edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Duncan Helen: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Duncan Helen: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5157] 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7635] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is worthwhile to remind ourselves how this issue actually arose. It arose because the Hon Harry Duynhoven wrote to you Mr Speaker raising a matter of privilege and you ruled that a matter of privilege was involved. This House drawing upon a very long tradition has always been involved when matters of that sort are raised. That dates back at least to the Wilkes cases of the early 1760s in terms of Parliament having a right to have a say in its own membership. That is clear. You stated at the time that a matter of privilege was involved and that you would listen to the advice from the committee and from the House. The committee of course is not determinative of the House’s position; only the House can be determinative of that. You have determined that you will wait for that advice but then the decision is yours and yours alone. 
 I also recall that I was asked by the Hon Richard Prebble whether the Government would give a guarantee that it would not introduce any legislation until after the Privileges Committee had considered this matter and I gave that undertaking. I can conclude from that only that Mr Prebble was seeking an assurance that the Government would not legislate until the Privileges Committee had considered the matter and that it was therefore perfectly appropriate for the Government to do so once the committee had considered the matter even if one opposed the legislation. I make it quite clear that had that not been the case the Government would have legislated last week.
Tamihere John: Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
Tamihere John: Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3785] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I make this submission with regard to Standing Order 117 and I do so after question time. The matter was raised in question time by the member for Tauranga. The statement made by that member was “hiding under the skirts of a woman”. I am from NgatiPorou and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I presume the member wants to make a personal explanation. [ 
Interruption 
] Well there the matter ends.
Prebble Richard: Sittings of the House 
Prebble Richard: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:624;Page:19676] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Government junior Minister put exactly the same proposal at 6 o’clock. The idea that Parliament should adjourn so that Government Ministers can go to a dinner is an outrage. The ACT party believes we are paid to be here as members of Parliament and we are prepared to stay here. We most certainly will not agree but of course if the Government wants to be more reasonable and allow question time next week we will reconsider the matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: So there is an objection. Leave has been declined.
Ward Mike: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Ward Mike: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22162] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Vote Transport has made significant gains and I would like to suggest the Greens had a role in that. As a consequence of our commitment to working with Labour on transport policy implementation over the last 3 years there have been substantial improvements in public transport rail and cycle and pedestrian initiatives. Rail-track is back in the hands of New Zealand taxpayers once again and over the next 10 years $200 million of public money will be spent on upgrading that track. The $200 million will be matched by Toll’s investment in rolling stock. For the first time in decades there is a rail strategy. Toll is now able to plan with confidence—most obviously perhaps with the deal with Fonterra in Waikato where the rail link to the Waitotara dairy factory has been reopened and dairy freight has been consolidated and large numbers of heavy trucks are now off the road. 
That is a safety issue. It is not just a transport issue not just an energy issue or a means of getting freight to the right place more economically. It is a safety issue. Folk out there in their cars know there are fewer big trucks they have to share the road with. 
The Green influence is also obvious in last year’s release of the national walking and cycling strategy and the first-ever dedicated fund for walking and cycling which is $6 million this year. 
We are also encouraged to see the funding for passenger transport. Funding is up from $53 million in 2000-01 to $240 million in just 5 years—up 350 percent. Public transport funding is up 5.5 percent to 15.2 percent of transport funding. We have seen as a consequence skyrocketing public transport patronage and again the advantages are advantages to everybody not just those folk who are transport disadvantaged—those who cannot drive or do not drive—but it is an advantage to those who do drive with now more room on the roads. I can recall sitting on the train coming in from Porirua and looking out and seeing queues of traffic moving rather slowly. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction  
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction  
[Volume:616;Page:12431] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not hearing any further comment on this matter; I am prepared to rule. I have ruled. I will of course consider what I have said. I will get the transcript. But as far as I am concerned until further notice between 1.45 p.m. and 2 p.m. and between 7.15 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. I have to give approval for press to be present. I have been lax on that in the past. I have asked and as recently as yesterday I talked to the chairman of the press gallery. As far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter at the moment. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to continue. This is just delaying. I have ruled on it.
Brown Peter: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brown Peter: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11842] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the debate but it is our understanding that this debate is a 4-hour debate and it is rigidly controlled. Last year much time was lost by unnecessary points of order in our view so we seek leave of the House that when a party or an individual takes a point of order that time will be deducted from that person’s party.
