edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11250] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 New clause 2A in Supplementary Order Paper 190 is the clause that will extend privileges and immunities to members private servants and family members of European Commission delegations. Supplementary Order Paper 190 has been tabled only today and members are trying to ascertain exactly what the wording in new clause 2A covers.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18551] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I want to confirm that what the senior Labour whip has said is absolutely right. Back in last December the Business Committee considered the matter of the Maori Affairs Committee travelling to Kawerau but being considered on that occasion to be present in the House for the purpose of voting. The minutes were circulated and all members accepted that. The difficulty though is that it was not until 8 February—Tuesday of this week—that the Business Committee was notified that this bill would be on the Order Paper today. The question was asked of Dr Michael Cullen Leader of the House as to why he was putting this bill forward on a day when Maori Affairs Committee members would not be here. He said it was because there was no other day on which he could do it. Although there were arrangements and accommodations sought and in part made particularly about the runanga bill and other such matters there was no such gracious move on the part of the Government to see this bill debated on a day when the members who had done the work behind it could all be here to speak to it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: On the basis of fairness I have allowed one member from each side of the House to voice his or her concerns. I would like to inform the House that it is not a matter for a point of order; it is actually a matter for debate. 
Jim Peters 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell the member I have already ruled that it is not a matter for a point of order; it is a matter for debate as to whether the committee meets here or elsewhere.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8489] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20021] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Obituaries — Ronald Reagan—Former United States President  
Peters Winston: Obituaries — Ronald Reagan—Former United States President  
[Volume:618;Page:13541] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Ronald Reagan had a commitment to patriotism. He genuinely loved his people and they loved him in return and that is what endeared him to the people of America. He acquired international standing in a statesmanlike manner and he was able to break down barriers and build bridges in their place—most notably the end of the Eastern and Western blocs and the cold war period—and contrary to historic expectation he saw a significant de-escalation in nuclear weapons during his time. 
He had a certain sincerity and warmth that resonated with his people. At the end of two terms in office in 1988 no President ever campaigned so hard for his successor which speaks much of his generosity. He also had a great sense of humour as one was reminded when he commented to his wife about the shooting of him: “Nancy I forgot to duck.” 
In respect of an act of terrorism in his time we recall he put planes in the air to get the terrorists back and his famous comment was “They can run but they can’t hide.”—to borrow from the famous comment made by Joe Louis. If I could perhaps use a modern variation today having regard to the recent change of leadership of a certain party in this House: “They can Hide but they still can’t run.”! The fact is that by the end of Ronald Reagan’s very very exciting political life and term in 1988 it was truly for most Americans “morning again in America”. We pay our respects to him and his memory.
Pettis Jill: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21863] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call. I was listening very carefully to Pita Paraone and was most interested in what he had to say about the preamble to the bill and what it did not contain. I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Maori Affairs Committee so if the member gets another opportunity to take a call I would be interested to hear an explanation. If the preamble is lacking in its description of what actually happened to Nga Rauru Kitahi and the history of the area why was that not inserted into the preamble during the select committee process? I would genuinely like to hear about that.
[Volume:619;Page:15077] 
Hemp seeds as the member knows cannot be distinguished from seeds with high THC without growing them and testing the resultant plant for THC. Only scientific testing can measure the levels of THC in plant material to distinguish between hemp and cannabis. So it would have meant that police and the Customs Service would have had to undertake scientific tests on every plant seed or cannabis preparation imported before a charge could be laid in relation to a cannabis offence. So when we looked at this issue and looked at where we go to in the future I believe we needed to take cautious steps.
Pettis Jill: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15731] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have had over an hour on this part but I think the Committee would like to hear some more good sense.
Tanczos Nandor: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Tanczos Nandor: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17519] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I apologise. I genuinely thought that that was what the member had said. Mr Brown pointed out that the member described himself as a redneck but not as a bigot. That is fair enough. I withdraw my comment regarding the word “bigot”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 My point is quite succinct. It is very clear that what Taito Phillip Field was up to was public business because with this Labour Government MPs former MPs and indeed Prime Ministers being interviewed by the police is almost a daily occurrence. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If that member wishes to stay in the House she will make no further interjections.
