edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peck Mark: Third Readings 
Peck Mark: Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6929] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: One of the good things about doing some university work recently is that I have been able to read a little bit about political science and I know exactly where that member comes from. He comes from a right-wing public-choice school of thought that tends to suggest that if people find themselves with some particular problems with consumer goods and things like that it is their own fault. That is what he thinks. He would have people drink sewage if he could. He would have them without electricity and he would have them being responsible for all of their daily living and functions with no understanding of market failure or the role of the State. 
 The ACT party will have quite a bit of explaining to do once this debate is over as to why it does not support consumer protection or fair trading. I think it has a lot to do with Pipitea Street. The party is embarrassed about that. It is embarrassed about its pyramid seller who is no longer in the House. It is also embarrassed about Rodney Hide. It is time ACT grew up and learnt there is more to the State than a Government sitting back and hoping that citizens will behave decently and contribute to society. I say to the previous speaker that we reject his philosophy absolutely. We believe in a decent society and that is what we are about providing for our citizens.
Tabling of Documents — Sky Videotape 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tabling of Documents — Sky Videotape 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6414. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tabling of Documents 
Sky Videotape 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a video by Sky television showing quite clearly the broadcast that was done by Hemana Waaka Maori Sportscasting International on 15 June 2002 in Perth Western Australia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Hughes Darren: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12300] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I seek leave for the vote to be taken again on the third reading of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill.
Adams Paul: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Adams Paul: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5140] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of United Future. I do not want to shock Tony Ryall but we are not supporting this bill and we will be supporting his amendment. 
Training is a very important aspect of all of our lives. Personally I think we are always in training; if we do not continue to train we will not continue to progress. I believe it is important that even a young child should be trained in the correct manner in which to live. We did that with our own children. For example they would get pocket money but they had to work for it. Their mum trained them in how to make their beds then she would give them a list of jobs for the week. Let us say their pocket money was $5; if they did their jobs they got the $5. But if their mum had had to make the bed instead of them then their mum would take the money for making the bed and they would miss out. 
What can often happen with those sorts of things from an employer’s perspective is that people will then start looking for a job that has a larger amount of training than working at a favourable rate and they will go and take that job so that they can get some form of income. Then when it is all over they will leave the poor employer who will have got no benefit from it. We do not support this bill because we believe that training is a privilege. If a person can come alongside somebody and be trained in the skills for life the payment will always follow after that person is trained if he or she is a skilled worker. So United Future is not supporting this bill. We maintain that money should be paid for work rather than for training and we will therefore not be supporting this legislation.
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:625;Page:20178] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2004/05 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations and information for the 2005/06 financial year in respect of those Votes and Offices of Parliament.  
Very briefly this is a special procedure followed for Offices of Parliament to ensure their independence. The Officers of Parliament Committee considers the appropriations and makes recommendations. I then move a motion in the House and if the House agrees that then becomes the appropriation for those offices. That ensures therefore that the Minister of Finance does not operate in effect a political control over the budgeting of those offices.
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9689] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member—[ 
Interruption 
] That member can leave the Chamber because a warning has been given that during points of order there will be silence. 
Dianne Yates withdrew from the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The chairperson is the sole judge of when to accept the closure. 
A party vote was called for on the question 
that the question be now put 
.
Wong Pansy: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20131] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to ask members to support my amendment. Last year the Minister of Internal Affairs impressed upon the House how important it was for this legislation to be passed in a hurry in order to protect New Zealand from international terrorist attack. But we see now that the original commencement date for clauses 4 and 8 which was intended to be 1 January 2005 is long passed. 
My amendment which would introduce some certainty for people affected by the changes to the qualifying period for citizenship would substitute a definitive commencement date of 1 July 2005. The Minister’s amendment simply states that the Act will come into force on the commencement date without actually specifying what that date will be. 
