edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Goff Phil: Motions — Terrorism Suppression Act—Referral of Provisions to Foreign Affairs  Defence and Trade Committee 
Goff Phil: Motions — Terrorism Suppression Act—Referral of Provisions to Foreign Affairs  Defence and Trade Committee 
[Volume:423;Page:18557] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 70(2) of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 this House refer to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for consideration the matters specified in that provision with the committee to report to the House in accordance with section 70(3) of that Act 
. When the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed back in October 2002 it contained a provision section 70 which provided that the House of Representatives must as soon as practicable after 1 December 2004 refer to a select committee for consideration a review of the operations of certain provisions of that Act. Section 70 of the Act provides that the select committee to which those matters are referred must report its view on them to the House of Representatives before 1 December 2005. For the review to be considered it requires a reference from the House to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by Government motion. I thereby move that motion.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17940] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 9 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 9 as amended agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Voting — Correction 
Hughes Darren: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:627;Page:22353] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to amend the voting tallies from the evening sitting of the House last Wednesday 27 July to delete references to the two Progressive votes in the party votes on the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is asking for leave to alter the votes. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. The voting will be amended accordingly.
Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17572] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I can give my own experience. A short while ago I was in the Chamber. Gordon Copeland knew I was here and he would not accept the fact that I had not come up to the queue. I was asked to go and cross my name off the list because Gordon Copeland knew I was here. That is what I did even though my whip held a proxy for me. So at least as far as this side of the voting is concerned the rule as it is in the Standing Orders has been carried out because we have all understood that to be the rule. If perhaps the other side has not understood that to be the rule well four votes off will make no difference on this occasion. However the lesson will be well and truly learnt. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for their assistance. The point was properly raised. If that had been happening it is against the Standing Orders. There is no doubt about that. The votes have been declared—
Parker David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7053] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3677] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Bill and after listening to Mr Franks attack the bill he is voting for and attack the Minister when this is about the complaints authority and all the problems he perceives in the police I could not help but think of this morning’s  
Dominion Post  
where I read of another ACT person in trouble and I thought to myself that we need an independent ACT complaints authority to deal with all the problems over there.  
I am very pleased to support the bill because I think it does address some issues where there could be a perception that there is some bias in the authority’s work. It is very important for the public confidence in this body that that perception does not exist. I think that what Sir Rodney Gallen has done is very good and it is a bill I am happy to support.
Pettis Jill: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20058] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19210] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Locke (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey M (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward   
Coddington(P) 
Hide   
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel   
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King   
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Roy(P) 
Hughes   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander   
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone   
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell   
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time.
Hunt Jonathan: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6813] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now come back to the bill. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He has been allowed to carry on about a whole lot of extraneous matters that are on the parliamentary Order Paper but do not relate to this bill and he should be told to get back to it or shut up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say to the member that I have been listening to a large number of comments about a bill that we have already passed and sent off to a select committee. This bill is a relatively narrow bill and some members like his bench mate have been sticking closely to it and do know how to do that. A lot of other people in this debate have not and the member knows that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: This bill should be passed for one clear reason now established in this debate and that is to assert clearly that this Parliament is sovereign and judges do not make the law. This Parliament makes the law not one judge. I say to some members opposite who are rather new and naive in these matters that if we allow every time a judge makes a decision that the law is not adequate to implement policy then we will quickly find not a great deal of policy remaining in place. Secondly this bill is necessary to avoid administrative confusion and chaos while the first bill goes through the select committee. Finally this bill helps establish that people will get priority access into New Zealand on the basis of the skills that we want in New Zealand and nobody opposite seems able to find anything wrong with that particular position. Even Mr Simon Carlaw who is paid to whinge—that is what he draws his salary to do—has actually said this legislation is good.
