edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16353] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I wish to take a short call on Part 4 “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions”. The reason for this call is that over the dinner break I had been considering the speech made by Stephen Franks and his great concerns about the powers of search and seizure without the authorisation of a District Court judge or court registrar. As the bill stands it allows an authorised person to carry out those powers in clause 65 which include entering a place inspecting taking or making copies and search and seizure including search and seizure of any equipment but also of an in vitro gamete an in vitro embryo or documents or records. 
The major concern is the inappropriate seizure of in vitro gametes embryos or in vitro foetuses by the so-called authorised person without having gone to the length of getting authority through a District Court judge or court registrar. Clearly on the practicality of this situation in New Zealand it is unlikely to occur. However they are quite draconian measures if one considers the importance of in vitro gametes embryos or foetuses and the likelihood that in their removal from a laboratory or in transportation those elements could be destroyed or certainly ruined for the purposes for which their biological parents expected them to be used. 
I am aware of the fact that in some of the clinics around Australasia there has been fierce competition and there have been situations whereby for one reason or another they have brought law suits against each other. One could be concerned if for some commercial reason the so-called authorised person was indeed given false information leading to seizure of gametes embryos or foetuses. I thought that there may just be some use in putting in a new clause 65(1)(j) that would state: “In order for authorised persons to exercise their powers of seizure they must first obtain the authority of a District Court judge or Court Registrar.” Really that is just to ensure that appropriate process has been gone through and that every effort is made to ensure that delicate gametes embryos or foetuses would not be inappropriately transported particularly without the knowledge of the people who had the greatest interest. I would like the Committee to consider that amendment. It is a small amendment but I think that in very exceptional circumstances such a situation could cause extraordinary damage. 
I would be very pleased if Dianne Yates were prepared to take a call to give us her opinion as to where and how far those powers of search and seizure could be abused. I believe that my amendment does give belt and braces to ensure that in the very rare likelihood that that happened there would at least be a court registrar or District Court judge ensuring that the proper process had taken place.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Troops—Withdrawal from Iraq 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Troops—Withdrawal from Iraq 
[Volume:620;Page:15754] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the reported pulling out of New Zealand troops from Iraq. Newspaper speculation on a matter is not in itself a particular case of recent occurrence that would give grounds for a debate. In this case the Minister of Defence is reported as having said that New Zealand is at the end of a commitment to provide aid and assistance to Iraq and I am prepared to accept that that comment is a particular case involving ministerial responsibility. However I do not consider that the drawing to a close of a commitment is in itself of sufficient importance to require a debate to be held on the matter today. The application is therefore denied.
Vote: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7285] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the votes the preamble clauses 1 to 13 and schedule 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Votes preamble clauses 1 to 13 and schedule 6 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5258] 
11.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What steps is the Government taking to honour Labour’s manifesto commitment to have 250000 New Zealanders involved in industry training by 2007? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Today the Government has announced an $85 million Budget 2003 package to take the number of workers involved in industry training during 2005 to 150000. This is a significant step towards the Labour-Progressive goal of having a quarter of a million New Zealanders involved in industry training by 2007. Business New Zealand has welcomed the package and the Council of Trade Unions has called it “great news for workers”. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise the House further about initiatives undertaken to raise the profile of industry training within New Zealand so that we may better meet those targets? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One crucial initiative is the partnership that has been formed between the Government the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand. Together we will work on an $800000 campaign announced today to encourage more enterprises to join the industry training programme enabling them to produce more profitable goods and more profitable services. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister claim his announcement today as a success when the funding may fall from $837.38 per trainee in 2003 to $744.67 per trainee in 2005? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not sure what the member is referring to because the standard measure of the usual form of payment for trainees during a year runs from $1700 I think from memory to about $3500. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that unions will be represented in the governance of industry training organisations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We reviewed the entire industry training area last year and a document was released at that time. Legislation—the Tertiary Education Reform Bill—will ensure that will happen. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What is the Government doing to investigate the future needs of the workforce for industry training? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We have committed a $50000 sum to an initiative—which the Progressives I am pleased to say are enthusiastically supportive of—to develop a proposal for a national centre for education and research in the vocational area. If that proves to be a worthwhile initiative we will then fund the establishment of such a centre. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is he concerned that the measures announced today to increase the level of industry training may be mitigated by the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill if it has the effect of causing the loss of jobs over time as suggested I notice in the explanatory note on the bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I am not. The evidence worldwide is that as long as the minimum wage is set at a level that is commensurate with the ability of employers to pay there is no loss of employment.