I invite the Minister to take a call. He has sat there behaving exactly like one of the monkeys in my three-monkey collection—saying nothing. He has not answered any of the very serious questions raised by members on this side of the Chamber including half of the caucus of the Progressive Party. So I invite the Minister to take a call. If he does not then I just urge the Committee to support my amendment. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 July 2005”.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3822] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
Noes 60 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 8. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to insert after subclause (1) the following subclause: 
(1A)Every direction or statement under subsection (1) must be accompanied by a statement detailing the reason and purpose of the direction.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15355] 
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; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to Part 3 be agreed to.
Tamihere John: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Tamihere John: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8152] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7320] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to.
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:6306] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the expression “9” and substitute the expression “7”.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13713] 
4.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the Government doing to address the continuing meningococcal epidemic? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The meningococcal vaccine is the significant Government investment in child health. The roll-out of the vaccine is designed to focus attention effort and resources on reaching those most at risk and the goal is to vaccinate 90 percent of the population aged 0 to 19 years within the first 2 years. Clinical trials of the vaccine have been very encouraging demonstrating that the vaccine is safe and will provide protection against the epidemic strain of group B meningococcal disease. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Since the epidemic was first identified in 1991 how many people have been affected by the disease? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Between 1991 and 2004 there have been 5421 cases including 220 deaths. Eighty percent of the cases were in the 0 to 19 age group with a third of those being 4 years old and under. In 2003 there were 540 cases including 13 deaths. Those are appalling statistics for our children and the Government is committed to reducing the number of cases. The vaccine programme will be New Zealand’s largest ever immunisation programme. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister doing anything to address the continuing tuberculosis epidemic facing the Auckland District Health Board which is experiencing the highest number of TB cases in more than a decade with more than two-thirds of those cases found in people born outside New Zealand; if nothing why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is wide of the original question but I will allow the Minister to comment. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Certainly a lot of work is being undertaken in tuberculosis including the most up-to-date treatment of tuberculosis.
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18528] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The original question that I had written was intended for the Minister of Police and I find no reason why it should have been transferred to the Minister of Justice instead.
Peck Mark: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5644] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support this bill.
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14242] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20701] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Baldock Larry: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18511] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to take a short call on this bill which of course is of great interest to those who live in the Wellington area and particularly to those in the Ohariu-Belmont electorate where this proposed wind farm could occur and where Belmont Regional Park is located. When Peter Dunne spoke in the first reading of this bill he made some points very clear. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s in the Rimutaka electorate. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I may have the electorate wrong and I thank Mr Shirley. Mr Dunne has great concerns about all New Zealanders so he would have represented the people in that constituency as well. 
One of the concerns Peter Dunne raised in the first reading was the issue of Belmont Regional Park. It is pleasing to see that the Local Government and Environment Committee has taken note of those issues and also the issues presented by submitters. The words in clause 6 of the bill have been extended from saying that nothing in this legislation will affect the Resource Management Act to stating that this legislation will not affect “any other enactment” so that the Local Government Act and in particular its consultation processes would come into effect. 
One of the concerns that has been discussed already in the debate is public concern about wind farms being established in areas where people do not think they are as great an answer to our power energy needs as some may promote. In fact it is rather ironic that the Green Party thinks we can solve all our problems by having wind farms all over the country and now people are talking about carbon dioxide being pollution in the atmosphere. Yet carbon dioxide as the great environmentalist David Bellamy once said is simply a fertiliser that plants rather like. 
The answer to all our problems with energy is not just to put wind farms up all over the country. They can play a useful role in providing some energy but the public are very concerned about open spaces skylines and what they see on the horizon. That is why there has been quite a bit of concern expressed in the submissions on this legislation. 
We are comfortable that some amendments have been made by the select committee and we look forward to further debate at the Committee stage on that particular issue. I think at that point we will allow the debate to continue at the Committee stage to make sure that when this bill finally comes out of the House it is the very best legislation that it can be. 
Bill read a second time.