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17171] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Continue with the point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If a person takes a point of order it should not come off that person’s allocated speaking time.
Brown Peter: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20609] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First’s position can be summarised very very briefly. We have major reservations about this bill and about what could develop from it in this country. We considered it at some length in caucus this morning and at other times and we are nervous that this legislation will open the door to a flood of—what can I say—low-valued imports coming into this country. Those imports will be produced in—[ 
Interruption 
]—conditions like those that that member has just reminded me occur on fishing boats that operate in this country. We do not share the confidence of the member who has just resumed her seat. 
New Zealand First at this point in time will not support at all this bill going to a select committee. We were tempted to support its going to a select committee but after a wider discussion we reassessed our position. We can see the door opening here to all sorts of goods and commodities. Even if they are not produced in Thailand they may come through the back door of China and end up in this country to the detriment of New Zealand’s employment. [ 
Interruption 
] The member there believes everything this Government says it will do with regard to this sort of bill. We believe that those things are all very well in theory but do not quite work out that way in practice. So with quite some reservation we are opposing this bill. I do not think I should say any more. It seems that the Government has the numbers in support of this bill and we will follow the development of the bill with interest. However New Zealand First is not prepared to support the referral of this bill to a select committee.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20949] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit the following definitions:  
action child civil custody community-based sentence detention quarter home detention Judge Advocate General penal institution specified internal and external complaints mechanisms 
 and  
young person 
.
Field Taito Phillip: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17904] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6308] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 54 be agreed to.
Peck Mark: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3728] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8159] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:614;Page:10569] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report on the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003 to be extended to 13 February 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Hunt Jonathan: Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hunt Jonathan: Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3258] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call on the Prime Minister I want to say that this statement of course has already been given to party leaders and I require that the statement and the following addresses from party leaders be heard in relative silence.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8115] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am prepared to put the leave question again. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Would the member please ask the question. No? I then call question No. 9 Sue Kedgley.
Cosgrove Clayton: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Cosgrove Clayton: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3382] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document referred to by Mr Gallagher. It is an article in the May 2002 edition of  
North and South 
 where Mr Hide states that he likes to work with drunks crooks thieves wife-beaters and fighters. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Mahuta Nanaia: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15861] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21492] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Paraone Pita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21873] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a call with regard to clause 13. I am probably just as guilty as anyone for not having picked up this issue during the select committee deliberations but on looking at the meaning of Nga Rauru Kitahi I see that according to clause 13(1)(a)(i) it means “individuals descended from 1 or more Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi tupuna; and (ii) every individual referred to in paragraph (a)(i); and (iii) every individual who is a member of a hapuu referred to in paragraph (b);”. Paragraph (b) then goes on to list all those hapu that quite clearly the negotiators on behalf of the claimant group have agreed should be included. 
I personally have no difficulty with that but I do have some difficulty with subclause (2) which states: “In this section and section 14 Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi tupuna means a person who exercised customary rights—(a) by virtue of being descended from—(i) Rauru;”. That is fine; in the make-up of iwi groups I understand that there is the iwi and then descended from that are the hapu. My real concern though is with subparagraph (ii) of clause 13(2)(a): “a recognised ancestor of any of the hapuu referred to in subsection (1)(b);”. So I pose the question of whether there is an ancestor of a particular hapu listed in clause 13(1)(b) who is not a descendant of the tupuna known as Rauru. If there is such a tupuna then I have to ask how has that tupuna become part of this settlement. 
As we know hapu descend from a clearly defined tupuna but in terms of subclause (2)(a)(ii) there is the suggestion that there may be a recognised or eponymous head of a particular hapu who may not have descended from the tupuna known as Rauru. So the provision does pose some questions as to the possible entitlement of a hapu whose eponymous head does not descend from the tupuna described as Rauru. Perhaps the Minister might take some advice from his officials and explain how that situation has been able to get to this stage. Otherwise I think it is a compliment to the iwi of Nga Rauru Kitahi that they are able to outline a number of their hapu whom they wish to have included in this settlement. 
