edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Visitors — Ireland—Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food 
Visitors — Ireland—Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food 
[Volume:616;Page:11627] 
Tuesday 16 March 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Ireland—Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Liam Aylward TD Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food Ireland with responsibility for Animal Health and Customer Services is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Liam Aylward accompanied by the Hon David Carter entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Power Simon: Budget Debate 
Power Simon: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5945] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I noted during the member’s speech that he made reference to the fact that he has delegated responsibility for Work and Income. I wonder whether you could advise me as to whether the delegations for the new Ministers have been tabled and if they have not under what time frame that would normally be expected to occur. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The new schedule of delegated ministerial responsibilities has yet to be tabled. I am sure the Leader of the House will attend to that in due course. There is not a set time frame although I note that the present Minister of Customs was Minister of Customs previously and the delegation for Work and Income was previous to that too.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 
[Volume:609;Page:6677] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Very rarely does the Government respond to that kind of question except to reassert the power of the Government to transfer questions. But I think in this particular case the member has a point. I would be happy to seek leave for the question to be transferred back to the Minister of Police. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. When the question is called it will be to the Minister of Police.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15619] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 4 be agreed to.
Gosche Mark: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Gosche Mark: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6800] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Maungakiekie) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12726] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I allowed quite a lot of vigorous interjection then but I think there was a bit too much towards the end. But I do not want to stop interjection; it is part of our democracy. Before I call the next speaker I have to advise that she and Metiria Turei are going split the call and each have 5 minutes. I will give a quick flick at 4 minutes 30 seconds and then a bell at 5. I call Jeanette Fitzsimons.
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15200] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated! I had to give the member the opportunity to respond. I had indicated to the Committee that frivolous interjections designed to break up speeches were out of order. They lead to disorder and the member knows that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. The point is not your ruling; the point is that you are applying two standards for frivolous points of order. You shut down and jumped on Mr Power—and I was sitting here very quietly as I do—yet you indulged at length the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Now it might be that Mr Peters intimidates you more than Mr Power or some such thing but— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is out of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: May I finish my point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member had better come to the point of order because I have already ruled on it and Mr Peters has been reprimanded. 
Rodney Hide 
: I appreciate that. I ask that on your ruling of what is a frivolous and a not-frivolous point of order could we please have consistency right across the board?
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6169] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. First I acknowledge the mistake I made in that I have had three calls as the Clerk has pointed out. I understand that in the beginning when the House agreed that this bill would be debated in parts rather than part by part the debate was to be wide-ranging with as many calls as a member wished to take. Since then the goal posts have moved a bit and members are limited to four calls. There is a lot that has to be said. I am not wasting the Committee’s time. I am making constructive comments and I wish to make some comments about two more of the amendments that are before the Committee. Therefore I seek leave of the Committee to be able to have some additional calls this evening. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave for an additional call. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is it for one call or four? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is it for one call? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I think I need two if I may to complete what I need to say. We have plenty of time in this Committee for such an important piece of legislaiton. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I seek leave for one extra call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has now sought leave for one extra call. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Thank you.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:614;Page:10336] 
Business of the House 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I note that the House is making very good progress tonight. I also note that on the Order Paper are a number of bills that have been lanquishing for some time. Most particularly I draw the attention of the House to items 16 and 18. Item 18 is the Taonga Maori Protection Bill which has been on the Order Paper for the entire time the Labour Party has been in Government—almost 5 years now—with no progress whatsoever being made. I seek leave that the House move to the Committee stage of that bill right now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 A similar bill the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill has made no progress in this House since February 2001. It stands in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs and it is a little inexplicable that a bill should sit unattended for so long on the Order Paper. It would seem that this is an ideal opportunity for the House to take the Committee stage of that bill and I seek leave for that to happen now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3786] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before the member leaves I understood that the member was saying that he wanted to make a personal explanation in which case he can do it at any time and waiting until the end of question time was the appropriate time. I did not see anyone in the House preventing the member from making a personal explanation if he wants to make it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member said to me that he did not want to make one.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7307] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have no doubt that the question was properly lodged but did Dianne Yates approve that question or did some other MP sign it without her approval? That is the question.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14043] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.
Duynhoven Harry: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7886] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the consultation on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill showing no fewer than 12 occasions when such consultation occurred over the year 2002 and up to the present. 
Document not tabled.