Robertson H V Ross: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19577] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A point of order is to be heard in silence. Members have been here in this Chamber long enough to know that. I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 56/1 which states that interjections are to be rare reasonable and relevant. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: When we consider the consequential amendments to the Income Tax Acts we have to remember that the whole reason for this bill is to increase the level of child support that is collected in New Zealand from fathers who should be paying their financial dues so that the cost of the domestic purposes benefit can come down. But the reality is that under this Labour Government that cost has continued to rise so Labour is doing something wrong. It is soft on welfare policies which results in more women going on the domestic purposes benefit at a time when New Zealand is crying out for workers. Most of those women would be far better off – provided they have children of school age – if they were back out in the workforce.
Robertson H V Ross: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12209] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendment to clause 5 also in the name of the honourable member Peter Brown is an amendment to insert the words “and company security officer” in the definition of “port facility security officer”. All those in favour will say “Aye”—[ 
Interruption 
] I have just been advised that before we do this we need to do something. I ask members to bear with me for just a minute please. The honourable member Peter Brown’s amendment has arrived. He needs to seek leave that we can do this now. Will the member please seek leave?
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19997] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to.
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8798] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am more than pleased to do it. I just want to say this as I do so. I submitted the document in good faith to the House. If I gave any inadvertent ill-description I unreservedly apologise to the House; it was submitted purely to assist the member opposite who cast aspersions on my word. I simply want to say to that member that it is an unfortunate turn of events when his own colleagues have driven us to this because it further sours our ability to do business in the House. I seek leave to table the draft unconfirmed minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee meeting.
Carter John: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9882] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that we have one vote on the microchipping provisions and another vote on the dangerous dog provisions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? [ 
Interruption 
] Would the member care to explain again the leave he seeks. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I think what the member is asking for and what the Committee might like to do is to be able to vote on the microchipping provisions and then on the dangerous dog provisions. I seek leave to have a separate vote on the two parts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Cullen Michael: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4041] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Standing Order 281(4) is quite clear. It states: “An amendment to substitute another committee or to alter any proposed special powers or instruction may be moved if notice of such an amendment is delivered to the Clerk at the Table before the bill is read a first time.” That is not the calling of the order of the day. The bill being read a first time occurs after the vote on the first reading of the bill. Logically if one thinks it through one would see that an amendment could not possibly be moved before the order of the day is called because at that stage it is not known which select committee the member is going to move that the bill be referred to. The member is supposed to do that in the first speech given in the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for his assistance. The amendment that has been alluded to can be made at any time during the first reading speeches. I am aware of the Standing Order. The way I read the Standing Order is that a bill has not been read a first time until all speeches are finished and the bill is announced as having been read a first time. That is the way I believe the Standing Order will be interpreted. It is certainly the way I would interpret that Standing Order. An amendment can be made at any time during the speeches. After all the motion is put not before the first reading as in Mr Sowry’s interpretation; it is put once those speeches have commenced. So let us proceed and we will see what happens.