I note for instance that there are a couple of Ngati Hine hapu and I suppose that if I had the time I would be able to make some connection with the Ngati Hine in the north. But I am sure that with Ngati Hine Waiatarua and Ngati Hine Waiata there is probably some connection between those two hapu—so there should be if in fact they both descend from the tupuna known as Rauru. However if there is a hapu included in that list whose eponymous head does not descend from Rauru then one needs to ask how come that hapu is included in this settlement. Other than that I do not think we have any truck with the definitions that have been outlined but we would ask the Minister to take a call to address that issue.
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:623;Page:18593] 
1. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Services Committee 
: What is the report-back date for the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill and what extensions have there been to the report-back date?  
GEORGINA BEYER (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the deputy chairperson of the Social Services Committee that the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill is due to be reported back to the House by 31 March 2005. The House has agreed by leave to one report-back date extension. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the committee receiving only 16 submissions even though the bill will impact on more than 3000 workers is the chairperson planning to take steps to ensure that families who will be affected have been adequately consulted; if not why not? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: That is a matter for the select committee itself to determine. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether the chairperson is planning to take steps to ensure wider consultation. I understand that that is a matter on which the chairperson can report to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the question was in order and the answer was in order. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Does she believe that the reason for the extension was to ensure that parents of disabled people in sheltered workshops have been adequately consulted and if they have not been why not? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: No. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just raise with you a point of consistency. Last week you asked me very politely to leave the House because I interjected before a person had started to speak and I did so. I did not get any warning and I left. When my colleague Dr Newman stood up to ask a question Ruth Dyson immediately called out and yelled at her. You said nothing Mr Speaker. Then while my colleague was taking a point of order Jill Pettis called out across the House. Again you took no action. I have to say when I look at it that it is hard not to feel somewhat aggrieved. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that the member can feel somewhat aggrieved. I was in error. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I seek leave to table 750 signatures of people who say that there has not been adequate consultation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a point of clarification. Should I feel somewhat aggrieved that Ruth Dyson and Jill Pettis were not thrown out or somewhat aggrieved that I was? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Take your pick.
Peters Winston: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Peters Winston: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8997] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will just give you an illustration. By your ruling I do not think that Dr Cullen would be able to make a speech. To be fair to him he makes pretty colourful speeches. They are valuable in terms of the parliamentary atmosphere and it would be very regrettable if that had to stop. I do not think David Lange would have been able to make any speeches at all if that ruling had stood. For example the comment: “Someone puts me in mind of nothing so much as a ventriloquist’s dummy.” might be a bit close to the mark but the point is capably made. There is a big difference between humour irony and analogy and a straight-out vicious remark that is a reflection on someone’s personality. It is a given in politics that members can have a rather less than flattering view of their opponents. A famous American said that his opponent put him in mind of nobody so much as Abraham Lincoln if one can imagine a short fat dishonest Abraham Lincoln. That is probably going a bit far in this Parliament but we have to be very careful about this rule; otherwise I will have to find myself a new occupation.
Burton Mark: Business of the House 
Burton Mark: Business of the House 
[Volume:623;Page:18496] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That private and local order of the day No. 1 for the second reading of the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill be postponed until after private and local order of the day No. 2 for the second reading of Te Runanga O Ngati Awa Bill. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20985] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 20 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (4) the following new paragraph: 
(d)Victim Support.
Pettis Jill: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11059] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call in support of the bill. The bill is significant in the new jurisdictions it will allow New Zealand to exercise over police and civilians who serve in special operations internationally. The bill is important and it will have good and full consideration during the Committee stage. I certainly look forward to it returning to the House. 
I am pleased to support the bill and I look forward to receiving further reports in due course.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: 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:10002] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Speaker there seems to be some concern over the acceptance of the closure motion. It is my recollection that I put the question that the question be now put I turned to the Government side and members said “Yes” and I turned to the Opposition and members said “No”. There was quite an uproar while this was going on and it was difficult to hear. I did eventually hear the Hon Peter Dunne take a point of order. I then took the point of order straight away. There the matter rests but there is some disagreement on how that happened. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear one comment.