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:17084] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 43C set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to insert in proposed new subclause (1) before the word “The” the words “Except as provided in section 43B”.
Fairbrother Russell: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3721] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill and I find it somewhat ironic that we are even debating a bill that will cost as little as $2 million yet will provide for the widows of 1200 people who are deprived because of an anomaly in the previous legislation. The fact that someone should remarry and lose their benefit seems to me to be quite iniquitous and without any basis for opposition. For those reasons I support the bill.
Hide Rodney: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17098] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On the basis of Mr Peters’ kind invitation I seek leave for another 5-minute call.
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8420] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is an interesting speech that we have just heard from Mr Gosche. I ask him to read the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee report because there was a submitter to the committee who likened this legislation to the apartheid legislation in South Africa. Of course Mr Gosche is not here to listen to this. He got his tail between his legs and has gone instead of sitting here and listening to what a member has to say. It is all very well for him to stand here and abuse a member of the House but we would expect him to sit here and listen to the reply—the truth rather than the type of speech that he has just made.
Maharey Steve: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Maharey Steve: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3810] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 As Katherine Rich has just pointed out Part 4 is an important part of the bill. It deals with what Ministers can do and what editorial independence will mean. As her comments have highlighted this is one of the major issues for broadcasters all around the world whether they are publicly or privately owned. How do they ensure that on a day-by-day basis they maintain their independence from the people who own them if they are private businesses or if they are publicly owned their independence from the direction inevitably of whatever administration happens to be in power at a particular time? I guess they do their best and that is what this bill does in relation to public broadcasting in this country. 
This bill does what we find in any country in relation to public broadcasting. First of all we establish a charter under which the organisation operates. That charter does not contain any direction whatsoever in relation to programme content. It does not allow for any interference from anybody outside the organisation. In fact it gives the organisation the space to be able to say it will not respond to its advertisers who might want to direct it in terms of what programmes they want to see in terms of their trying to get an audience for their advertisements and neither will it respond to anybody who comes from a Government department or a politician because it has a charter that defines its role and therefore it has independence. 
Secondly of course we do what happens in this bill. If anybody does not get the message that the charter is giving independence to this organisation the law says explicitly that Ministers have clearly proscribed and prescribed powers. They are never in any circumstances able to interfere in anything to do with choosing programmes the content of those programmes criticising those programmes etc. More than that nobody in the organisation nobody on the board or a servant of that organisation can be interfered with at all by a politician can be told that he or she no longer has a job or a position because of something that person might have done in relation to this organisation. 
I know we are going to have a vigorous debate now as we ought to on the independence of public service broadcasting but I think what we have done here is exactly what would be found in any public broadcasting organisation around the world. It is clearly set out in law that this is an independent organisation and that it has a charter in law that guides its behaviour. Although we may discuss this over the next little while I reassure members that what they have here is what would be found in any jurisdiction that has stand-up public broadcasting.
Robertson H V Ross: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17731] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and just say that that is entirely up to the member. Of course when it comes to closures that is a matter for the Chair to decide but I am sure that what the member has made obvious will be taken into consideration.
Hughes Darren: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9864] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12812] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The House may have lost track of the bill during the last speech. The bill does establish a statutory process for the receipt of complaints about judges where both their conduct and the investigation of complaints raise the question of removal of a judge from office. This is an important issue. The Government is committed to the goal of maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judiciary while adhering to the principle of judicial independence. That is not an easy balancing act at the best of times but I believe that this bill advances that issue in an appropriate manner. 
The only other comment I want to make in passing is that during the course of the debate I was deeply disappointed to hear members opposite politicking and bringing hard-working officials who are here to serve the interests of our Parliament into the debate. It is most unfortunate and completely inappropriate conduct on the part of Opposition members similarly to bring into the debate the Clerk of House. There is a longstanding convention that the Clerk provides expert advice to presiding officers as he did in the course of this debate. I regret that senior members opposite would stoop to bring him into the debate. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This speech is an attempt to justify a ruling that you have already made which is a closed issue. It does not relate to this bill. It is an opportunity for the Minister to engage in pointless politicking. I invite you to draw it to a close. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that. Under Speaker’s ruling 49/2 there is nothing to prevent severe comments about officials. It is a matter of taste but I point out that officials have no opportunity to defend themselves or reply. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Thank you for that ruling. It is very helpful to the House. This bill strikes the correct balance between the goals I have outlined. It establishes a transparent and accessible process for people to make complaints about judges and allows for proper investigation of matters that may lead to the removal of a judge. I am pleased to support the progress of the bill.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17007] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of the definition of  
public foreshore and seabed 
 the word “but”.