Choudhary Ashraf: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15003] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill. I do so because this bill provides protection for the international export education institutions. As Mr Bill English has mentioned we have a $2 billion industry which is a very important sector of our export business. It is important that we have a protection in place for the international students who come to study in New Zealand because we have developed a great reputation internationally for our education system. We now have over 80000 students who need protection from any of the problems that some of these institutions have faced in the past. 
I think the only issue that arose at the Education and Science Committee was clause 5 and the Minister has agreed that it be removed. I believe this bill will now provide a very suitable protection for our education export institutions. I am pleased to support it and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4674] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Commerce Committee. referred to the Commerce Committee 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that there are to be no interjections at all during the taking of a vote. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 56/4.
Tisch Lindsay: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19136] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip) 
: 
 I seek leave for parties voting on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill relating to Supplementary Order Paper 332 to cast votes for the Ayes and the Noes and to record abstentions notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b).
Speaker’s Rulings — Speaker’s Ruling 47/1—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
Speaker’s Rulings — Speaker’s Ruling 47/1—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
[Volume:624;Page:19625] 
Wednesday 6 April 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Speaker’s Ruling 47/1—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Last week the Rt Hon Winston Peters asked me to reconsider my reliance on Speaker’s ruling 47/1: “It is just as unparliamentary to apply an offensive term to members of a party as to apply it to members individually.” Mr Peters argued that it was an old ruling—it was given in 1914—and it has been suspended by a Speaker’s ruling given at the time that the Alliance broke up in 2002. The ruling may be an old one but it has been consistently relied on in the House. I do not see any reason relating to its longevity to depart from it. In regard to the Alliance the Speaker was required to make a number of rulings relating to the status of that party. Two of those are recorded in Speaker’s rulings 5/6 and 5/7. These rulings were concerned with continued recognition of the party under Standing Order 34. They did not in any way undermine Speaker’s ruling 47/1. That ruling continues to have full force.
Jones Dail: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14159] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Nothing that the Minister has just said will alter New Zealand First’s view on this matter. We do not want sex offenders getting out of jail early. It is as simple as that. The community does not want sex offenders getting out of jail early. It does not want them out of jail after serving one-third of the sentence put up by the judge. Those people should be punished. They should stay in jail until they are at least nearing the very very last months of a lengthy sentence and they should be given treatment while they are in jail. 
The only valid aspect of this bill about treatment extended supervision orders and the like is that they should continue. They should be put in place after those people have served virtually all of their sentences and the treatment should be for the 10 years proposed by this bill. That is where we differ. We could go along with an extended supervision order after these people have almost completed their sentence and after they have received treatment in prison. 
I have appeared for some of these people. I would not want them out of jail after what they have done. I have been in the No. 1 police cell in Auckland. I did it in the 1970s the 1980s and the 1990s. I have acted for some of these people and they are despicable. To some extent they do need treatment. Lawyers start their plea in mitigation for these people by saying they need treatment. The problem with our system today is that they do not get treatment. They just come out of jail and the same old problem arises again. They should be in jail. They should serve their full sentence and they should get treatment in jail. Only then perhaps they may not reoffend but one does not hold one’s breath. When these offenders come out of jail they should always as suggested spend the next 10 years under supervision. 
Section 15A deals with electronic bracelets and they are an utter waste of time. What use is a bracelet? An offender can be wearing a bracelet and can be anywhere. No one knows quite where these people are unless there is a proper satellite link and a map of the country and the type of device that is in some police cars. What use is a bracelet? This point was raised by Ron Mark in the first reading debate when we somewhat reluctantly agreed to let the bill go to the select committee. New Zealand First does not support this bill we do not support this section and we will be voting against Part 1.
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6746] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I said that I could not hear the member’s speech because of the noise in the House. That is a point of order with respect. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s speech was able to be heard.
Hawkins George: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14511] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill be considered byreferred tothe Government Administration Committee 
referred to Government Administration Committee 
and reported back for consideration and that the committee report back on or before 8 November 2004. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
[Volume:620;Page:15448] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Just so that this House does not get carried away with any of Gerry Wall’s decisions I seek leave to table Mr Wall’s comments when he went to the Labour Party caucus to ask them whether he was gaga. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16356] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 Progressive 2. 
