edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tizard Judith: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7069] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Biosecurity 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill was introduced to the House on 7 August 2001 was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 16 August 2001 and was reported back in November 2001. It amends the Biosecurity Act which provides a framework to enable the exclusion of pests and unwanted organisms from entering into and establishing in New Zealand and to provide for the eradication or management of pests and unwanted organisms that are already present in New Zealand. The Act also provides for the ongoing monitoring of New Zealand’s pests and unwanted organisms status in order to facilitate the provision of official assurances in relation to exports of organisms and their products as well as to meet our international reporting obligations and trading requirements. The amendments to the Act made by the bill and Supplementary Order Paper 96 are technical in nature; consequently the bill does not substantially change the main policies in the Act. The amendments have arisen as a result of experience in applying the Act to new situations as a result of responding to organisational changes in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and as a result of the need to resolve inconsistencies and provide greater clarity in the Act. 
This bill has provided some fine-tuning to what is now an effective and efficient Act. The Government has put in more than $50 million in baseline funding for biosecurity every year and New Zealand now has one of the most effective systems in the world for providing protection in this area. However we will continue to get incursions of organisms across the border that must be dealt with. The Government is making a major contribution but every citizen must do that as well and this bill makes provision for that by requiring them to watch out for unusual or new diseases insects or animals and to report them to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
This bill recognises the role of individual citizens as well as that of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and it makes small but important changes to the Act. I believe that this bill deserves the support of the House because it will improve the protection for New Zealand from organisms that may harm our farms orchards forests conservation areas marine environment and human health. The continued protection of those national assets is vital to all New Zealanders and I commend this bill to the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21921] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 There were negotiations earlier this afternoon about Parliament granting leave for this bill to progress immediately following the Committee stage. The reason for that was that we were told that a large number of people from the iwi were making their way to Parliament for the third reading. On that basis obviously we did not want them to come here for no purpose. I know we are not meant to refer to the galleries but it is patently obvious that the group that is on its way has not yet arrived. Accordingly I would seek leave that we hold this third reading for perhaps another 35 minutes or so in order that the group may be able to be present in the Chamber. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7899] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is an unresolved point of order and that is the point of order raised by Mr Franks. I too am a member of that committee and I simply note that the issue is unresolved by ruling from you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that. I apologise. That is a matter for the committee and I know the committee will take the issues that are raised into full account. That is its business and it can do what it wishes. I do not give any direction to it.
Mackey Janet: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Janet: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14762] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19203] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
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 (P) 
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   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes   
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
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) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14945] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Pettis Jill: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8694] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
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:17051] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to 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 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2;  
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
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:21890] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a call in this part of the debate. Firstly I want to make a comment about clause 46. I must say—and it is not very often that I agree with him—that I have to support the concern of the National member particularly in terms of subclause (1). Only some New Zealanders will not have the opportunity in terms of the non-notifiable applications. In this clause the claimant group will receive notification of all applications whereas the only notification of applications that the general public will not receive are those that are deemed to be non-notifiable. With regard to clause 46(3) I cannot see why they would want to waive their rights under this clause and I would be very interested to know under just what circumstances they would want to do so. 
I want to make a specific comment with regard to clauses 85 and 86. I reluctantly agree with the comments made by the ACT member because he said that the House is not denying the right of the claimant group to its beliefs. But we say that the House has no right to legislate for those beliefs. Secondly their exclusion would not affect the settlement in terms of the quality or the amount. However one may be suspicious that the negotiators on behalf of the Crown may have included this so as to minimise the amount of settlement. I suggest that that is probably a factor. 
The comments made by the Green member have contributed to a thought that I have always had in terms of my concern for the inclusion of this part. By including this and having the comments that are being made by this Committee—I must say that it has not been too derisive to this point—the fact is that if we continue to go in the direction that the Green member has started to take the debate then I will feel some embarrassment for the claimant group. I want to re-emphasise the point that the claimant group is entitled to its beliefs. It is not the responsibility of this Parliament to pass into legislation what the claimant group might believe. I suggest that before too long—and I am probably showing my age—we will believe that there really was a Janet and John. As a young person growing up and going to school I believed in Janet and John. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And Harry Potter? 