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:7801] 
A party vote 
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. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except the Hon Mark Gosche”.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15437] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert after the definition of  
deepwater quota 
 the following definition: 
defined takiwaiwi 
 means an iwi whose takiwa is identified in a takiwa defining deed of settlement or a takiwa defining enactment.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11644] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Locke Keith: General Debate 
Locke Keith: General Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:21856] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Mark said that the documents I seek to table did not apply to Winston Peters. All my documents were dated 1979 and Mr Peters was in the National Government supporting Pol Pot during that year. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you but that is not a point of order.
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:8778] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I point out to the member again that there is a process called the Business Committee. It has to work. People have to act in good faith in that process. There are mechanisms that have been used many times. We would have no objection if members on that side of the House wanted to split their speaking slots for instance by arrangement with the Chair. We would have no objection to that. The member says his party has three 10-minute speeches; splitting them would allow six 5-minute slots and we would have no objection to that at all. But we had a clear set of discussions yesterday. It is important that we actually do stick to what we arrange. Mr Brownlee has as good as acknowledged that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have not acknowledged that. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Well I would have hoped the member would. I think Mr Assistant Speaker that you should put the leave that we should get on with the debate and that you should give the call—which is your responsibility—as you will.
Benson-Pope David: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Benson-Pope David: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17182] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mapp Wayne: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8797] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I am speaking to the point of order because it does not seem to have yet been resolved. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: What? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The issue that Mr Dunne has raised has not actually been resolved; you have not actually ruled on that matter. The question is this. I believe that the House was under a mistake—you will be well familiar with that concept in law—when the Deputy Leader of the House sought to table minutes that were not actually what the House had been led to believe they were. It is quite clear that the decision of the House could well have been different—I am not saying it would have been different; I am saying it could well have been different—if people had known what was actually being tabled. What was represented to be tabled was not actually what was tabled. The importance of that is this. You just mentioned a bit earlier that that was not a material factor. I put it to you that it actually is a material factor and it wholly changes what was sought to be tabled. The minutes if they were such have an official status and there would be no other issues that could possibly arise from that fact. In this instance however they are not minutes but are to use the rather memorable phrase of Mr Dunne mere doodlings of the secretary until approved. That is a material difference. It is not a minor consequence as may have been suggested by yourself Mr Assistant Speaker and I would suggest to you that you do have to reconsider your earlier ruling on the matter.
Swain Paul: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4588] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I wish to bring members’ attention briefly to some amendments in my name which are in the immortal words of the Hon Stan Rodger minor technical amendments. They simply improve the schedule of the bill.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19191] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Care of Children Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven   
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke   
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark  (P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams   
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole   
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13048] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21685] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that Howard Willis Case had $20000 of his fines wiped off by Judge Moran. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. 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:620;Page:15801] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for your guidance on this. This relates to a question to Mr Russell Fairbrother on 14 September 2004. He was asked when Nanaia Mahuta would be presenting a submission to the select committee. His answer was that it was received outside the parameters set by the committee so at that stage there was no date set. You then intervened and provided an answer to the question when you said that: “The member said that it was not going to be heard.” Now in fact the member had not said that. You said that. You answered the question and that satisfied the House. My question is in relation to the question I am putting today. First of all am I able to refer to you answering the question in an emphatic way in which case do I relate that back to what Mr Fairbrother said or what?
Donnelly Brian: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19597] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. To resolve this issue I say that it appears that a typo was made in our speaking list giving instructions and our whip has just asked me whether I will change the New Zealand First vote to 13 votes in favour. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will just clarify it. We now have everybody voting in favour so we do not have to have a vote.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7637] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will be brief and I assure you that this will be my last point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Hallelujah! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I remember when I got thrown out for doing that to Mr Peters.
Ogilvy Bernie: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4054] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to express United Future’s opposition to this bill. No one not even the Minister could deny that there have been some problems with the realisation and the implementation of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). I am hopeful that the Minister will take the findings that we have given him on board. However our review was not intended to inquire about the efficacy of the NCEA as a qualification. There can be no doubt that School Certificate and Sixth Form Certificate have as others have expressed tonight become outmoded. The NCEA does give students parents and employers much more information about the skills students have acquired than before. 