Copeland Gordon: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5737] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I absolutely positively support the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill and say United Future will vote accordingly.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13295] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I will take just a short call. This is the more sensible part of the bill and when we reflect on it I cannot help but wonder—and perhaps members of the Committee might be able to help me—who it was who said: “We live in a benign environment 12000 miles away from the hot spots.” Who was that person? Ah! Yes it is all coming back. It was of course the Prime Minister. And now we have a bill designed to tighten up this benign environment we live in. We would like to live in a benign environment. I am sure the world would like to live in a benign environment. The truth is that we do not and it is entirely appropriate that those undesirables who have come to regard New Zealand as a soft touch under this Government—an absolute soft touch a gateway to Australia and further—think they can come to our country and fool the security systems here. It is a piece of cake. In they come and the Government is not doing anything about it. We have been waiting 5 years for the Government to tighten up on those restrictions. 
I am not entirely sure that this legislation would do anything about the Ahmed Zaouis in this country—in this prison we have somewhere. I invite the Minister to take a call and tell the Committee whether this particular part will stop the Ahmed Zaouis from coming into this country or at least say whether it will stop them turn them round and send them back to where they came from. It is not at all clear. I am not at all sure that that is the case but if we are going to tighten up let us tighten up on the undesirables. Some would say that some civil liberties would be trampled on. Well ACT party members being classical liberals are entirely in favour of civil liberties. There are times of course—and we live in those times—where we have to ensure that civil liberties sometimes— 
Shane Ardern 
: This is a new sensitive side. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well we have to take liberties with some liberties—sometimes. But that might be necessary. 
I think this whole question of border security has been well illustrated in  
Border Control 
 a programme shown relatively recently on television that captured the imagination of the public of this country. Apparently applications to join the Customs Service rose dramatically as a result of that programme and I think the public saw that the job customs officers are doing is a hugely important one. But they were not backed up by this Government’s softly softly approach to as I say the undesirables who have come here in relatively large numbers knowing full well that entry was almost assured in New Zealand. 
 So it is with some pleasure that I support this particular part of the bill. As I said earlier I am not at all certain that it will ensure we turn round the Ahmed Zaouis of this world but at least it is a start. We do at least recognise there is a problem.
Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14683] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I believe that today is a sad day for democracy. Parliament became aware of a grave injustice in the scampi industry. I believe that almost every member of the Primary Production Committee and perhaps of the House has acknowledged the grave injustice that has been perpetrated but now Parliament is proceeding to turn its back on that injustice and I do think it is a sad day. I can only ask the Government: where do people go to receive justice in this country? 
The scampi fishers were done wrong by a Government department. As a consequence they went to the High Court and they won. The ministry ignored the outcome of that High Court decision. The fishers went to the Regulations Review Committee and they got support there on the basis that they undertook to change their regulations if the court found that they had done wrong. The court did find that they had done wrong but they reneged on their undertaking to the Regulations Review Committee. The scampi fishers went to the Court of Appeal and they won a unanimous case there. The Court of Appeal found that they had been wronged. The ministry again ignored the outcome. 
The scampi fishers succeeded in initiating two inquiries. Both of those inquiries returned scathing criticisms of the ministry. But the ministry has managed to ignore the outcome of those inquiries to the extent that the chief executive officer put out a press release saying not that he was falling on his sword but that the ministry had been completely exonerated; that it had been vindicated. I think that all the members of the select committee were as amazed and as gobsmacked as I was when that came out. But Parliament has had the opportunity to right the wrongs that have been done to the people in the scampi industry. They have proved their case over and over again yet this Parliament is setting that injustice in concrete. 
I do not believe that this measure will put the scampi injustice issue to bed as the Government so sincerely hopes it will. I think that the Kiwi psyche is so attuned to a sense of fair play that people know when they have been wronged and the issue will come back to haunt this Government. I believe that some future Government of whatever colour will have to revisit scampi quota allocation because such a wrong is being done to it. This is bad legislation and I suspect that history will confirm that. The Greens oppose this bill.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15642] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6958] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18853] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 12 be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5436] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
Noes 38 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 19; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:614;Page:10437] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Knowing that there are a number of bills on the Order Paper that date back to 2001 and in one case even 1996 I ask whether there is any prospect that the Government might take urgency between now and the lifting of the House for the Christmas break in order to get some of these pressing matters dealt with.
Simich Clem: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6186] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of Larry Baldock to remove the decriminalisation of brothel-keeping and put in place certain other measures has been withdrawn by the proposer. 