Noes 19 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 72(2) be agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20236] 
12.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he received on the implementation of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act 2003? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Reports from around the country show widespread acceptance of the laws. A report released last week found that 70 percent of people support the smoking ban in pubs and bars. The same survey shows that 42 percent of smokers themselves now support the ban which is up from 22 percent in November. We consider this an outstanding success due to good law from this Government. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What have been some other positive outcomes from the new law? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Hospitality Association of New Zealand reports that the industry is coping well with the changes. Over 50 percent of its members surveyed said that their takings had increased or stayed the same since 10 December. An additional benefit is that Quit Group has measured a 44 percent increase in the number of callers in December and January compared with the same 2-month period last year. More people are wishing to give up smoking and that is good for this country. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask the Minister to clarify that answer. We could not hear it properly but I think he said that the takings of 50 percent increased or stayed the same. Does that mean that 50 percent lost money? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but does the Minister very quickly want to clarify the answer? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The takings of over 50 percent of them have increased or stayed the same.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10133] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 13 February 2004 and 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 despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c) 
.
Carter John: Urgent Debates — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
Carter John: Urgent Debates — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
[Volume:623;Page:18469] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Just before Mr English rises to speak following the conclusion of the debate you have just granted I seek leave for a debate on the Auditor-General’s report in the same fashion as we would for a normal snap debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7441] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 My understanding of the Speaker’s ruling is that one should not move one’s seat in order to be able to interject better. I think the National Party was in some difficulty today because so few of its regular front bench were here that it needed to fill up those seats with back-benchers; otherwise it would have looked terribly thin on television. In that sense it seemed to me that Dr Lockwood Smith was moved forward merely to fill up some of the gaps left by his absent colleagues and therefore had to interject from that position.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18861] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 96 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Report adopted.
King Annette: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11264] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I shall take an early but short call to endorse the comments made by the Opposition spokesperson on health in her opening remarks on the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. I do not think I could have put it better than the member already has. 
The key point she made is that we are looking for a screening programme that is of gold standard; that is the best we can possibly provide to the women of New Zealand. This bill addresses a number of issues concerning the development of a very good screening programme. It gives effect to four specific Gisborne cervical-screening inquiry recommendations of the 46 recommendations made and some of them relate to changes that we need to make in this Parliament. 
 The point I would like to make very clearly is that very good work has been done across parties in this Committee to get as much consensus as we can around the issues in this bill. 
The bill came back from the Health Committee which had done an extremely good job on it. The committee made quite a number of amendments to the bill which I accepted. There were some issues however that were of concern particularly to the women in the House. We met sat around a table and thrashed out how we could improve on what had been reported back to Parliament to make it even better. As Dr Lynda Scott said we will mention some of those when we get into the next part of the bill. 
But I want to acknowledge that really positive work. It was one of those occasions which does not always happen in Parliament when members sat down looked at issues and then came up with some decisions. I acknowledge that work; I am putting it on the record. We will debate some of the other issues in detail when we get into the next part of the bill.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:611;Page:8254] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Under a point of order you have allowed a member’s word to be questioned. Dr Nick Smith stood up in this House by leave and gave a personal explanation as to what had happened and then we had this fish at the back take a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order will be expressed tersely and without any interjection. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: You allowed Mr David Parker to stand up at the back take a point of order and directly contradict the personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned I realised that there was a request for something to be tabled and I heard something about minutes. At that point I ceased listening because I understood what the member had asked to be tabled. If the member was using that to question the word of another member he will stand withdraw and apologise. 
David Parker 
: No Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right that is all that needs to be said.
Hawkins George: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hawkins George: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12250] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Dail: Evidence Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Evidence Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20417] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation. The law of evidence is probably the cornerstone of our legal system. How evidence is presented is the crux of a case in my view. One can be as academically clever as one likes but if one is incapable of presenting one’s case in a court one may as well never have gone to law school. So how we set up our laws of evidence is very important. Of course the reverse is also the case. One may not be terribly bright academically but one can make a very good court lawyer many times if one is quick on one’s feet knows the rules of evidence and can deal with people. The Evidence Bill is extremely important legislation. 