Children’s Commissioner Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Children’s Commissioner Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
Children’s Commissioner Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Children’s Commissioner Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
Shirley Ken: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
[Volume:627;Page:22268] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party joins other parties in the House in supporting this motion. We commend the Health Committee which presented its report on 6 July. ACT’s Heather Roy is a very active member of that committee and she has advised our caucus that this measure is very worthy of support. We note of course that it is aimed at the pushers by tacking the change to the order on to presumption of supply with amphetamines. 
We all know the damage that substance abuse associated with the misuse of amphetamines and methamphetamines is causing in our society. That damage is very severe although I note and the point has already been made that alcohol taken as a substance is possibly even more dangerous. But that is not to condone the use of amphetamines or any substance abuse. 
The issue in our society is what is causing people—particularly young people but not exclusively young people—to engage in substance abuse. We have things like glue in our hardware stores. People can buy a 10-litre tin of glue and do immense damage to themselves through substance abuse. For that matter they could buy gallons of petrol at the petrol station. As a substance itself petrol would do them harm if it was abused. So the real issue is what is causing people to abuse these substances thereby doing themselves harm and too often others harm in the process. 
So without any hesitation the ACT party supports this motion which is aimed at those who are pushing the misuse of these substances.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21258] 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: Does he remain committed to upholding his statement of 6 May 2004 in relation to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill that it “does not establish a new avenue for legal aid”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm reports from Judge Joe Williams Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court that six new appointments to the bench of that court are imminent; and can he also confirm that Treasury Budget documents state that most of those new appointments will be the result of the Foreshore and Seabed Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is expected that additional appointments to the Maori Land Court will be required to deal with applications though I think so far there have been only about two applications to it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Then can the Minister tell us why Cabinet has approved six new appointments to that bench? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is in anticipation of their being required to deal with applications. Of course should those applications not eventuate then that may have an impact on requirements in the future. 
Dail Jones 
: Can the Minister confirm that those appointments were indicated by the Court of Appeal in the Ngati Apa case when it indicated that the new jurisdiction and the extra work that would arise would require further appointments to the Maori Land Court; and that the Government is merely following the Court of Appeal’s recommendation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is correct. Those who did not support passing legislation in relation to the Ngati Apa decision would have been left in that position in any case. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister participated in discussions that have resulted in a commitment for the Labour Government should it be returned to the Treasury benches to support Nanaia Mahuta’s bill that allows foreshore and seabed claimants access to legal aid? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17567] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora (P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson (P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to.
Offices of Parliament—Presentation of Address to Governor-General 
Offices of Parliament—Presentation of Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:617;Page:12539] 
Offices of Parliament—Presentation of Address to Governor-General 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that the Address agreed to by the House relating to the alterations to the appropriations for the 2003-04 financial year for Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations for the 2004-05 financial year for those votes was transmitted to Her Excellency the Governor-General on Thursday 8 April 2004.
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8816] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We have covered this point of order. 
PETER BROWN 
: I must insist that we recall the Speaker. I take this matter very seriously and I ask that the Speaker be recalled. I move accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has moved that the Speaker be recalled. The ayes have it. 
House resumed.