We come now to the amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp on Supplementary Order Paper 68 giving territorial authorities power to make by-laws to restrict soliciting and putting in place offence provisions and the necessary police powers. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert new clauses 6CA to 6CC and 6DA to 6DC and new cross headings be agreed to.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:624;Page:19241] 
Voting 
Correction 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the vote on the third reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill to be amended. The proxy vote of Pansy Wong was inadvertently cast both for the Ayes and the Noes. The result was announced as Ayes 76 Noes 44. It should have been Ayes 76 Noes 43. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought by Lindsay Tisch for that amendment to be made. Is there any objection? It shall be made.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21200] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Another point of order? I have actually ruled on the matter. It is a point of privilege not a point of order. The member has a remedy. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I have seen how they go. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is the member’s next point of order? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: My point is that Annette King said that Alvin went to the Porirua medical centre for a check-up. That is not true. He went— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member knows I have ruled on this point. Would he please sit down. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am sorry Madam Speaker but— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please sit down. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am not going to sit here and let that Minister tell lies. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide I ask you to leave the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: I will happily leave because there is no point in asking— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member has raised a point of privilege. You are perfectly entitled to raise a point of privilege but not in this forum. 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21591] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 28 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8227] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to clause 253A be agreed to.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:620;Page:16163] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Thursday 4 November. There is a lunch for an Italian parliamentary delegation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Home Detention 
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Home Detention 
[Volume:613;Page:10220] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When Mr Goff sought permission to table those documents he added on a whole lot at the end and you did not stop him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did on the second one.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13164] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; GreenParty 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (No New Contracts and Other Matters) Act”.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20122] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Jones Dail: Clean Slate Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Clean Slate Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13095] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which reviewed the earlier select committee’s consideration of this legislation when Parliament resumed in September 2002 after the July election. We looked at this member’s bill the Clean Slate Bill introduced by the Greens member Nandor Tanczos in conjunction with the Government’s Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. Concerning the member’s bill we are discussing today the select committee came to the conclusion that Nandor Tanczos’ bill should not be passed and that is the conclusion the House is now considering. Strangely enough there is no minority report on this bill so it seems that even Nandor Tanczos at the select committee agreed that this bill should not be passed. The report states: “We recommend that the bill not be passed.” and Nandor Tanczos was a member of the committee. So I really cannot understand why we are spending so much time on a bill that the select committee including the member who introduced the bill unanimously agreed should not be passed. 
I note just briefly to add to what other members have said that the bill states that if there is a crime of dishonesty one’s employer will not be able to find out whether one is dishonest as a result of this bill. If a person wants to travel overseas and that person has committed a crime in New Zealand—this is regardless of what is in the Government’s bill I should say—he or she still has to disclose that crime to an overseas country. If the crime is not disclosed the person will be in trouble in that overseas country as well. That provision applies particularly to travel to the United States and to drug offences because that country is particularly strong in that area. 
Members have taken quite some time on a bill that we have unanimously agreed we should not continue. It is almost a good example of why we should not have 120 members in this House. We should have New Zealand First’s policy of 99 members because time seems to expand with the numbers of members available to fill it. New Zealand First does not support this bill. We will not be supporting it when it comes to the vote and I do not intend to say any more. I have said enough in previous debates.
Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14493] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to have a second call on this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Benson-Pope David: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7455] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave that not withstanding Standing Order 145(1)(b) the votes cast for each party on the second reading of this bill may include votes cast for the Ayes and Noes and abstentions. 
Dail Jones 
: I did not quite catch what the member said. I was engaged on something else and it is obviously a very important issue. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The leave is a consequence of the agreement at the Business Committee that allows a split vote by the National Party or any other party should it wish to do so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.
Baldock Larry: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5448] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 That member is completely out of touch with what is going on with young people in this country. He does not understand what goes on with binge drinking. Young people who are binge drinking are not using the ready-to-drink mixes to achieve their goals. They are using heavy alcoholic drinks such as Bully Hayes a rum-flavoured alcohol and the Kristov vodka-flavoured general alcohol beverage which have a 23 percent proof alcohol content. That is what binge drinkers are drinking. This bill is necessary because of the irresponsibility of the liquor industry in targeting young people with those drinks at a cheap price. This bill is not a silver bullet; it will not eradicate all binge drinking. But I do hope that it will reduce some of the alcohol sales that have resulted from the lowering of the drinking age 3 years ago. 