Parker David: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Parker David: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4767] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10526] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7623] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20292] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15434] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand in support of the issues surrounding clause 5 and in particular the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled. I do so in particular on behalf of those iwi who have settled with the Crown. The Supplementary Order Paper seeks an amendment to give effect to those iwi who have already had their takiwa defined in terms of their deed of settlement. I do so in order to maintain the integrity and finality of those iwi that have already entered into the deed of settlement in the belief that they had reached a binding and final settlement that would endure not only when it was signed but also into the future. 
A further compelling point I would like to make is that there is no doubt the clear intention of the parties to those settlements was that the boundary or takiwa was to be applied for all purposes. This has been evidenced in its practical applications by both Crown agencies and local authorities. Allowing the boundaries to be relitigated where they have been defined in an existing settlement sets an adverse precedent. It will result in each resource allocation process being subject to boundary disputes. It could give rise to different boundaries for different resources. 
I want to say that as an example NgaiTahu have spent in excess of $13 million in litigation over this very issue. In all cases those competing iwi groups hapu groups or however members may want to describe them have failed in their attempts. There are considerable commercial implications in permitting a situation where an iwi boundary must be revalidated before allocation of assets is to occur. Iwi have waited 15 years in the case of pre-settlement assets and 12 years in the case of post-settlement assets to get allocation. Further they will impact on the ability of that iwi to develop tribal wealth and economic security. So therefore I ask that support be given to the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled particularly where we have asked for the insertion in clause 5 of definitions so that there is a definition for defined takiwa iwi a definition for takiwa defining deed of settlement and finally a takiwa defining enactment. So I seek support from all parties in this Chamber for that particular Supplementary Order Paper.
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15623] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I stand in support of my amendments in particular my proposed new clause 139A. Before I elaborate further I want to make similar points with regard to my concern about extending the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court to this issue. I reiterate my earlier concerns about this imposition on the Maori Land Court—a court that at the present time given its workload is not up to date with its work. The other concern is that it needs to be resourced properly and I have my doubts as to whether that will occur. This bill will impose more work on the court which essentially was set up to deal with land issues. 
With regard to the coastline in my earlier amendments I referred to the issue regarding the iwi who have already signed a deed of settlement with the Crown. As part of the deed all parties involved were shown the actual boundaries that their claim covered. It seems to me that under this bill that agreement is not recognised. Again it opens up the possibility of not only iwi but also those who wish to counterclaim against those iwi relitigating the issue of tribal boundaries and not least of all coastline. 
I believe that the bill should recognise tribal boundaries where they have already been agreed under the settlement because failure to do so would certainly allow litigants to go back to court and argue the very issues that have already been argued. NgaiTahu have spent exorbitant amounts of tribal funds defending their position and putting on the record their claim and as a consequence of High Court and Privy Council action they have had their claim justified. With this bill we have the possibility of tribes who do not agree with the NgaiTahu arrangement relitigating the issue. I just want to make sure that the Committee is aware of that because I know that when future claims are settled this very issue will come to the fore. 
The new clause I am seeking to include in the bill addresses those issues particularly where the dispute is based on facts or evidence previously raised in proceedings before a court and that relate to whether the area described in the relevant takiwa defining deed of settlement or takiwa defining enactment is in fact the takiwa of the defined takiwa iwi. Further to that the proceedings did not result in a finding that that area is not the takiwa that defines takiwa iwi. Therefore I think it is appropriate that my proposed clause should be inserted in the bill. Kia ora.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10246] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Families Commission Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20287] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Field Taito Phillip: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11054] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I think most New Zealanders understand the importance of environmental issues and the importance of meeting our obligations as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. It is important that we acknowledge the damage that has been done to our environment in relation to climate change from carbon dioxide emissions and I give enormous credit to the Government for this bill which confirms our efforts to reduce the greenhouse effect and climate change on this region and on the world. I support this bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13928] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 If this is “moderate and conservative” legislation why has the Government not brought out the whip showed the strength of its leadership conviction and required all its members to vote for the Civil Union Bill? It has not done that because this is an issue that New Zealanders should be speaking on in a much wider forum than just this Parliament. If this bill does progress today it will be by a very slim majority. I ask the Government’s subsequent speakers to explain why they have called this issue a conscience issue while trying to promote this bill as being progressive moderate conservative legislation from the Labour Government. 