Tamihere John: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Tamihere John: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4239] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to talk about issues regarding clause 103 that were raised by Rodney Philip Hide of the ACT party. Clause 103 should be renamed “Kiwi Protection Clause Against Rodney Hide and the ACT Rort Party”. The reason the clause should be so renamed is that when payments are disputed—and in large part they are disputed by larger corporates—[ 
Interruption 
] There is Rodney Hide protecting his mates. He worked for Tappenden Holdings with his friends Gibbs and Farmer. I have to tell members that these clauses are vitally important to protect the revenue of the nation against white–collar gold-pen pushing people who owe the State $4 billion. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Does the Chair seriously think it is in order for John Tamihere to speak like that—because he is a guy who has actually been done for fraud in the courts of this country. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member wishing to speak to the point of order? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Well it was not a point of order so I wanted to get your steer so that I can get on with my speech. He is trying to break it up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Members need to stick to the bill and be orderly otherwise it will lead to disorder. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I refer to the requirement for payment of disputed tax and the requirement for a discretion on the part of the commissioner. We must protect the revenue. There is $4 billion outstanding and it is owed particularly by corporates who dance and use smart alec accountants and lawyers to defeat the purposes. The wage earners and salary earners in this country are the honest Kiwis. They make up 89 percent of the payers and they pay on the knocker every time. We have to protect them against the types of people from the rort party. That is what clause 103 is all about. Clause 103 protects the revenue and it protects the revenue from the types of people Rodney Hide is in Parliament to look after.
Duynhoven Harry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17077] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donald Rod: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Donald Rod: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7678] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I start by saying that we are a party that does not usually take points of order but our level of frustration has reached the point where we feel obliged to make an issue of this. We invite you to take Gordon Copeland’s advice and reflect on this matter. In particular you need to look at the minutes of the Business Committee meeting which clearly state that the speaking order would be as agreed at that committee. It is in writing. No stunt was pulled by anybody. There was quite some debate at the Business Committee about the order of speaking today as a result of the chaos that was created by ACT in the 8-hour estimates debate. I request that you reflect on the minutes of that meeting. Otherwise the whole integrity of any decision taken at the Business Committee is undermined if we are to relitigate every decision in this House that the committee has made.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7302] 
8.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What is the Ministry of Youth Affairs doing to increase awareness and participation of Maori and Pacific young people in the Young New Zealanders Challenge? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 The Young New Zealanders Challenge is part of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards system in New Zealand. A new position has been created in south Auckland for a person to work alongside the community to inform young people about and to encourage them to participate in that programme. 
Darren Hughes 
: How does current funding for youth development programmes like the one the Minister just referred to compare with funding in previous years? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Spending on youth development programmes has increased by 20 percent from $7.07 million in the last Budget introduced by the previous National Government to $8.838 million in this year’s Budget. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Minister concerned that 33.4 percent of Maori and 24.8 percent of Pacific Islanders left school with no qualifications in 2001 and would he agree that the Ministry of Youth Affairs would be better to concentrate its efforts on encouraging young people to focus on the primary goal of education rather than on secondary activities such as the Young New Zealanders Challenge? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The Minister is always concerned. 
Craig McNair 
: In the face of the alarming child poverty youth suicide and youth crime statistics is the Minister confident that the Government which is sitting on a Budget surplus of $4 billion is showing stickability commitment and reliability to our nation’s young people? [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought I asked the question of the Minister of Youth Affairs but a member over here answered it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will listen to the Minister answer it; I am not listening to anyone else. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am sorry; I have lost track of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a sign to members that they are wasting time. I want the member now to re-ask the question. 