There are still many bugs to iron out but should we really do what the bill suggests and delay the implementation of level 2 of the NCEA for another 2 years? After previous delays to level 1 and a decision to make level 2 optional this year schools and even teachers have decided that it is better just to get on with it and to try to make the system work as it is. The staggered take-ups have been disruptive to students. The current senior school year groups will potentially hold an array of different qualifications over different years for different subjects. I ask why we should prolong that instability for twice the number of students over an even longer period. A better option would be to review and revise levels 1 and 2 as schools work through them. 
In the case of level 3 though United Future believes we have a brief window of opportunity for scrutiny before it is introduced. Our concern is that level 3 must balance the consistency of skill-based education against the need to ensure a rigorous entry-level standard for tertiary education. United Future wants to ensure that level 3 has real academic value and rigour. One approach is to favour an initiative to restore the potential for bursaries and scholarships to encourage excellence among our children. We think the introduction of level 3 is an excellent opportunity to change the very low value and esteem that is associated with bursaries and scholarships by markedly increasing their value. That will depend on giving level 3 some grunt as we go through the process. Moreover United Future would want to look at the possibility of making level 3 credits available towards tertiary education. That would also help students to borrow less and thus not to get as much into debt as they do now. 
We take the very practical approach that it is better to accept that the NCEA is here to stay and to work towards making the best possible system for our children rather than to throw out the baby with the bath water. United Future opposes this bill.
Hide Rodney: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
Hide Rodney: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4442] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for looking into the matter. I would also ask that you consult the Attorney-General because we all heard her very clearly say that it could be done—that the motion could be moved. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. That is a debating matter.
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7185] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Housing be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Vote agreed to.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20986] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following new subparagraph: 
(i)the close of the day that is 12 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15641] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 5 be agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8719] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — New Zealand Scholarship Examination—Future 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — New Zealand Scholarship Examination—Future 
[Volume:624;Page:19449] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Bill English seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 an announcement by the Associate Minister of Education about the future of the New Zealand Scholarship exams. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Given that it relates to a matter of considerable public importance and that it sets out the Government’s acceptance of most of the recommendations of an expert panel set up a month or so ago following controversy over the National Certificate of Educational Achievement I consider that the House should have an early opportunity to consider the matter. I am therefore prepared to accept the application and I call upon Mr English to move the motion.
Turei Metiria: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12178] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have proposed an amendment to the bill to delete clause 5. This clause sets out the redundancy changes. In our view this clause undermines the collective agreements and is an attempt to alter by legislation collective agreements with the teachers. Currently when a school closes a teacher is entitled to take redundancy. If the teacher subsequently gets a job in another school after he or she has accepted redundancy the teacher is required to refund an appropriate amount of his or her redundancy. That is perfectly reasonable and is a process that already exists. But clause 5 takes that option away from teachers. If their school closes and they are offered an equivalent position—a decision about equivalency made by the Minister—they are required to take it even if their original school has closed. 
This is not even an equivalent process to the one for mergers where there is at least a guarantee of employment for teachers. In the Greens’ view this is an attempt by the Minister to remedy the problems that he will face when he closes schools and builds new flash expensive ones but finds that teachers in those areas are so unhappy with the process around their employment so unhappy with the school closures that they choose not to teach at that new school or in some cases not to teach at all. 
How will the Minister staff these new schools? Will he listen to their calls not to close schools arbitrarily that are vital to the community and thereby repair the relationships he has damaged? Will he offer better conditions and pay for teachers as a whole to ensure that they are properly paid for the crucial job they do? No he will not. What he will do instead is change the conditions of their employment without their agreement using legislation not bargaining and strip away their choice of redundancy. The Greens’ amendment will eliminate this inequity in the bill and we urge all members to support it.