Having said that when I consider the position of various gay couples whom I am familiar with or know of I have to ask myself why we would want to deny those people the right to make a commitment to one another in a legal sense. That causes the mind to range over all sorts of things but it also causes us to ask what the general state of society today is. Members have just come through a question time where a Minister had to explain how two children in particular came to be so brutally treated by the people whom they were in the care of. I cannot help wondering whether those sorts of terrible situations are occurring with such regular occurrence in our society today partly because we have not done the work to protect families to value families and above all to value children. I do not think this bill does much to improve that situation. 
I want to send a message—as I have previously—to that brave band of bishops in this country who are willing to storm Parliament and particularly the Opposition on all sorts of secular matters but on this essentially moral issue are silent as a group. I think that if they want to leave it to politicians alone the result will be one they are not too happy with. 
The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view the sad fact is—although some will find this difficult to take—they are not the same. All the legal issues that might arise out of a commitment that two people of the same sex in a relationship they choose might make can be recognised and sorted out. I do not think taking the additional step of creating the option of a civil union which to all intents and purposes is exactly the same as marriage is acceptable. Marriage exists essentially for the protection of children and as I said at the start this country is increasingly putting unacceptable pressures on children. Any measure that cheapens the environment that is best for children to grow up in shows very very poor leadership. I will not be voting for this bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a split speech. I call Brian Connell.
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9391] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have moved beyond the second reading the vote has been cast and there the matter ends. Now we need to progress. I say to the member that we have moved on— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Yes and what I am saying— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have made a decision and I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 17/3.
Cullen Michael: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21736] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress. 
Motion agreed to. 
Report noted.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20978] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20060] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 29 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 88 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (1) of section 128 and substitute the following new subsection: 
(1)Rape means the sexual penetration— 
(a)of the vagina or anus of the victim by the penis of the perpetrator or any other object used by the perpetrator; or 
(b)the mouth of the victim by the penis of the perpetrator—where such penetration occurs without the consent of the victim. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 299 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 7 to omit and substitute section 128(2) be agreed to.
Ewen-Street Ian: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Ewen-Street Ian: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13280] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I agree with Lindsay Tisch to the extent that the consultation process on this legislation was appalling. It went through the select committee once without any hint of cost recovery and then when the Government realised that the legislation had no support for introducing cost recovery it had to go back to the select committee. That was a bad process. However to give the Minister some credit he did consult. 
The process I personally have been through in coming to terms with what this legislation is about has been quite illuminating for me anyway. On the one hand the Government is saying that this is an industry good; that if the Border Security Bill goes through it will have the effect of facilitating trade particularly into the US. Goods being exported to the United States will go through what the Minister calls the “green lane” and with the minimum of fuss. The Government is guaranteeing that those goods will get fair treatment the Americans will guarantee the contents of the container and the manifest will reflect what is actually inside the container. That is one side of the argument. 
I have to say that the other side of the argument is also persuasive—that is this is a public good. Why should exporters have to pay for something that is a public good? That is what it came down to. It came down to a debate between the Government saying that this is a private good and that the industry should pay for it 100 percent and the industry saying that this is a public good. However this is where the argument falls down for exporters. Take the bill away. Let us say that there is no green lane. Let us say that exporters do not have to pay for a guaranteed manifest and contents of the container. When goods arrive in the United States they have to go through the red lane. That is a choice exporters make. My understanding of the situation is that if exporters choose the red lane and they pay for the container to be taken off the ship the goods to be inspected on the wharf repacked and then taken out again somewhere else the costs will be much greater for them than they would be under the terms of this legislation. 
I was very pleased that the Government told exporters that it would go fifty-fifty over the next 2 years and then have a review at the end of that time. The Government should be applauded for listening and saying that this is a trade-off that the issue is not black and white and there is a grey area in the middle somewhere. I think that what the Government has come up with is not unreasonable at all.