Hunt Jonathan: Resignations — Tariana Turia—Te Tai Hauauru 
Hunt Jonathan: Resignations — Tariana Turia—Te Tai Hauauru 
[Volume:617;Page:12957] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Tariana Turia resigning her seat in the House with effect on 17 May 2004.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21148] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I now seek leave to table a document that clearly shows that Dr Brash spoke about the tsunami 2 days before Helen Clark even knew about it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:622;Page:17680] 
9.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her reported comments that she was revolted by Paul Holmes’ $760000 salary and that money paid to top Television New Zealand presenters makes her own pay look like “petty cash” and how much taxpayers’ money has the Government put into Television New Zealand in the last 12 months? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by what I said which was that there was public revulsion at that salary level. And yes any examination of such figures would show that my salary is indeed petty cash by comparison as indeed is the member’s. I can also advise the member that in 2004-05 a total of $30 million is to be paid directly to TVNZ consisting of charter funding and for transmission to remote communities. As well $3.075 million is from New Zealand On Air. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will that $30 million come under review in the coming year if in fact it is determined that Television New Zealand is to quote the Prime Minister “funding a culture of extravagance” and in light of the fact that the money is being used in part to stomp on TV3 and Prime as private sector competition? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not think that the last assertion would be true. There is a reason for having public television charter television and that is to have at least one television company in this country that is dedicated to reflecting the charter objectives on screen. But clearly the board of Television New Zealand is accountable to the Government for how it expends public moneys and the Minister of Broadcasting has outlined that he expects it to be held accountable. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What does she expect the Minister of Broadcasting to do with the board of Television New Zealand if it went to him and simply said that it believed that that was the right thing for it to do? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously I would not want to prejudge what the board will say to the shareholding Ministers. However I believe that the shareholding Ministers are certainly due an explanation if the report in the  
Dominion 
 is true. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Is she objecting to the amount that Judy Bailey gets paid and if so why pick on her and what about Mike Williams a Government appointee to some eight Crown entities or State-owned enterprises who I am told earns $542000 while working full-time for the Labour Party and does she think there is public revulsion over this? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This Government appoints people from across the political spectrum to boards and I can say that we have been rather more open-minded than our predecessors in that respect. We would also expect that anyone appointed to a State-owned enterprises board would really not be pulling in large sums of money for 4 minutes on air a day.
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:6287] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b)(i).
Donald Rod: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Donald Rod: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19296] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise. I would be very happy to read the speech out again using Ian’s full name—Ian Ewen-Street. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that.
Simich Clem: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Simich Clem: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10858] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes the member will be dealt with. Has the member finished his point of order? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: My point of order is this. The senior Government whip has on two occasions said that people are lying. He mentioned that a very prominent business person was in fact lying. That is unparliamentary and he should withdraw and apologise.
Carter John: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9611] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am sure the Minister is about to move a motion but it might be useful if Parliament is of a mind to seek leave to instruct the Committee to consider the bill as a whole. I seek leave for that so to happen.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
[Volume:608;Page:5680] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a deal of confusion in the member’s mind in this respect. You are quite correct that if a breach of privilege charge had been raised with you before 2 o’clock today you would have been looking at both what was said in the House yesterday by the Prime Minister and at her personal explanation. For a breach of privilege charge to be referred to the Privileges Committee the member would have to demonstrate evidence in contradiction of the combination of what the Prime Minister said and the personal explanation. What the member seems to be confused about—and confusion often seems to occur in this House—is that telling the truth does not mean to say that what one says is correct.
Connell Brian: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Connell Brian: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21692] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Part 1 deals with the execution of warrants but I do not think the provision will keep the bailiff very busy. Any legislation whereby there is a chance that someone will be intercepted one day in three will hardly act as a disincentive for a significant number of people. 
In the lunch break I went over some submissions made to the Law and Order Committee and looked at some advice from the officials. I point out that the National Party’s position has always been that if people owe money to the courts they pay it. We have always said that if people can afford international travel they can afford to pay their fines. In the select committee we asked the officials to have a look at lowering the monetary threshold from $5000 to $1000 of fines owing as a starting point. That initiative came from members of the National Party. Our concern was what the cost-benefit would be. I think members might be interested to hear what we were told. The officials said that a full cost-benefit analysis was carried out only in relation to the current proposal—that is that one person would be stopped every 3 days. That number is the equivalent of people who had a warrant for arrest and owed fines of $5000 or more. The officials estimated that the proposal would provide the opportunity to resolve approximately $1.5 million of court-imposed fines reparation orders and infringement fees each year—charges that would otherwise not be resolved. I want to put that amount in context. Outstanding fines are now in excess of $650 million. 