The first headline that I saw in the year 2000 one year after the bill lowering the drinking age was passed through this House was that Lion Breweries had announced a 13 percent increase in sales. This legislation will help to reduce that I hope because of the effect that it will have on our young people. Some people who are as young as 14 years of age have access to those kinds of drinks. If there was something that could be done about ready-to-drink mixes I would be very interested to look at that issue also. I do feel sorry for those people who are innocent in terms of heavy drinking but who may be affected by the ramifications of this bill. It is not us that they should blame for that but the liquor industry which has not been acting responsibly with regard to young people. 
I am grateful that this bill is finally about to pass in this House. We trust that it will make some difference to the young people of this nation.
Stewart Barbara: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11073] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill going to the select committee. We know that this bill has been on the Government’s pledge card for the last two elections and it is really pleasing to see that it is now at the stage to be debated and heard through the select committee process. The elderly in New Zealand have been waiting for this bill for quite some time and will be pleased to see this change in legislation. We hope they are not disappointed when we go through it in the select committee. 
New Zealand First has been pushing for a law change since 1998 when we succeeded in removing asset testing only to have National renege on the agreement. Our policy is to remove income and asset testing for elderly needing long-stay geriatric hospital care services and to remove asset testing for those in long-stay geriatric private hospital care. 
The current regime needed to be set out in a clearer and more comprehensive manner because it has been totally unfair to many elderly within New Zealand. Many have saved all of their lives only to see their houses and most of their assets taken away by the cost of rest home care. The small sum left was barely enough to bury them. Others who had not saved were totally supported by the State. From New Zealand First’s point of view any policy designed to impoverish our senior population is destructive and short-sighted. Elderly people in New Zealand need certainty in their old age and hopefully this bill will help in that respect. 
It was interesting to see in the bill that asset testing will be removed for those aged 50 to 64 in residential care who are currently required to use all their assets. This is a very small group of people and in my experience the larger group in rest homes are in the older age group and therefore do need that certainty. So New Zealand First will be supporting this bill going to the select committee and we look forward to following it through the process.
Hughes Darren: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hughes Darren: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14871] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16053] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We now have a situation where a senior member of the National Party has raised this issue the junior whip has raised this issue a member of the ACT party has raised this issue and now New Zealand First has raised this issue with you. In the 5 years I have been here I have not seen that occur before in the Committee stage of a bill where separate parties together have raised this issue with the Chair. I would urge you along the lines indicated by those who have already spoken to take very serious account of that.
Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9029] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is another question. The other question is that if leave is not given then the question cannot be put on clauses 2 and 3 because this amendment is surely for the benefit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it already has been. 
DAIL JONES 
: Not on the Minister’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry it has been. I have been advised by my people in front of me that it has been. The only question forthcoming is that the part stand part. I declare the House in Committee again on the Supreme Court Bill.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15800] 
12.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What recent reports has he received on international variations in compliance costs for businesses and how do they compare with the New Zealand situation? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 In addition to the World Bank’s  
Doing Business in 2005 
 report that placed New Zealand No. 1 for the ease of doing business out of 145 countries during the adjournment I also received a report from the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce that showed small business in Australia is struggling with the range of compliance regimes such as payroll tax. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What reports has he seen indicating Australia’s payroll tax stamp duty and complicated GST system make Australia a better place for small to medium sized enterprises to do business? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I can confirm that I have received no official reports suggesting that. In fact the only person who seems to think that these are great ideas is the Leader of the Opposition. However I do note in a report that more businesses in New South Wales favour a reduction in compliance burden to lower taxes. Of course if they moved to New Zealand they could have both. 
Paul Adams 
: How can the Minister continue to claim to have eased the tax burden on small businesses when for the second year running the Business New Zealand - KPMG compliance cost survey reports that tax compliance costs cause the greatest angst for smaller businesses or is he relying on the tarot cards to predict when these mysterious benefits for small businesses might materialise? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I do not go to that member’s church for tarot cards but having stated that the KPMG Business New Zealand compliance cost survey noted that compliance costs have actually reduced by an average of 17 percent per business.
