edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18908] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We were told that a number of bills currently before select committees are settlement bills. The Office of Treaty Settlements has said that rather than bring Supplementary Order Papers to the House or even bring them to the House for sending to a select committee it will attempt to put an amendment through the select committee process. Let me tell members that it is a huge indulgence on the part of the Opposition to allow that to happen because it is not the appropriate way for these things to be dealt with. Each one of those changes could be subject to quite a considerable amount of debate in the House. 
I point out that the last time we got in this bind the House lost almost 4 hours as we wrestled with what the process would be. This is a different bill. It is a private bill. Clearly it has been put together by Te PuniKokiri. There are differences in the two commentaries so the questions arise: what are we debating and what are we passing? 
I make the point again that we have had 160 years of grievance apparently because there are two versions of the Treaty of Waitangi. We are trying to sort those grievances out. We should not have settlement bills or constructions around organisations receiving settlement that have two versions commentaries or interpretations of what they are about. With all due respect to the position you outlined Mr Speaker it is correct as far as future settlement bills are concerned particularly regarding those that are currently before a select committee but it has nothing to do with the bill before us today.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16604] 
7.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Was she advised of reports that John Tamihere told colleagues he had accepted a golden handshake from the Waipareira Trust; if so did she inquire whether any of those colleagues were members of her executive? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister intend finding out whether any members of her executive have known for some time that John Tamihere accepted the golden handshake while she was out in public defending him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is she aware that today John Tamihere has stated that he was always going to accept a golden handshake despite the fact that he had gone on record saying he would not and what confidence should anyone have in Mr Tamihere when he deliberately sets out to deceive her the media and the public of New Zealand; and why on earth is she considering putting him back in Cabinet? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen that comment there is an inquiry under way and consideration will be given to all matters at the end of those inquiries. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a Radio New Zealand transcript in which Mr Tamihere admits that he always intended to take the golden handshake and that he knew it would be offered again when he turned it down. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17122] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 79 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit the proposed omission of words from this clause.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:14198] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 27 July 2004. That is in keeping with discussions I personally have had with representatives of all parties and with the whips earlier on. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Power Simon: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10424] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 In that brief interlude I have now had an opportunity to read the amendment proposed by the member in the chair. I understand it is the member’s first opportunity to sit in the Committee chair so I cannot let this moment pass without asking a question as my colleague the Hon Ken Shirley did and at least give the member an opportunity to stand and answer a question. If she cannot answer the one that Mr Shirley posed about the slight philosophical inconsistencies between this legislation and other Government actions perhaps she can answer this question. Presumably the proposed amendment in the member’s name is to address what looks to me like a drafting difficulty in the sense that although clause 8(1)(b) has been struck out in the report back on the bill a reference to “subsection 1(b)”—which would of course no longer exist—is still contained in clause 8(2)? I wonder whether the member would take the opportunity to— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Explain the point. 
SIMON POWER 
: That is what I thought Mr Shirley. I just wonder whether the member would take the opportunity while she is in the chair of the Committee to explain whether I have got that right or wrong and the implications if we left it in there and did not vote for her amendment. Through you Mr Chairman I now invite the member in the chair to address that issue.
Mahuta Nanaia: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8087] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:614;Page:10653] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next Tuesday in the House priority will be given to the report of the Standing Orders Committee and the completion of the Holidays Bill. It is also the Government’s intention to take the first readings of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) as these bills are relatively non-controversial. The House will then proceed to the adjournment motion.
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4956] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before we get on to the Leader of the Opposition’s question No. 3 I want to raise with you a matter that you might want to give the House a considered opinion on. It is this: yesterday in question time the Prime Minister was asked several questions about whether a written apology had been given and if so whether the text could be delivered to this House. We have since heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade tell the House today there is a written apology and indeed he has now told us he intends to give the full text to this House. The question I ask you to rule on and to give a considered opinion on—because I do not think it is possible for you to do so today—is this: as a consequence of the Prime Minister yesterday not giving as clear an answer as she could have done by merely saying “Yes” as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade has done we spent nearly an hour of parliamentary time on trying to get the answer that has now been given in one quick word. I ask whether there is some way in which if that situation arises again in the future you can give guidance to the House as to how an answer that should have been given can be given rather than having parliamentary time wasted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has properly raised a point of order. I always listen to the member’s comments. He has asked for my thoughts and I will give them.