I was amused by the Minister of Justice Hon Phil Goff adding yet another of those lovely Labour phrases. This bill as we were informed went to the Law Commission in 1989 and he told us the commission was “very thorough” and now 16 years later we have this bill. We can add that Labour homily to the Labour phrase for sex change—“gender reassignment”. We seem to have these lovely expressions from the Labour Party. Another example is a tax increase becoming a “tax shift”. We are going to have a list of as many of these wonderful phrases from this Labour Party as we can possibly get—possibly even more than there have been tax increases! 
However I pick up on one point made by the Labour member for Auckland Central Judith Tizard. She talked about cost and of course one of the reasons we have costs with court proceedings is that the Labour Government increased the cost of civil proceedings from a filing fee of about $100 to $1000. That is why we have costs. That is why people cannot afford to go to court. 
But let us put those things aside. I am not going to make a long speech. This is very important legislation. I am sure the Law Society and lawyers generally will pay very close attention to it. We have a great responsibility as a Parliament to make sure this legislation is right when it comes out of Parliament.
Hartley Ann: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9002] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Dail Jones 
: It must be. You have ruled that you do not regard the statement as being derogatory. With the greatest respect I say that your view is your own. It is my view that I am concerned about here. In my view—and that is what matters in terms of the Standing Orders—being referred to as a member of a party of the right and being linked with ACT for example is derogatory. I do not want my party to be called a party of the right. I am a member of New Zealand First. I am a member of a centre party. I am not in a party of the right. I believe that for a party to be called a party of the right is derogatory. With all due respect I do not care what you might think it is all about. The member should withdraw and apologise and we can then get on with the debate. That will save a lot of time. The Speaker will not have to be recalled to have this matter clarified.
Robertson H V Ross: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17519] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows he has gone too far. Members have had their fun. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 38/4—I was asked for a ruling and members on my left are not actually listening—which states: “Words or phrases used robustly in debate but which do not impugn the honour of a member will not be ruled out of order.” It is really up to the member concerned—if that member took offence on a personal basis because he or she was the member who was referred to—to be in the Chamber.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15952] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There has not yet been a valid point of order raised today but I am hopeful that this is the first. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: During the answers to question No. 1 to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations she indicated to the House that in the transfer of title to the Taupo lake bed to Tuwharetoa in 1992—an incident that occurred under the National Government—title was also transferred to the airspace and I believe the Minister used the term “water columns”. I must let the House know that I was not prepared to ask a subsequent supplementary question on the basis that I took the Minister at her word. I have now checked and have found out that was not the case and I would ask that the Minister table the transfer title documentation in the House so that all members of Parliament and the press can see that the argument the Labour Party Government is currently running is wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No matter of order is involved.
Simich Clem: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Simich Clem: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10860] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection.
Gudgeon Bill: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Gudgeon Bill: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4934] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill is now at the stage where I would say that the claimants are close to a mood of celebration because of the bill coming close to finality. New Zealand First has supported the bill and still supports it at this stage so that the Ngati Ruanui people can bring this issue to a closure. 
As stated in my last presentation I hope that those concerned have learnt from the procedures that have taken place the need for more funding for the Waitangi Tribunal and also that matters can be more streamlined to assist in clearing the backlog of claims waiting to be settled. I know that Ngati Ruanui will settle their affairs amongst the hapu concerned namely Pakakohi and Tangahoe. If members understand tikanga on the marae people are allowed to view their own personal thoughts on subjects and topics and those issues remain there on the marae. I am sure that Ngati Ruanui with their expertise and wisdom will be able to negotiate with the two hapu concerned. I am very confident and hopeful that in time Ngati Ruanui will through expert advice and counsel administer to their affairs in a pleasing and positive manner. We have learnt from history the things that have not been done right and that have gone wrong and the repercussions that follow. I am sure that Ngati Ruanui with the wisdom their kaumatua have and the leadership of their iwi in conjunction with those who have not yet agreed will come to some amicable agreement. 
New Zealand First recommends to the Committee that the bill be fully supported so that Ngati Ruanui—and I am sure that some of their members are here—will go back to their hapus and their iwis and say: “Let’s prepare now for the future.” We know that there are other bills to come and we hope that Ngati Ruanui’s presentation and submissions will be a positive example for other claimants. [ 
Interruption 
] Kia ora. 