Pettis Jill: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18637] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Stephen Franks 
: That’s a disgrace. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Stephen Franks 
: It’s a disgrace. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet Mr Franks. You will sit— 
Stephen Franks 
: I don’t care if you are on your feet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will you please be seated. You have one more chance. [ 
Interruption 
] Will you just go? Leave the Chamber. 
Stephen Franks 
: That was a disgrace. The Minister attacked me personally and I have had no opportunity to speak. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave the Chamber. Mr Franks if you continue I will name you. 
Stephen Franks withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to put the vote. I will refer members to Speaker’s ruling 9/5: “Once the chairperson has accepted a closure motion and commenced to put the question it does not matter how far the chairperson gets; under [Standing Order 51] the time to report progress is deferred until the closure and any consequential questions are determined.” I intend to take the vote and then I will hear the points of order.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8948] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; 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 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to omit words from new section 38E(2) in clause 18 be agreed to.
Peters Jim: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Peters Jim: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21182] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that there was an order given by someone in the House to sit down and I do not believe that person was you. If you are going to allow that interruption then I beg that you give due consideration to what was said. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Several comments were made at the time. I take the member’s point. [ 
Interruption 
] No there was not. A couple of points were raised and I take the member’s point. I was on my feet and was telling the member to sit down. But I thank the member anyway.
Pettis Jill: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5150] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barker Rick: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17264] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to respond briefly to a couple of points. Firstly in response to Dr Mapp yes it is fair to say that this bill does not take a back-to-first-principles measure on any of these things. This bill is very modest in what it sets out to do. It sets out to tidy up a number of the technical issues around the broadcasting provisions in the legislation which have been there for quite some time and have been reported on by select committees after the last 3 general elections. By putting this bill through I was simply trying to tidy that up. I accept the point Dr Mapp made that we need to have a more general look at the Electoral Act at some point in the future. Hopefully we will get some agreement on how we will do that and how soon. There are not only broadcasting issues but a range of other issues as well that the select committee has discussed from time to time. I believe it is timely to come back and have a broader look at electoral matters and I would be keen to see the select committee do that. 
The second issue I raise is the amendment put forward by Murray Smith to clause 18. I have been asked by Mr Smith to have a close look at it and I have done so. I have consulted my officials. Clause 18 amends the amount of time from 30 days to 50 days. It seems that the Justice and Electoral Committee has considered the issues raised by the amendment quite seriously and thoroughly and has extended the time in which bills can be paid from 30 days to 50 days. As the select committee has come back with a unanimous view on that and that is its recommendation I am reluctant to make any changes. I am persuaded by the select committee’s position. Fifty days seems to me to be fine. 
Dail Jones 
: Working days? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Working days. It is a long time and I am happy to stay with that. The last thing I will add is again in response to Mr Mapp. I accept that this is a modest bill and that we need to make some more fundamental changes later on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I will inform the Committee of the altered results for the votes on Part 1. The result for the vote on the closure motion is now Ayes 71 Noes 45. The vote on the amendment in the name of the honourable member Rod Donald to clause 4A is Ayes 17 Noes 98. The vote on the Minister’s amendments is now Ayes 90 Noes 25.
Tisch Lindsay: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17047] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I note that the Government is moving closure motions on a very important part of this bill Part 2. We have now been going for 3 hours on this part and 25 calls have been taken. I ask you to compare that with Part 1 on which we spent over 3½ hours and had 36 calls. Some National spokespeople want to speak and they have been seeking the call. Dr Wayne Mapp who was on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee has been seeking a second and a third call for the last couple of hours. I ask that you take that into consideration before you consider the closure motion.
Carter John: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
Carter John: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
[Volume:625;Page:20493] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The important issue in this matter is the paramountcy of our Parliament. Mr Queen endeavoured to try to force a committee of the Parliament to take an action it did not want to take. One of the important things for us to uphold in our democratic system is the right of the Parliament to make its own decisions. We must always be able to make decisions in our own right without outside interference. The good thing that has happened in this matter particularly through the court cases is that that is exactly what the courts found. The judgment states: “There is a comity between the Courts leaving the House of Representatives alone to conduct its proceedings and the House of Representatives respecting the exclusive authority of the Judges of the High Court to declare what the law made by Parliament is.” 