Ririnui Mita: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11324] 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donnelly Brian: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
Donnelly Brian: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
[Volume:607;Page:4291] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to convey our deep sense of sadness at what we all understood was predictable and certain but in fact has come into being. We note alongside the Prime Minister the degree of responsibility that the leadership of the Iraq nation has to take in terms of the consequences of the decisions that have been made. We hope I am sure along with all the other members of this House that the action will be short the casualties will be minimal and the harm will be small. We also concur with the Prime Minister that our responsibility now is to take our place in working alongside other nations in a multilateral fashion to ensure that the harm that will inevitably occur will be able to be rectified when the conflict concludes.
Mackey Janet: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mackey Janet: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6283] 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20188] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I look forward to making a contribution during the Committee stage on the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. The Committee will recall that there has been some debate at various points over different translations with respect to the preamble and the like. In fact a reasonably prolonged discussion was held in the Maori Affairs Committee on that exact point. That is why we see at this point a reasonably large portion of the preamble having been struck out. This is a portion that is largely contained in te reo. It goes on for some pages. Not until we get to page 21 of the bill do we find the new unanimous preamble to be contained in the legislation. I do not profess to be an expert in matters Maori but it seems to me that we as a Parliament have worked our way through both in this Chamber and outside it to ensure that a Maori version of the preamble appears together with its English translation. The portion of the preamble that refers to the conflict in the Eastern Bay of Plenty is contained on page 33 some 12 pages on from the start. 
I welcome the arrival of Georgina te Heuheu to the Chamber to take a call on matters relating to the conflict in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. I am sure that any contribution that she and Dr Mapp will make will dwarf my small contribution in this process. 
There is no doubt that I am in a position to signal National’s ongoing support of this legislation but we will during the Committee stage be raising some issues from time to time that have captured the imagination and the attention of those in the National Party who sat on the Maori Affairs Committee. With that short introduction I welcome the contribution to follow by Georgina te Heuheu.
Shirley Ken: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12207] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party indicated in the second reading that we certainly support this bill because we recognise it is appropriate. New Zealand is a trading nation and is more dependent on trade than most nations as a proportion of gross domestic product. This bill is all about the harmonisation of global security practices and anti-terrorism measures. To that extent this country has no option other than to ensure that our practices are in line or consistent with world best practice. Obviously if we were at variance with it our trade would suffer because we would have problems at the wharf with our exports and imported goods. So this bill is an important measure. But in saying that I make the point that we are at war. It is not a war of nation State against nation State but the war on terrorism does come with costs. Part of those costs unfortunately impinges on what would normally be ideal in terms of civil liberties and individual rights. That always happens at times of war and we cannot deny that we need to take what hopefully are extraordinary measures that can be wound back at some point in the future in a more peaceful time. 
I draw the attention of the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven to the amendment proposed by Keith Locke from the Greens in respect of the interpretation of the term “suspicious act”. The Government Administration Committee inserted a new definition in clause 5 “Interpretation”: “suspicious act does not include the lawful exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” I can accept that recommendation by the select committee but Mr Locke’s proposed amendment actually troubles me deeply because he wants to delete the word “lawful”. Therefore the definition would read: “suspicious act does not include the exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” In other words one could have a whole range of illegal strikes illegal protests and illegal demonstrations. We can imagine what could go on under the guise of an illegal demonstration and would not be regarded in terms of the legislation as a suspicious act. If that is the Greens’ thinking then the whole country should be disturbed. 
I want an absolute assurance from the Minister in the chair that he will not be leveraged shall I say by the Greens in a trade-off situation to adopt that definition in the amendment they propose. I want to gain the attention of the Minister who seems to be distracted for the moment. I would like him to take a call and assure all of us about that because it is a matter of public safety and of the security of the realm. Our trade is dependent on that and I certainly find that suggestion from the Greens to be a very foolish and a very dangerous suggestion. I do seek an assurance from the Minister that he is not entertaining doing a trade-off with the Greens as he has done on other occasions to accommodate them by insering that proposal into this legislation.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9053] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the submission to the Health Committee by Apaarangi Tautoko Auahi Kore which was paid for by the Ministry of Health but makes no mention of that fact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that submission. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6097. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 100 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 16 
ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill





.
