspect that the member was being somewhat too subtle. As I recollect the reference is to “sexual orientation”. There may be 360 degrees but I am aware of only two or three varieties. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Leader of the House seen any media reports or advertisements that stem from parties in this House expressing their opposition to the introduction of the civil union bill; if so what parties were they? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This vote—certainly on the part of some parties—is a conscience vote. I think that is certainly true of both the National and Labour parties. No doubt there are members on both sides of that issue. Of course we know that there are some members on both sides of the underlying issue but we will not go into that too closely. I understand that United Future will be taking a party position opposing the bill. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: With regard to civil unions would the House be correct in describing the coalition agreement between the Labour Government and United Future as a “civil union”; if so is that the sort of thing that decent common-sense people should support? 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to point out that the member is wrong. It was not a coalition agreement but a supply— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I do not think the question requires any comment but the Minister may like to do so. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My experience of the agreement between United Future and the Labour Government is that it has been an extraordinarily civil union. I think the great regret is that some existing marriages are not a great deal more civil than they are. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Leader of the House received any reports or advice as to progress on the bill given that concerned constituents are contacting my office about declarations from members of Parliament such as: “I am myself absolutely heterosexual but will support the legislation because I am entirely comfortable with two loving adults being allowed to formally contract to live together whether they be man and woman or of the same sex.”? That was signed by Don Brash the leader of the National Party. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have to say I am extraordinarily comfortable with the Leader of the Opposition’s position on this.
Jones Dail: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:618;Page:13871] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation. We are only too happy to ensure that the people of Wellington through their Wellington City Council can administer their own affairs in their own way. We support the speedy passage of the bill through the Committee. 
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Jones Dail: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8384] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is very pleased to be supporting this bill. It is a wonderful example of how the people of Auckland for a start can get together and support a project. Auckland is so often criticised as not being able to put up a united front on a project or present such a united front in particular to Wellington but this is one of those occasions when Aucklanders have got together. When I say Aucklanders I mean those with a connection to this bill—the Rodney District Council which has one appointee to the electoral college; North Shore City Council which has two appointees; Waitakere City Council two appointees; Auckland City Council three appointees; Manukau City Council three appointees; Papakura District Council one appointee and Franklin District Council one appointee. 
One should also remember work done in the past—from Taupo right up to Cape Reinga I understand—in supporting the original concept of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. I think it was a little bit churlish of the two Government members who spoke in the third reading to suggest that it could only have happened because we have a Labour Government. Labour Party people do know how to spoil a good occasion. The money for this building is coming from the New Zealand taxpayer. It is not coming from the Labour Government. The New Zealand taxpayer is paying for this project and for that we give as much thanks to the member for Whanganui the member for Rotorua the member for Hamilton East and such like as to anybody else. This money is coming from the New Zealand taxpayer and that is the thing that the Labour Party obviously does not understand. Labour members have no grasp of where the money comes from to run this country. Trust them to be churlish and spoil this debate! 
New Zealand First is delighted to support this legislation and wide and far all New Zealand First members will support it. I am sure that wide and far all members of this House will support it and I will not comment any more on that other matter. I hope that people from the rest of the country will come up to Auckland—or come down to Auckland as the case might be—and see just where their taxpaying dollar is being spent and the wonderful way in which this project has developed. 
This project is not just for the people of Auckland but as the objectives of the original bill show for the people of New Zealand as a whole as a proper war memorial to all New Zealand’s efforts in its many endeavours overseas.
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17126] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 The member has become visibly deflated during the day. As the debate has gone on the arguments have got thinner and thinner and more tenuous from the Opposition. Let us just try and deal with what on earth the member has been trying to make out of the bill this time. 
Clause 115A assures Maori that this bill does not affect existing or future treaty settlements so what does that mean? What it means is this: if some Government—as the National Government did in 1996—entered into a treaty agreement to hand over the foreshore and seabed it would have to pass an Act. What does a Government have to do now? It has to pass an Act. In other words nothing changes at all. Again I say that nothing changes at all. 
But that member will lie awake at night worrying that that beach where he is the most famous surfer—a man who comes in day after day amazing everybody with his skill—might pass into private Maori ownership.  
Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:622;Page:17332] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10577] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter dated 22 November written to the Minister of Immigration attaching a document pointing out that someone has come to this country falsifying his name by taking the name of his brother who is a qualified lawyer in Dakar but he is not. I ask her to do something about it for a change. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Jones Dail: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21579] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With regard to the Minister’s amendments I presume they will be put en bloc so that we cannot say just have a vote on the amendment to omit clauses 21A to 21V and the heading above clause 21A as a separate vote? Some of us want to support that amendment but oppose everything else. We have supported the omission of the clauses dealing with marginal strips but here we will seem to be voting against their omission. Is it the practice that there will be just one vote and that we have no choice in the situation? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a good point. 