So on behalf of New Zealand First we would to add that again and re-emphasise the things that need to be done. I must also add that not only will they have to work hard but smarter. That is where it is. One can work hard and get nowhere but if one is smart one will have positive results. Tena koutou Ngati Ruanui. New Zealand First supports this bill.
Smith Nick: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
Smith Nick: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5703] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During the course of the 5-minute contribution from Mr Shirley I took note that there were 37 interjections. Twelve of those were made by the chief Government whip and nine were made by Jill Pettis who is a junior whip. My understanding is that whips should be setting an example. My point to you is that if the Speaker’s ruling is that interjections are to be rare and reasonable does the Speaker believe that 37 interjections in a 5-minute speech complies with thatruling?
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 in the name of Marc Alexander to insert heading and new clause 186A be agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5574] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I thank Mr Sowry for that contribution. I can assure the Committee that if he seeks leave for this vote that you have declared to be retaken the Government will not object to that leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise the Committee that the result has not been finally determined. The Committee has not moved on to the next question. The Noes have it. Any member who disagrees can call for a party vote. So I am saying that the Noes have it.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debates 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debates 
[Volume:613;Page:9963] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt the debate but I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a document containing the name New Zealand Who’s Who Publications 2004 Ltd—a company that does not exist. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: 
 The second is a certificate of incorporation showing various other companies with extremely similar names set up by Mr Alister Taylor. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hunt Jonathan: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17777. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise members of the House that at the conclusion of the third reading debate I will put the bills as separate questions.
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:9029] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 From here—I may have missed a part of it—am I to take it that the leave when it is sought will be on the basis that the word “provision” where it appears in Standing Order 301 is being read as if it meant “part”; if so we have the consequence as you have said that the precedent established would be that a Minister’s amendments would be put first and they may well rule out many others. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No leave can be sought to do anything. If leave is granted that can apply for this particular case. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Can I just complete my point Mr Speaker. The difficulty that I think you have portended and that the Hon Dr Cullen was referring to is not there if “provision” is read in its natural meaning recognising that this Standing Order would have been drafted by people before part by part debates were the norm. If “provision” means “clause” then the difficulty is very much reduced. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member that because we have clauses and parts and that type of thing it might well be something that the Standing Orders Committee has to look at. I say again that unless leave is forthcoming the only question remaining is that the part stand part.
Pettis Jill: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4085] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I would like to speak at length about this bill because I am a great supporter of horse racing in New Zealand. I just wish I had time to go to more race meetings. Unfortunately I do not. My claim to fame is that I have named a successful racehorse which actually won— 
Hon Member 
: What is it called? 
JILL PETTIS 
: Salt Spray. Suffice to say I have spoken on this bill before and am pleased to speak again on its third reading. The most important thing is that we get this bill through the House. It is supported by the racing industry and we look forward to the further prosperity of that industry. The bloodstock industry is an exciting industry and I wish it well. Let us get this bill through.
Kedgley Sue: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8867] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak in favour of the amendment to the commencement date that my colleague Ian Ewen-Street has tabled proposing that the enforcement of this Act be on 30 October 2008. 
One of the points my colleague made is that the whole premise of the royal commission was that we could allow all the different forms of agriculture—and this is the premise of this bill as well—happily to coexist. The whole premise was that we could allow farmers who practise conventional farming organic farming or GE farming happily to coexist. That is the premise on which the royal commission reached its conclusion and it is the basic premise underlying this bill. The trouble is that in the years since the royal commission came to this fundamental assumption the whole idea of coexistence has proved to be a fallacy or indeed a fantasy. 
I wish that the Minister for the Environment—and Gerry Eckhoff and many others—would visit Canada. Canadian farmers embraced GE. They believed all the hype and that it was possible for coexistence to occur. Now we have the head of the Canadian National Farmers Union going off to England and saying to the farmers there: “Don’t touch the stuff.” We have the head of the Canadian National Farmers Union and the head of the Canadian Wheat Board exhorting Monsanto to withdraw its application for growing GE wheat in Canada because they do not want it and because they have found widespread contamination of GE canola and other crops in Canada. 