Shirley Ken: New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22111] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 In view of the time and in view of the fact that this will be the last member’s day of this Parliament—my calculation is that there is one ACT speech remaining to be given by my colleague Stephen Franks and that I then have 5 minutes in reply—I therefore seek the leave of the House to complete the debate on this member’s bill. 
Jill Pettis 
: But Labour has a speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am aware that Labour has a speech. We will just see what happens. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hughes Darren: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7327] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Dail: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12417] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has no intention of delaying the passing of this bill. We were criticised in the very preliminary stages for doing just that. Now other parties seem to wish to delay it. As far as New Zealand First is concerned this bill has had more than enough deliberation and consideration. We intend to support it and we have no further contribution to make to this debate other than to see the bill proceed expeditiously.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Sitting date: 16 June 2004. Volume:618;Page:13625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to meet in Australia from 21 to 24 June 2004 and to adopt such procedures and practices as are suitable for the conduct of its business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that leave being granted? There appears to be none.
Cosgrove Clayton: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5326] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in support of this bill. As has been mentioned by others one of the bill’s primary focuses is to reduce costs and delays associated with the consent process. As some members know I come from a background where one of my jobs was with the mining industry and I can say that the Resource Management Act as implemented by the National Government cost people in Otago several millions of dollars because of consent process delays and backlogs in the Environment Court. I am pleased—as I know my colleague David Parker from down that way is—that this bill reduce delays reduce costs and clear backlogs as the Government initiatives have already started to do. We see that over 500 cases in the Environment Court are being cleared and further backlogs will be cleared as we proceed. 
I thank United Future members for their cooperation in respect of the limited notification provisions. Those provisions will go some way in assisting all players to expedite matters through the consent process in the Environment Court without undermining the objectives of protecting the environment or undermining the ultimate objectives of the Resource Management Act. I think this is a good bill. I think we should get on with it and support it.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20221] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday in relation to the information she provided to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 regarding then Police Commissioner Peter Doone “I do not believe that incorrect information was provided.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because I am confident that I would have drawn their attention to the fact that what was said by Police Commissioner Doone was contested. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not true that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
and its lawyers would never have published the alleged Doone statement without tapes of the Prime Minister’s own voice affirming the story and given that why will she not allow the release of transcripts of those tapes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not for me to comment on what basis the  
Sunday Star-Times  
publishes. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she have any evidence to back up her claim that she thinks she told the  
Sunday Star-Times  
that the allegation was contested or is she just relying on her memory? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am confident that I would have drawn their attention to the fact that the facts were contested because what was in front of me were two official reports where it was very clear that what was said was contested. 
Dr Don Brash 
: If the statements made by the Prime Minister on this matter are true what does she have to hide by refusing the release of the transcripts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This matter was dealt with extensively in the House yesterday. I have referred to the fact that journalists’ notes were made available to my lawyer and I have also referred to the fact that litigation is threatened and it would not be appropriate for such matters to be released. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the transcripts will become public at the time of any defamation proceedings and can we therefore conclude that her game is merely to stage a cover-up until after the election? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No such proceedings have been filed and it is simply idle for the Opposition to speculate how a case might be defended.