It is absolutely important that that remain so because there is a clear line between our right to make law and the courts’ right to interpret and administer it. Mr Queen as a citizen of our country decided that he wanted to interfere with that decision and with that principle. The Privileges Committee found that it was appropriate for us to make no further recommendation because the courts had found correctly that this Parliament has the right to make decisions on behalf of the people without interference. This report in recommending that no further action be taken upholds that. A very important matter that members of Parliament who have not been involved in this might want to remind themselves of is the principle of our right as a Parliament to make decisions without interference.
Dunne Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18570] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I assure the House that I will speak briefly in support of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to offer a clarification and one substantive point in favour of the bill and to give the House an assurance. 
The clarification I offer is that it may have been lost in the course of the last speech that it was from a member of the Green Party which is opposed to the suppression of terrorism in New Zealand. As I tried to listen to that speech I almost became persuaded that Mr Locke had a point. We do not need anti-terrorism legislation; we could simply let the Greens loose on every terrorist organisation and they could bore them into submission and surrender! 
More seriously the substantive point that I want to make is that this is relatively straightforward legislation. The rollover of the designations is simply a practical move because otherwise the courts would do nothing more for the next 2 years but deal with those designations. I do not think the citizenry would find that to be particularly satisfactory. With regard to the extension in clause 8 which the Minister referred to it is important to note that clause 4 refers to what those terrorist organisations might be and that is organisations that although not designated as terrorist have actually been involved in the carrying out of one or more terrorist acts. I think the concern that we are broadening the law unnecessarily is dealt with by that provision. 
My final point is to offer the House in general and my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in particular an assurance that even though the resolution that accompanies the introduction of this bill gives the committee wide powers to sit all over the place I do not intend that we use those powers anything other than sparsely. I hope that with the cooperation that normally prevails in the committee we can get by without using them. But I am conscious that there is a deadline in place and that is why it is necessary to have that requirement. 
Ron Mark 
: Couldn’t we go to Iraq to sample first-hand the terrorism experience? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: If it were possible that that could be arranged it might be that we came back with one or two members less. 
Ron Mark 
: Learn to understand the terrorists! Be at one with them! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Yes we could try to bond with them and they might well try to bond with one or two from our side. But more seriously I simply say on United Future’s behalf—and I echo the comments made by other speakers—that we cannot be too vigilant in terms of our response to international terrorism. This legislation is a sensible step forward and I welcome its introduction.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7750] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6185] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 26 
Adams 
Coddington (P) 
Ogilvy 
Te Heuheu 
Alexander 
Copeland 
Roy 
Turner 
Ardern (P) 
Eckhoff (P) 
Scott (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Awatere Huata 
Franks 
Shirley 
Wong (P) 
Baldock 
Heatley (P) 
Smith L 
Brash (P) 
Key (P) 
Smith M 
Teller: 
Carter C (P) 
Newman (P) 
Smith N 
Mapp 
Noes 85 
Anderton (P)  
Duynhoven  
King 
Samuels (P)  
Barker (P)r 
Dyson (P) 
Laban (P) 
Simich 
Barnett 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke (P) 
Sowry 
Beyer 
Fairbrother (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Stewart 
Bradford 
Field (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Brown  
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Swain (P) 
Brownlee (P)  
Gallagher 
Mallard (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Burton (P) 
Goff 
Mark (P) 
Tanczos 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche 
McNair (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Carter J 
Goudie 
O’Connor (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Catchpole 
Gudgeon (P) 
Paraone (P)  
Turei (P) 
Chadwick 
Hartley 
Parker (P) 
Turia (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hide 
Perry (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Collins 
Hobbs (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Woolerton (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Worth (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hughes 
Power (P) 
Yates 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Rich 
Donald (P) 
Jones (P) 
Ririnui 
Donnelly (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Robertson 
Teller: 
Duncan (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Robson (P) 
Pettis 
Amendments to the amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We come now to the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 providing for local authorities to make by-laws relating to signage and location of brothels etc. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to omit clauses 6C and 6D and heading above and substitute new clauses 6C to 6E be agreed to.