DAIL JONES 
: Do I have to seek leave to have that done separately? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is the normal practice. 
DAIL JONES 
: In that case I seek leave that we first vote separately on the provision in relation to clauses 21A to 21V and the heading above clause 21A. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 2 and the following amendments in his name to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of clause 42(1) the words “produce to the regulator” and substitute the words: “provide the regulator with”; and 
to omit from subclause (1) of clause 70 the expression “2004” and substitute the expression “2005”; and 
to omit from section 57(1)(b) in clause 73 the expression “57H” and substitute the expression “57HA”; and 
to omit from section 57F(2)(c) in clause 73 the words “Minister or”; and 
to omit from section 57G(1)(b) in clause 73 the words “the relevant overseas person is or (if that person is not an individual) all the individuals with control of the relevant overseas person are” and substitute the words “all the individuals with control of the relevant overseas person are”; 
to omit from section 57HA(1) in clause 73 the words “Minister or”; and 
to insert in subclause (1) of clause 78 after the words “exemptions granted under” the words “the 1973 Act or”.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17552] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of Richard Worth to insert new clause 12A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 13 be agreed to.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16674] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 81 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 297 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 2 be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Obituaries — John Lancelot Lithgow 
Hunt Jonathan: Obituaries — John Lancelot Lithgow 
[Volume:615;Page:11417] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 1 March of John Lancelot Lithgow who represented the electorate of Palmerston North from 1975 to 1978. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15909] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on Part 1 to explain my other amendment to clause 6. But in starting I want to disagree with my colleague Sue Kedgley on one matter. I did not find the officials a brick wall. I think that any brick wall they had to stand behind was one created by Cabinet. I actually found the officials to be extremely helpful. At times I felt like a bit of a fly in the ointment to the process but I always found them very gracious and I thank them for the way they worked with us. 
I would also like to commend the Hon Bill English for his contribution. I think he absolutely hit the nail on the head regarding my position in that this is the one and only chance that will be offered to us as elected representatives to have a say in the way the direction of this technology will go. I find that scary and the fact that the word accountability or the fact that the understanding of what it means to be accountable to this House is lost in this process worries me a huge amount. 
That is why I proposed an amendment to clause 6 so that treatments that were to be declared established procedures had final scrutiny by Parliament. Of course once something is considered an established procedure as long as the practitioners administering the procedure are qualified they no longer require any further ethics committee approval because the procedure is set in place. But before we allow a procedure to hit that final category I think it would be hugely important for this House to be re-engaged with the final recommendation. I understand that the best way for that to happen is for the Regulations Review Committee to look at what is being proposed and so that is what my amendment seeks to do. 
The huge difference between guidelines and regulations I guess is the area that worries me the most. When we read the Canadian legislation which is strongly regulatory we see that what is allowed and what will happen is extremely clear clause-by-clause. There are no grey areas: one is very clear as one reads it what is to be expected. That is the power of regulation. I understand that regulation in some areas of life can be onerous can shut down a positive move forward in some directions and can slow processes down unnecessarily. But in this particular situation regulations would give effective clarification and certainly the work of the Regulations Review Committee to check what is being proposed is an extremely fortuitous function of Parliament. 
My amendment then to clause 6 would require a check to be made by the Regulations Review Committee before Orders in Council were made on established procedures. The select committee would then report on how it found the guidelines and procedures that were being touted as established procedures and would give us a sense of what was going on. That is the proposal I have for clause 6. I will leave it at that but I really encourage members to consider supporting that check.
Cunliffe David: Personal Explanations — Question No. 4 to Minister 18 September 
Cunliffe David: Personal Explanations — Question No. 4 to Minister 18 September 
[Volume:612;Page:8899] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 On question for oral answer No. 4 on 18 September our previous sitting day I responded to a supplementary question and referred to a survey on business compliance costs. In the response I may have used the phrase “at least 80 percent”. The response I had presumed I had made and certainly had intended to make in line with my briefing notes was “up to 80 percent”. I have ensured that the  
Hansard 
 records are in line with what I thought I said. I wanted to draw the attention of the House to this as a matter of personal integrity and because I am interested in maintaining the highest standards of debate in this House.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16488] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
New schedule 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that new schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to.