Craig McNair 
: For the pleasure of Stephen Franks here is my question again: in the face of the alarming child poverty youth suicide and youth crime statistics is the Minister confident that the Government which is sitting on a Budget surplus of $4 billion is showing stickability commitment and reliability to our nation’s young people? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yes the Minister is confident.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6640] 
11.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Transport 
: What steps is he taking to enhance boat safety in New Zealand? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 This month I launched a new maritime rule requiring all recreational boaties to have a suitable life jacket for every person on board. Last year 18 of the 25 deaths that occurred during recreational boating could have been prevented if life jackets were worn. I believe that adherence to this new life jacket rule along with other safety measures will have a significant impact on recreational boating incidents. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Acknowledging the large number of deaths caused through not wearing life jackets can the Associate Minister tell the House what other steps the Government is taking to reduce deaths in recreational boating? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The Government recognises that in themselves the new maritime rules will not guarantee a change in behaviour. However the Maritime Safety Authority continues to work hard to educate the boating community on the importance of life jackets through a television campaign run over the past 6 months. We are now able to add “and it is the law” to that message. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Is there anything proposed to enhance safety in wakas? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The requirement to carry personal flotation devices does not apply if the training or the ceremonial event is supervised and if a support vessel is able to assist in an emergency remains nearby and carries enough personal flotation devices for everyone on board—in this case the waka. In practice the national waka safety guidelines established jointly by iwi and the Maritime Safety Authority in 2001 have meant that the use of support craft and the implementation of safety plans have become routine.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8157] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 114 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 116(3) be agreed to.
Points of Order — Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill—Procedure Request for Apology—“Rope-head” Comments Made in House 
Points of Order — Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill—Procedure Request for Apology—“Rope-head” Comments Made in House 
[Volume:620;Page:15946] 
Points of Order 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill—Procedure 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For reasons that I am prepared to divulge if necessary last night I sought through the Chair of the Committee of the whole House to obtain information on who voted for and against clauses and parts where parties were recording a split vote. I am well aware that that procedure was agreed to in the Business Committee but it never occurred to me or my colleagues that we would be denied that information. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That bill is still before the Committee. I cannot rule at this stage. The time to raise that point of order is once we get back into Committee on that bill. 
Request for Apology—“Rope-head” Comments Made in House 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While we are on the subject of apologies I want to say that yesterday in the House my colleague Rod Donald raised a point of order in which he asked the Rt Hon Winston Peters to withdraw his “rope-head” comment if it had been intended in a derogatory manner and you asked Mr Peters to withdraw that comment if that had been the case. The Rt Hon Winston Peters responded with: “I asked the Minister as to which parties are out there supporting rope-heads which clearly suggests that they are not in this Parliament.” I have subsequently examined the  
Hansard  
and have found that Mr Peters said: “ … and which parties support the rope-head view expressed by a certain member of this Parliament?”. I am raising this point of order in the House to allow Winston Peters the opportunity to withdraw his comment and apologise; otherwise I do intend to take this further as a matter of privilege by way of his deliberately misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I get any letter to that effect of course I will rule on that matter then. That is nothing to do with me at this stage.
Hartley Ann: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17497] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: When the debate finished last night Stephen Franks was speaking. He has 2 minutes and 15 seconds remaining should he wish to continue.
Simich Clem: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21635] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes I make the choice of speakers. I note that you do not agree with it but it will remain Dr Mapp and we will come to you in due course.
Chadwick Steve: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13170] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to take a quick call on this bill. I also was on the Government Administration Committee and I refute the allegations of the member opposite that a sneaky tax was imposed. The Government had to move very quickly. We had to do something new and innovative to protect our export market and the member opposite knows that. We could not have a secure export partnership scheme without new costs. 
The Minister stated clearly today that the Government has listened to industry and has made a shift in its contribution. It will contribute to 50 percent. I was on the committee and heard the need to reconsider. We have reconsidered. If we want to export we had to move on our secure export partnership scheme. This is a result of that move. This is a very sound bill worked through very ably by the Government Administration Committee. I support this bill.