Burton Mark: Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Burton Mark: Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:616;Page:11963] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a second short call in this third reading debate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: To answer the member’s specific question about pay rises I point out that in each of the last three Budget rounds the Defence Force has had a stepped contribution to pay increases to base pay for all Defence Force personnel and to targeted pay at the discretion of the Chief of Defence Force in consultation with his service chiefs in order to target trades where they have determined that there is a need to target for recruitment and retention. In each of those 3 years the Government has stepped up the service allowance—which the member understands—which is all about ensuring that the relativities go up for the lowest paid. That member would understand better than most in the House the importance of the allowance. Perhaps most important each of those pay rises has been at the level requested by the Defence Force as long as it is done over each step of the way. 
I say to Mr Mark that the test will be what is in this year’s Budget. We will all have to wait and see. This is the fourth year and the member is right that we still have a step to go. We will see what is in the Budget. [ 
Interruption 
] No I have not. I have said that we will have to see what is in the Budget. I wait to be judged. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The cat’s out of the bag. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Nothing is out of the bag. As I said we have gone through three steps. We will have to see what we can do in the Budget. It remains to be seen. [ 
Interruption 
] There is a step to go yet. I agree. We will see where we are up to.
Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19077] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 With all due respect I just want to put that argument to bed. Mr Franks stated that as a consequence of the enactment of the Civil Union Bill a church could be held liable for refusing to make its church premises available for civil union ceremonies. The advice I have is that under the Human Rights Act a discriminatory practice will not be considered unlawful if the practice constitutes a genuine justification. It is likely that the decision of a church to refuse to make its premises available for civil union ceremonies would constitute a genuine justification as it would also be justified for a church to refuse to hire its premises to Satanists. 
Matters that could be taken into account include that it may be contrary to the religious teachings of the church and may lead to tension within the church community especially if the motives of those wishing to use its premises appeared not to be genuine; in other words they were intended to antagonise. I would also like to make a point about something that Mr Franks mentioned— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I prefer Stephen Franks because he is a better lawyer. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am sure that member may well but I am relying very much on the legal team behind me and I am the person responsible for the Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Commission. 
Mr Franks raised a question about commencement dates and stated that there is a variety of commencement dates in the bill. There are amendments to the Care of Children Act that will come into effect on 1 July 2005 other than the amendments that will come into effect on 26 April 2005 to coincide with the commencement date for that Act for the same reasons that amendments to the Status of Children Act will come into effect on the same day. An amendment to the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act will come into effect on 13 October 2007 to coincide with the next local body election. An amendment to the Rates Rebate Act will come into effect on 1 July 2006 as rates are set until that date. There are quite logical reasons as to why there are different commencement dates.
Peck Mark: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Peck Mark: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17046] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:626;Page:21049] 
7.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What progress has the Government made towards its targets for getting more people into Modern Apprenticeships? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Great progress. At the end of March there were 7760 Modern Apprentices on top of the 1000 who have now completed their training. In Budget 2005 we have set aside an extra $5.9 million for an additional 500 Modern Apprenticeships. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Only half of them finished. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Only half of them have finished because they have only just started because the National Government abolished apprenticeships. What a dopey dopey comment from Nick Smith—again! He is the person who wants to have Don Brash’s job. For goodness’ sake! 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister outline how the Modern Apprenticeships scheme is helping to address skill shortages in key industries? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Our Government has invested nearly $70 million into the scheme since 2001. Modern Apprenticeships is filling a vital role addressing skill shortages in key industries. There are over 1150 Modern Apprentices in the building and construction industry over 900 in the electrical industries over 1200 in engineering over 900 in the motor industry and over 1300 in agriculture horticulture and forestry. I must say that in one of the traditional apprenticeship areas as opposed to the modern ones I understand that there are three apprentices who want to take over the position of the leader of the National Party immediately after September. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the report in the Certified Builders Association 
newsletter stating that less than half of those in the building industry who enrolled in the Modern Apprenticeships scheme actually completed it through to the end and that in fact the vast majority simply bailed out and the Government’s figures were a fraud. 
Document not tabled. 
Paul Adams 
: Did the Minister receive any requests to extend the highly successful Modern Apprenticeships scheme in this year’s Budget round; if so from whom and will he consider United Future’s proposal to extend Modern Apprenticeships to 10000? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I have—I think from the member for Otaki the member from Whanganui the member for Palmerston North the member for Rongotai and I think at least one of the Dunedin members approached me. Also I think someone from United Future approached me. I will certainly look at it.