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3493] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question now is that the amendment to the amendment—that is Jeanette Fitzsimon’s amendment—as amended by Roger Sowry’s amendment be agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7763] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16974] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not interrupt the previous speaker because I do not believe in raising points of order to break up people’s speeches but I do think we now need a consistent ruling from the Chair. Earlier a National member suggested that the Government had not told the full truth about the bill and his speech was broken up. He was required to withdraw his statement which I would have said was parliamentary but the previous speaker was allowed to say that I had given a forked-tongue speech. Everybody knows that speaking with a forked tongue is saying that a person is lying. I would have said that that was an outrageous statement and was out of order. I drew the matter to your attention Madam Chair but you did nothing. I decided that perhaps we were having another think about this matter and we would have a vigorous debate. However I would not want us to have a situation whereby people can say whatever they like while the Chair waits for members of the Committee to establish order. Left to myself I am in favour of a vigorous debate. I have to say that although I was not greatly upset by the speaker’s comments I think we need some consistent rules during the debate. When you have ruled on this Madam Chair I want to raise a different point of order.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7283] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Speaker members wish to raise the matter that there is insufficient time for this debate. Leave has been sought to extend the time of the debate and your ruling is sought on that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no difficulty. If anyone wants to seek leave now he or she can.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3350] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a copy of the survey that I have sent to territorial authorities seeking information on the effectiveness of current dog legislation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19565] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 When the question came through from the Clerk’s Office it was addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Government did not seek to transfer the question at all.
Hughes Darren: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19379] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 As the Standing Orders require the Minister on behalf of the Hon Pete Hodgson has moved the referral motion exactly as Mr Hodgson foreshadowed it in the middle of March when the first reading of this bill was first considered by the House. So the Government is continuing with the motion that was originally signalled to the House at the beginning of the first reading debate. The calendar as Mr Tisch quite rightly suggests will change this week but the motion must remain the same in order to comply with the Standing Orders. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is correct as I have been advised by the Clerk. Before I put the motion I have an amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith that all the words after the words “Government Administration Committee” be deleted.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:620;Page:15945] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 My having noticed the amount of legislation that the Government has on its hands and the relatively slow progress of that legislation and my also having noticed how much legislation is about to come out of select committees that the Government has indicated it wants passed by Christmas I ask whether the House can expect the Government to call for urgency during either this sitting period or the next.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5588] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 55 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:613;Page:10219] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 2 December 2003. There is a luncheon for the Speaker of the Bundestag. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9477] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 7. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12328] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Jones Dail: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5432] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 It is well recognised that the point of order must be taken immediately and clearly it was not taken immediately on that occasion although I appreciate why it was not. But no doubt the point has been made and although the point of order cannot stand I think the point itself is probably noted.
Power Simon: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21943] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The National Party as the Government will know is keen to facilitate the passage of the bill and we are pleased that a number of amendments put forward by the Hon Tony Ryall were accepted by the Minister and have made this bill stronger in two respects. The Minister acknowledges that fact and I thank him for being one of the few Ministers in my time in the House who has sat in the Committee chair and genuinely looked at amendments being proposed by the Opposition. The Minister has although not always to the liking of the Leader of the House engaged in the debate with members and managed to get off his seat and debate some of the issues and to be fair to the Minister I note that he was convinced on two points I think. Those are now incorporated into the bill and will be forever known as the Ryall amendments. 
I say in conclusion that there are aspects of this bill that the National Party has tried to amend on the way through the Committee stage; two of them were successful many were not. Tony Ryall put a lot of effort into making sure that those issues were addressed. I see latterly that New Zealand First has agreed to support those amendments and the National Party thanks New Zealand First. On that basis we look forward to the third reading debate although we do note that under urgency the Government was unable to move this matter through the Committee stage. We would like to indicate our cooperation in expediting the Committee stage this afternoon.
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:21865] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call to respond to the question from the member for Whanganui. My comments were made in the context of the implication by the National member—which was in a way confirmed by another speaker—that the apology itself seemed to be over the top and the implication that there should be more accuracy in the preamble. My response was that if we did make it more accurate it could be more embarrassing to both parties to the agreement. 
I want to comment on the remarks made by the speaker before last. I remind him and the people in this Committee that we should not place too much emphasis on the word “iwi” given that those who signed the treaty were of hapu. I would suggest and even argue that the concept of iwi is not a Maori concept but is something that came after the missionaries imposed their will on this country. Be that as it may the preamble may in some people’s eyes seem over the top but given the historical events that affected the claimant group I think that it is in order. 
Preamble agreed to.
Adams Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Adams Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4138] 
11.  
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What progress has been made on the review of the Employment Relations Act 2000? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Officials are currently preparing advice for consideration by the Government in the very near future. 