 As the former Canadian Minister for the Environment said when he came to New Zealand if widespread contamination of GM crops with regular crops in Canada—where there are thousands of acres of prairie—cannot be avoided then sure as hell it cannot be avoided here. In Canada they have come to the conclusion that the whole idea of creating separation distances which is the premise of this bill is a nonsense. The Independent Science Panel in the United Kingdom after assessing all the science also concluded that it is impossible to grow some GE crops without contaminating organic and conventional produce. The whole premise of the royal commission and of this bill is therefore a nonsense. 
My colleague has pointed out that many many recommendations of the royal commission have not been implemented. Let me read just one of them. Recommendation 10.6 states that all parties concerned will work to resolve the Wai 262 and the Wai 740 claims currently before the Waitangi Tribunal as soon as possible. To my knowledge absolutely nothing has happened to resolve those claims. 
Progress reported.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8487] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 120 be agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10748] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise briefly in support of this legislation. What began as a rather mean-spirited contribution from the member who spoke before me warmed with the spirit of the season. I would encourage him to apply the same human concern and friendliness to the members of the workforce of this country.
Catchpole Brent: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8850] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to finish what I was saying on schedule 3. This particular schedule has the information concerning buy-back transactions. I make the point that nowhere in the explanations or information does it set out or highlight the specific clauses that deal with the independent advice that is required when somebody goes into this particular type of transaction. That is the point I wanted to make. Paragraph (j) does not quite provide a description. Therefore I think the schedule is missing a provision that would cover the independent advice that is required under this Act. Perhaps the Minister could take a call and explain that. 
To round off I would like to touch on what Sandra Goudie and Don Brash talked about which was the idea of budgeting for education at an early stage to explain some of these things. This would perhaps go a long way to help people overcome the difficulties they get into when they are in financial trouble. It is usually the people who can least afford it who end up in these contracts that are so bad for them. I think that with a bit of early education in secondary schools at least or perhaps a little earlier people could be helped through the process of learning how to handle a credit contract. Don Brash made a good point about that and it would be worth looking at further education under the education system. 
Thank you for the opportunity to finish my contribution. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new heading and paragraph: 
Broker’s fees and commission 
(na)a description of any fees or commission payable as a result of the contract when that is known by the creditor:.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:624;Page:19001] 
Voting 
Correction 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: I have a brief procedural matter. Just before the dinner break when we took the vote on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill inadvertently a vote was cast for one member on our side of the House in both lobbies. It was the Hon Phillip Field. I want to record that Mr Field was voting against the bill. I seek leave for that voting record to be amended. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. The Ayes are now 76 and the Noes are 42. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to Mr Donald. This will not take a moment. For the sake of clarification which vote was that for? Was it for the amendments coming from the Justice and Electoral Committee? There was also a second vote in respect of the second reading after those amendments had been passed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The correction is for the vote on the question that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5421] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think the Chair should note that now under the Standing Orders all bills go to a select committee and therefore when a Government takes urgency I think we should have longer to debate a bill. I also think you should note the way in which the bill is being proceeded with. We have an interesting situation here. No Minister contributed to the debate on Part 1. Questions were asked of the Minister in the chair and quite an interesting dialogue occurred across the floor as to what liquors were or were not covered but the Minister just sat there. There was no response from Government members. It seems to me that is something you should note because it is the job of the Chair to protect the rights of the minority. I am not criticising you but I do not think the Chair should accept a closure motion when there are questions from the Opposition but the Government chooses not to answer. 
If you were to give an indication of that sort about the closure then we would actually have a parliamentary debate. The Ministers would realise they are accountable to this Committee and that they had better start to answer questions and that if they treat the Committee with contempt the Chair will protect the rights of members by allowing the debate to continue. There is parliamentary precedent for this. In question time if a Minister trifles with the House the Speaker allows extra questions. 
In my view the Minister in the chair has been trifling with the Committee. He made some statements in the first reading and second reading debates but in the Committee stage it has become apparent they were incorrect. He has now chosen to remain silent in the Committee stage—and do his correspondence. I suggest to you that it would be quite a good way of protecting the rights of back-benchers which you are sworn to do if you indicated to the Government that you will not take the closure on Part 2 unless Ministers are prepared to participate and answer questions.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Vote: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:614;Page:10779] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17367] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:622;Page:17437] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded 
. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Ririnui Mita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8151] 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.