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20580] 
7.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Is he confident that the interest-charging procedures of banks operating in New Zealand are subject to adequate legal scrutiny? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Mostly. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that Gray Eatwell and the Bank Customers Action Collective have made numerous efforts to have the interest-charging procedures of the Bank of New Zealand investigated by various authorities including the Serious Fraud Office the Commerce Commission the Banking Ombudsman and the Minister of Finance yet to date a full investigation has not been undertaken; and does he think that is acceptable? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware of the gentleman’s activity over many years and I am aware of his group. I am also aware that the authorities that he has approached have pretty well universally come to the view that he does not have prima facie evidence apart from that in his own case in which the Bank of New Zealand overcharged him and then refunded him about $20000. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware of an overseas court finding that the National Irish Bank has been engaged in illegal interest overcharging and given the fact that the National Australia Bank was the parent company of the National Irish Bank at the time and is still the parent company of the Bank of New Zealand has he considered whether the New Zealand authorities are giving this matter the amount of attention it properly deserves? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that as soon as they are presented with sufficient prima facie evidence I would be confident that they would act. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister consider appointing a suitable forensic accountant to conduct a preliminary investigation into this matter so that the facts can be established and justice finally delivered to the Bank Customers Action Collective after its 10-year fight; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No we already have investigative and enforcement agencies in the form of the Commerce Commission or if there is fraudulent activity the Serious Fraud Office and it is to those bodies which are independent of the Crown that Mr Eatwell or anyone else should turn.
Points of Order — Debate on Iraq 
Points of Order — Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3941] 
Points of Order 
Debate on Iraq 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to set aside time tomorrow for a debate on the situation in Iraq and for that debate to take place immediately after question time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to be clear here. There was a Business Committee meeting this afternoon. My understanding from Dr Cullen was that that would be a suitable motion. I wonder whether the Labour whips might want to discuss it. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 The offer that was made at the Business Committee by the Leader of the House was that a debate on Iraq could take place after the debate on the Budget Policy Statement. That was declined by the member who is raising the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave was sought. It has been objected to.
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 the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 8 and the following amendment in his name to schedule 8 be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (7) from the item relating to section 19 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8279] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Perhaps it would assist with clarity if I tell the Committee that we did try to work with the member who was moving the amendment to have it included as part of clause 3(a) but because the member could not agree to that change I decided that it was important to follow up on the points. Although I could not agree to the stand-alone paragraph (d) I actually moved it in my name.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19684] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Firstly I want to make it clear that all members were invited to the dinner last night. In case some of them already had engagements or their secretaries did not tell them about it I make it clear that they were all invited to the dinner last night. That is the custom of this House in those circumstances. Secondly Standing Order 38 is a statement of the condition under which a sitting of the House can occur in exactly the same way as the quorum requirement was a statement of the conditions under which a sitting of the House must occur. Equally under the old rules a quorum could have been withdrawn—which is precisely what I did as senior Government whip and the Opposition then had to provide the numbers on a members’ day after threatening to withdraw its own members.
Dalziel Lianne: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Dalziel Lianne: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14191] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I wish to speak in the third reading of the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2). The National Opposition spokesperson on justice has commented on the excellent contribution of the Minister who has represented the Government’s position very well tonight and I would like to fully endorse that. The Minister has represented the Government’s position on behalf of us all. I am fully supportive of these two bills. I reject the assertion of the National Opposition spokesperson that this legislation in fact offends against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Ongoing monitoring actually protects against further offending and against there being further victims of sexual offences. The Justice and Electoral Committee report acknowledged that some people do not regard that as a punishment but as a sensible protection on both sides of the equation. I just want to place on record that I am one of those. I do not regard such monitoring as a punishment. I regard it as a sensible protection and a sensible course of action for this House to follow and I endorse the legislation.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20062] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add to section 134A the following new subclause: 
(5)the defences referred to in subsection (1) shall only be available to persons who are of the age of 21 years or under.
Hartley Ann: General Debates 
Hartley Ann: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6572] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Now we find ourselves in a dilemma. I have heard the member— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I asked the member about that and he said he did not repeat the comment. The member’s word is accepted. That is the end of the matter.