Paul Adams 
: Is she prepared to rule out any proposed amendments to the Employment Relations Act before the review is completed such as allowing collective agreements at individual workplaces to compel all workers to join a union as suggested by Andrew Little Secretary of the Engineering Union—a powerful affiliate of the Labour Party? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I have said publicly we do not support compulsory unionism. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What matters are the subject of the review? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The purpose of the review is to consider what legislative changes are required so that the Act can better meet its statutory objectives of promoting productive employment relationships good-faith collective bargaining and the effective resolution of employment problems. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: In the review will she consider strengthening the ability for employees to insist on a collective contract—for instance if a political party’s staff want a common collective contract with other political parties’ staff but the Prime Minister’s chief of staff tries to block it? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I have just said the purpose of the review is to promote collective bargaining. 
Sue Bradford 
: What steps will the Minister take to include measures like pay audits in the review of the Employment Relations Act to address continuing gender and ethnic pay gaps as shown for example in the 2002 survey in which the average hourly rate was $18.51 for a Pakeha male $15.27 for a Pakeha female $14.09 for a Maori male and $13.07 for a Maori female? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government is concerned about the continuing pay gap. The review will address that only partially in the sense of supporting collective bargaining which is one means by which to raise the wage rates of low-paid workers. However the substantive matters the member addresses in her question will be considered in the pay equity review which we will be getting to in the near future once the submissions have been received and the report has been given. 
Paul Adams 
: Given that one of the stated objectives of the review of the Employment Relations Act is to consider how collective bargaining provisions can be strengthened can she guarantee that those sections in the Act that uphold the individual freedom of employees will remain untouched; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I said certainly freedom of choice will be guaranteed in the legislation as it is at the moment. I cannot make it any clearer than that. We are bound by international obligations.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9250] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes well I think the report is an inaccurate report and I have made my position perfectly clear.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:20801] 
8.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on how many New Zealand families have benefited from the 1 April changes to the Working for Families Package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The initial uptake figures show that around 200000 families with an estimated 385000 children received family income assistance in April. This figure is set to exceed 260000 families by April next year and to reach 300000 by the time the programme is rolled out. The average Inland Revenue family assistance payment was up $113 a week—a 33 percent increase on April last year. In addition 3500 more people are receiving an accommodation supplement and 8500 more people are receiving childcare assistance than they did in April last year. 
Moana Mackey 
: How many New Zealand families are predicted to benefit from the 1 April 2006 introduction of an in-work payment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: An estimated 136000 working families—nearly 30 percent of all families with children—will receive an in-work payment from 1 April next year. Around 75 percent of them will get the full $60 a week or more and they will be better off by between $15 and $45 than under the current child tax credit. Smaller families in particular will benefit from the move to the in-work payment. It will cost $192 million a year and ensure that thousands of families are better off by making the step into paid employment. I am told however that the National Party does not like this kind of support for people moving into work so we can expect it to axe the in-work payment as well.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21556] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: General Debates 
Prebble Richard: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8539] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you are in grave danger of making a ruling that I have never heard in this House before. The procedure for raising points of order is clearly set out in Standing Order 84. Standing Order 84 states that a member may raise a point of order and that the point of order takes precedence over any other matter. Mr Carter was clearly raising a point of order with you but he was doing it in a way that is grossly disorderly. No member may approach the Speaker privately and raise what is a point of order. He has just said that he went to you and suggested to you that you should rebuke another member. I understand his dilemma—he did not want to raise the point of order—but that is the dilemma we all have. We all have to make that judgment and one cannot get around the fact that one does not want to disrupt one’s own leader by going to see the Speaker. I say to you that you most certainly should not be encouraging that. If Mr Hunt is telling you that we should do that then when he returns to the Chair I will raise the matter with him as well.
Brown Peter: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
Brown Peter: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:615;Page:11342] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that that vote was on the title. It seems to me to be a total waste of time to go back to the title. The Greens will have their opportunity in due course to vote fully against the bill.