Peter Brown 
: How much? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is $650 million. That fact was presented to the select committee. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What was that fact? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: There are outstanding fines of $650 million—actually I stand corrected. It is not $650 million. The facts at that point were that there was just over $500 million of outstanding fines. The estimate is now $650 million. The amounts are big. We were told at the select committee that the figure was substantial. If we think that through it shows that the Labour Government having understood the scope of the problem is insisting on a regime that will collect only $1.5 million of outstanding fines. That is about a quarter of 1 percent of the outstanding amounts. Members of the House and members of the public who are listening across New Zealand will wonder just how serious the Government is about trying to capture those people who have outstanding fines when this is the best it can do. 
The officials also provided this advice: “In addition there is an anticipated increase of $1 million in collections of fines as a result of enhanced voluntary compliance arising from publicity surrounding the initiative.” So there we have it. We have people who thumb their nose at authorities who continually move addresses and do not give a damn whether they owe $5 $500 $5000 or in some cases as much as $50000.
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:20947] 
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 3 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
3Purpose of this Act 
The purpose of this Act is— 
(a)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2008 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and 
(b)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2008 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal before the commencement of this Act.
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:7803] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gerry Brownlee to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “but continue to apply to New Zealand National Party members of Parliament”.
Jones Dail: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19936] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation and the Supplementary Order Paper that has come through. If the Tisch amendments had been passed I believe they would create a great deal of ambiguity and confusion in the courts which is the reason why New Zealand First would not support them. Of course any matter that comes before this House and provides for say an appeal to the District Court as this bill does may end up in the District Court. I say to all those people who wish to go and see lawyers whether they are the 17 people from Opotiki who cannot understand an Act that states that the Crown owns the foreshore and seabed as its absolute property— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: That’s one group that can’t understand it. 
DAIL JONES 
: And there is only one other group that cannot understand it—Dr Brash’s group. The Crown owns the foreshore and seabed as its absolute property. That is clear to everyone in New Zealand other than to 17 people in Opotiki. Well I say to people who want to go to court only one word—“breed”. 
Darren Hughes 
: “Breed” or “breathe”? 
DAIL JONES 
: Breed—because lawyers love people who want to fight cases that they will lose. It is a lawyer’s dream. So I tell those people to breed and I say to Dr Brash “Breed.” if that is what he believes about the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
However I come back to this bill. Of course people can go to court. That is the right New Zealanders have. It is their right under the Magna Carta to go to court. It is their right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and under all the various legislation that goes back to before there were Maori in New Zealand. It is people’s right to go to court and be judged by their peers. Nothing in this bill stops that from happening. Nothing in any legislation ever stops that from happening. Whether they win of course is another matter and as a lawyer I say to them: “Just breed.”
Forests Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Forests Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12863] 
Forests Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Forests Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: 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:10005] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I respectfully say that Speaker’s ruling 7/1 does not relieve Speaker’s ruling 53/6 of the responsibilities. It simply states that a member can sit anywhere but Speaker’s ruling 53/6 states that when a member wants to move the closure motion that member has to be in his or her correct seat.
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:20979] 
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. 
The question was put that the following typescript amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3).
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19307] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Clearly what happened here and is continuing to happen is a series of points of order designed to challenge your authority. I have never seen any situation where a member continues to refuse to obey the Speaker’s ruling and does not end up being thrown out of the House. To now allow the member back in will be essentially to say that there is no real penalty for that persistent bad behaviour and I am surprised that Mr Brownlee is associating himself with Mr Hide’s behaviour in that respect.
Visitors — Republic of Ireland—Member of Joint Committee on Finance and Public Accounts 
Visitors — Republic of Ireland—Member of Joint Committee on Finance and Public Accounts 
[Volume:616;Page:12365] 
Tuesday 6 April 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Republic of Ireland—Member of Joint Committee on Finance and Public Accounts 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that Mr M J Nolan member of the Joint Committee on Finance and Public Accounts Republic of Ireland is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish he be welcomed.
Simich Clem: General Debate 
Simich Clem: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20241] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. I would have thought that the issues you have raised were quite obvious but I say that the United Future member will take the next Labour slot. That is the swap. I think that that clears it up.