Carter David: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15224] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 In reading the very detailed commentary on the bill I acknowledge that a significant number of changes have been made through the select committee process. Coupled with the amendments made in the committee process the National Party has determined that it will support this legislation. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11280] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Lynda Scott to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 112F of the principal Act by adding the following subsection: 
(4)If a woman decides that she does not wish to allow an evaluator to have access to her primary care records she can by way of informing the NCSP cancel her enrolment in the NCSP or opt-off for access to primary care records alone but remain as part of the overall NCSP.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15649] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12636] 
11.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: What grants including assistance for regional partnerships programmes have been allocated by Industry New Zealand and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise since 1 January 2003? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 Since 1 January 2003 New Zealand’s trade development agency—New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—has approved 802 grants including 47 under the Regional Partnerships Programme for a total investment of $42 million. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Why does the Labour-Progressive coalition Government use taxpayers’ money for these grants instead of just letting the marketplace alone determine the fate of regional and industry sectors? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: This Labour-Progressive coalition Government knows that the benefits of business development flow across the whole economy benefiting more than just individual companies or individual projects. By getting in behind these business opportunities we are encouraging them to do more in the interests of supporting the wider economy than they otherwise may have done. We believe that Governments have a responsibility to play a strong role as a partner for industry and regional development and that our role includes clearing impediments to development as well as supporting innovative and successful companies to embrace market opportunities that arise. 
Tim Barnett 
: Can the Minister give some practical examples of how taxpayers get value for money from grants made since January 2003? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I will just give a couple of brief examples from the Waikato—a Government stronghold. Earlier this year I had the privilege of opening the Waikato Innovation Park a world-class centre for live sciences which benefited from the Regional Partnerships Programme. That park represents a collaborative approach involving the Government research and educational institutions Tainui and business representatives. The same is true for the second example—New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. It has worked alongside Pacific Aerospace Corporation for a number of years introducing them to potential buyers in a variety of markets including the United States South America Europe South-east Asia and the Middle East. The company is now looking at the potential to gain export orders in excess of $440 million over the next 10 years to benefit this country’s trade account. Those examples are among those that we on this side of the House are extraordinarily proud of and they stand in stark contrast to the sterile approach of the previous National Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer was too long.
Benson-Pope David: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3679] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of the bill and I recommend it going to the select committee.
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6569] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Standing Orders of this House are quite clear—that is if members take objection they have an obligation to take objection at the time. Dr Nick Smith did make some very rude gratuitous remarks to you during Mr Brownlee’s speech. We heard them over here and we decided it was not appropriate to interrupt on that basis.
Tabling of Documents — Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 
Tabling of Documents — Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 
[Volume:607;Page:4503] 
Tabling of Documents 
Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three separate papers pages 2520 3135 and 3186-87 to do with the citizenship of Samoa bill introduced on 24 August 1982 showing that the Labour Party supported the bill— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Mapp Wayne: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8802] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 We did not know at the time of the request that it was draft minutes— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That was not the question. I was asking you because you had posed a question there. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Surely it is the one who attempts to table it—the perpetrator. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Even though you as a member allowed it? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well no one has allowed it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think we are going round in circles.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5183] 
11.  
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she tell delegates at the OECD forum on economic growth yesterday that she disagrees with the OECD’s criticisms of her Government’s economic policy; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: No. Having read the speech she was clearly far too busy explaining the success of the present Government in controlling New Zealand’s economy and also promoting the issues of multilateral trade liberalisation which are dear to the hearts of many of us in this House. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is ironic for her to be chairing an OECD meeting on growth when her own Government is actively pursuing economic policies that contrast with OECD advice on how to increase economic growth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I note the membership’s agreement with that advice which includes reducing benefits increasing the age for the pension introducing privatisation of education systems and indeed the introduction of a general capital gains tax specifically applied to housing. 
David Cunliffe 
: What in fact did the OECD say about this Government’s economic policy in its most recent 2002 survey? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The OECD which more precisely in this context is the bureaucracy in the OECD painted a positive fiscal picture and noted that our growth and innovation policy was in line with its growth work. It certainly did advocate further privatisation but that is not the policy of this Government. We do not receive our policies on economics from the OECD any more than our foreign policy is received from the State Department. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that the latest survey of New Zealand economic forecasters showed a downward revision in their long-term forecasts for New Zealand’s economic growth suggesting that the profession has little faith in her Government’s pledge to lift long-term economic growth; if so is that the reason she has now abandoned her Government’s goal of lifting New Zealand’s performance into the top half of the OECD within 10 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The latter is not a Government goal. In the case of the first part of the question I think that all economic forecasters are certainly lowering their short-term forecasts. I have to say that in a world surrounded by uncertainty following a drought and with severe acute respiratory syndrome economic growth dropping in every other country and an increase in the level of the New Zealand dollar I would actually be on the pessimistic side with regard to conditions for the next 6 months.