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8816] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Mr Speaker while it is unfortunate in some ways that you have been called back in other ways it would help the House if you were to give a proper ruling on this matter. If we look at Speakers’ rulings on the question we see they create an impression that might have made the member think that the Speaker could rule out the phrase “health Nazi” but I put it to you very strongly that the Speaker cannot. Speaker’s ruling 44/2 states: “There is nothing which prevents a member from commenting if necessary in severe terms on the conduct of people outside Parliament but the member should do so only if it is necessary for the argument being put forward.” I will come back to that. We have a further statement in Speaker’s ruling 44/3: “Members have absolute privilege in the House and cannot be held liable outside the House in relation to statements they have made in the House.” 
It is a question of free speech. I believe that even if members find the phrases “Nazi” or “health Nazi” to be objectionable that is a question of taste. If the Hon Peter Dunne wishes to use the phrase he is entitled to do so and the Speaker should uphold it. I point that out because it appears to be contradicted by at least some rulings—which go all the way back to 1900—stating that temperate and decorous language should be used with regard to persons outside Parliament. I suggest that such rulings are in contradiction to our right of free speech. Although I think it is reasonable for the Speaker to tell members that how they refer to people outside is a matter of careful judgment either we have free speech or we do not. I think it is time we had a further ruling from Speaker Hunt saying that members have the absolute right of free speech provided they are not referring to a member of the House—and the honourable member was not. He is entitled to call anyone outside the House—who is not a member of the judiciary—a Nazi. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say I do not need any further assistance. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Mr Speaker I am the subject of the comments so surely I should be able to make some comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member to make a comment very briefly because I am ready to rule.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Act—Review 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Act—Review 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is.
Chadwick Steve: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20601] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a quick call on this bill and I am alarmed to hear the Opposition speeches in the Chamber today. As the chair of the Health Committee at the request of that committee I asked the Ministry of Health to come and brief us. Perhaps the members were absent from the meeting but we had a very comprehensive briefing from Gillian Durham on all the aspects that members have raised in this Parliament as to why we have extended the moratorium and why we have voted to support this bill. It is for a very simple reason. All the issues that Dr Paul Hutchison raised are the very issues that are being considered by the Bioethics Council right now. It is a far more important body to listen to the very important and deeply concerning issues to do with some of the safety impacts of xenotransplantation than the Health Committee is. 
All we were asked to consider was to align the dates because the expiry of the dates currently is at the end of June. The Bioethics Council simply needs a little longer to consider all the submissions before making its report on every aspect of the issue that Heather Roy Katherine Rich and Paul Hutchison have raised today. I think that the members of the council are the experts. It is misleading the Committee to say that we rushed this bill through. We received a briefing from the ministry and it is interesting that not one of those members who have raised issues of concern asked one question of the ministry on xenotransplantation at the briefing that I arranged. 
In no way did I fast track this bill through the committee. The member who is raising the greatest concern was not present at the committee when we voted so I think that it is a mere oversight that the member does not understand the workings of the Bioethics Council at all and has again shown a distrust of the Ministry of Health. That is something I find most improper coming from the Opposition spokesperson on health. 
I support this bill. It is a simple bill simply to extend the moratorium to the end of December 2006 so as to allow proper consultation which is what those members of the Opposition have said I was denying. We are not the Bioethics Council; we are simply the Health Committee. We were asked to put the dates into alignment. I think we have done exactly the right thing and I move with haste to support this bill.
Peters Winston: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Peters Winston: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16368] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have asked her whether she is prepared to amend it. She nodded and said she is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is up to the honourable member Jill Pettis.
Franks Stephen: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8997] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think there is anything extra to say. It had better be new. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I have listened to get guidance because if when you have gone the Chair takes the ruling as meaning effectively that those words may not be used because they are unparliamentary I do not think that is what you intend by your ruling. For instance I believe that within the spirit and the words of the rule it is quite permissible to say: “I am reminded of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I wonder who the wicked queen is. Which one is Snow White?”. That is creating an analogy and painting a word picture. It is not in terms of the rule addressing a member. It is a shorthand way of forming an image and I believe that you do not intend to rule that out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not. I have said that if members have the wit the humour and the intelligence of course they can do that but they cannot specifically refer to members other than by their name or their rank.
Chadwick Steve: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17080] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14183] 
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 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 36 and the subpart heading above it be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.