Peck Mark: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peck Mark: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9882] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4225] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government will be voting against the amendment for a very simple reason. It is actually incomprehensible and almost certainly just about inapplicable. Probably the only bodies we could be reasonably sure might slip through would be the subsidiary companies of Maori authorities which reverses the decision taken by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Otherwise if we are talking about tax characteristics we would find it very hard to find anybody who fits into the Maori authority category because of some of those characteristics which are peculiar to Maori authorities and I have already outlined those. People are locked into membership and there are no such other organisations around that one knows of. 
The amendment is meaningless. It would create huge uncertainty within the tax law and we try to avoid uncertainty within the tax laws as far as we can.
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:19681] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is a speech I really must respond to on a factual basis. In fact it was not a result of the Government action at all that any time was lost for members’ business in relation to members’ bills. First of all we had started the last member’s bill on the Order Paper and therefore that action did not affect the number of bills to be drawn in the ballot today. Secondly the Government sought leave twice—twice—to finish all members’ bills on the Order Paper last night so that there would have been no time subtracted in the future for the consideration of members’ bills. The only business the House was not able to discuss was the reports of select committees. I finally note that during the dinner function the deputy leader of the National Party thanked me for the fact that members were able to attend the dinner as a result of my action. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call Sue Kedgley. [ 
Interruption 
] She stood first I am sorry. The member will be heard but the other member stood first.
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9024] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I suggest that the issue arises around the somewhat unusual wording of Standing Order 301. We are debating Part 1 and a series of members’ amendments have been put to the vote. The issue then arose as to whether the amendments of the Minister in charge of the bill would be put as one question. That is clearly contemplated by the first sentence of Standing Order 301. But it is more complicated than that. I am saying with respect that the Chairperson is not prepared to give meaning to the second sentence: “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill.” I suggest that there has been a clear breach of the second sentence and that there are two possibilities for action. Possibility No. 1 is to suspend the Standing Orders in the face of that breach. Possibility No. 2 which is the possibility preferred by National is that the amendments be revoted on in strict accordance with the second sentence of the Standing Order.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12743] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata; Other: Mahuta Turia. 
Bill read a first time.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5985] 
2.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Internal Affairs; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Peter Brown 
: Why has she put so much confidence in this Minister when violent crime has increased massively since this Minister— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question related to the Minister of Internal Affairs. The member cannot switch portfolios because it is the same person. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely correct. The member must now come to the Minister’s role as Minister of Internal Affairs if he had not come to it already. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Prime Minister noted that there is a direct correlation between the violent movies and films this Minister lets into the country with impunity and the growing violent crime in society? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it acceptable to the Prime Minister that a film is allowed into this country that displays a 10-minute rape scene a man having his head bashed to pulp and much more while I note that in this House we are not even allowed to use the word “rugger” spelt with a “b”; and if it is not acceptable will she insist the Minister does something about film censorship—or at least go and look at a film? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unlike a famous former National Party predecessor the Minister does not watch those kinds of films. I understand that Mr Graeme Lee used to invite his colleagues around to watch them in the past. The Minister is unable to correct the Chief Censor of Film and Literature on these matters. That is a matter of legislation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you would not mind would you explain to the House and particularly to the Opposition how Dr Cullen’s answer was in any way relevant and necessary in respect of the question he was asked? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no need for that. The second part of the answer was perfectly relevant; the first part was not. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the Minister has performed dismally when it comes to such issues as leaky homes Agent Orange and film censorship and that he has now created a fund that is going to rob local communities of returns from gambling? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The last point is completely untrue as I stated in the business statement. On the issue of censorship the Chief Censor is completely independent. It is not up to the Minister to decide what films that member or any other member of this House can watch.
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9677] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment to clause 3(2)(e) in the name of Larry Baldock on Supplementary Order Paper 158 is out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision on the Minister’s amendments. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
land transport 
 by omitting the words “coastal shipping”.