Horomia Parekura: Personal Explanations — Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
Horomia Parekura: Personal Explanations — Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:609;Page:6122] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yesterday in the House I said that I— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is objection.
Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:608;Page:5761] 
Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2003 (B.7). I move  
That that paper be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20955] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek further advice. I notice that there is an urgent matter on the Order Paper that is likely to fall off in the very near future. It is a notice of motion that was lodged on 7 December 2004 and I think that notices of motion stay on the Order Paper for only a limited number of days—something like 42 days. We must be coming rapidly to a point when this particular notice of motion will fall off the Order Paper. I seek your guidance as to whether there could be a discussion with the Speaker—perhaps tomorrow morning or at some other convenient time—as to whether it would be possible to have something like this important notice of motion added to the urgency motion. Effectively a Cabinet Minister has been referred to as a traitor and the House most certainly should have something to say about that particularly since that particular Cabinet Minister was only too quick to use the word “traitor” himself about an official in his own department who has taken an important step in recent days for the public good of New Zealand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has sufficiently described the motion. I thank him for raising that issue. I have no doubt that the Speaker will be prepared to listen to the member in the morning as suggested. Members’ notices of motion fall off the Order Paper but Ministers’ notices of motion stay on it. That is perhaps the reason why that one remains on the Order Paper. The Speaker will I am sure be only too happy to discuss the matter in the morning.
Vote: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7409] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8279] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 3(c) be agreed to: 
to add after the words “in New Zealand” the words “; such migrants to be people who have jobs approved for them before they come to New Zealand such jobs being real vacancies and not jobs taken from existing workers in New Zealand.”
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:7782] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4661] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 83 
Noes 35 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Commerce Committee. referred to the Commerce Committee 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.
Urgent Debates Declined — Land Access Report 
Urgent Debates Declined — Land Access Report 
[Volume:610;Page:7835] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Land Access Report 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the report of the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I cannot agree that a report that has been issued for consultation over the next few months requires attention by way of urgent debate. The application is declined.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9967] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9028] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I know my colleague behind me is going to seek leave but I wonder whether for the future when we go through this process you could explain exactly what will occur with Ministers’ amendments. Are we now going to see Ministers’ amendments in future bills adhering to Standing Order 301 and being put upfront on each occasion or are we going to see them being put at the end? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the amendments are at the same place they will go upfront and any Opposition ones thereafter will be ruled out. That is quite specific according to the Standing Order. Of course the Standing Orders Committee is looking at this whole thing. This is a very interesting point. Mr Tisch wanted to seek leave. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Before we do that Mr Speaker can I just say that I think this is quite a substantial change. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not a change but it is an interesting point and I can see the point that is being made. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: So from now on when we go into the Committee of the whole House a Minister’s amendments will be where the Minister requests them to be moved as one. Let us say that we are dealing with Part 1 and the Minister has amendments—to use Dr Cullen’s example—to clauses 7 and 14 when we come to vote on the part the Minister’s amendments will be put first. I am just trying to understand—if the Opposition— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If they are in the same place. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Yes let us come to that. Let us say that a part has 14 clauses and within that part the Minister has amendments to clauses 7 and 14 the Opposition has amendments to clauses 6 and 12 and the Minister requires his or her amendments to be put as one question. Do I take it that the Opposition’s amendment to clause 6 would be put then the Minister’s amendments to clauses 7 and 14 would be put as one question then the Opposition’s amendment to for example clause 12 may or may not be put depending on whether the Minister’s amendments were passed? If the Minister’s amendments were passed then it may be that the Opposition’s amendment could not be put because the part was already amended? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a very interesting question. From the example the member has given it does not seem to me that they would be in the same place. I will have a look at this. I will look at the whole transcript and if necessary I will come back with something further. Unless leave is forthcoming the only question remaining is that the part stand part.
Vote: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12903] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.