PITA PARAONE 
: No not Harry Potter. I am a bit older than that but my grandchildren think that Harry Potter actually exists. That is the point I am making—if we start legislating for that sort of thing future generations will start saying that they have to believe it. 
We are talking about getting an enduring settlement. Excluding this part will not make any difference to the endurance of the settlement. I wanted to stand to make the point that the claimants Nga Rauru Kitahi will still have their settlement even if this reference is not included. I signal that New Zealand First will be supporting the amendment that has been proposed by United Future.
Franks Stephen: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5022] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Was that the closure motion— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it is not a closure motion. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17821. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Sowry Roger: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6636] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot let that go in the sense that an Opposition member raising a point of order is our only avenue to try to get a Minister to give an answer. You yourself know that I have spoken to you outside this Chamber on the fact that the Opposition to get a Minister to address a question has to raise a point of order to get you to ask the Minister to address the question. I have appealed to you several times to intervene on Ministers before we raise points of order. For you then to stand up and say that you will count the points of order over the weekend and that will show that the Opposition raises too many is not right. We will not raise points of order if the Chair is proactive during question time in making Ministers answer.
Cullen Michael: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
Cullen Michael: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13464] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That member knows very well how that Standing Order has to be applied: he merely states what was claimed to be said. He then says what he said and nothing more than that. He does not engage in further argument as he has now done twice. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Speaker’s ruling 35/1 states: “A member who has been misrepresented must wait until the end of the speech of the member concerned before rising to make an explanation even though the speech in which the misrepresentation is alleged to have been made has been interrupted by the adjournment on a Friday and is not concluded until after the resumption of the debate on the following Tuesday.” The point is that the misrepresentation Mr Prebble has alleged could have been dealt with in debate and should— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I’ve got no call left. Don’t be ridiculous!
Baldock Larry: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11113] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to express our support for the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill. It is a reasonably straightforward piece of legislation that is needed in the City of Wellington and we are happy to see it passed through the House reasonably expeditiously today. Although it is a fairly simple bill it does not mean that some issues did not come up that the Local Government and Environment Committee needed to look into properly in order to fulfil our responsibilities—not to interfere in what the council’s responsibilities were but when submitters came to us with issues of concern we of course had to address those. I believe the committee has done a thorough job on that and has now recommended to the House to see the bill passed. 
I do want to make a couple of quick comments about some comments that the member from National—who plays a very important role on our select committee and a very active one—made earlier. He was speaking about the fact that the new Local Government Act was of course supposed to have rendered such things redundant and there was no need for these small bills to be coming to this House any more. It is important that the people who read this  
Hansard  
and those who are following the debate here would be aware of the facts in this regard and I am sure the member must be aware of what the committee put in its report regarding this piece of legislation which began its journey prior to the Local Government Act. In fact it began its journey in 2002. 
The select committee’s report to the House actually makes it very clear that this bill is to come into force on 1 July 2003. I will quickly read out the reasons why so that the member might be brought up to speed with what happened. Perhaps it went through the committee too fast for him and he was unable to catch all of the relevant details: “The Willis Street land is held as an endowment for municipal purposes and is therefore currently covered by section 230 of the Local Government Act 1974. However from 1 July 2003 the new Local Government Act 2002 will come fully into effect and the Willis Street land will be covered by sections 140 to 141 of the 2002 Act. For reasons of clarity and simplicity we consider that this bill should come into force on the same day as the new Local Government Act 2002 comes fully into force that is 1st July 2003 and we recommend that clause 2 be amended accordingly.” 
 All this palaver and criticism about the Local Government Act 2002—which we worked so very hard on at the beginning of my term in this Parliament; and select committees have worked on it in previous terms—for the fact that this one has to come through is very unfounded and misleading. I am happy to correct that impression in the House today and again reiterate our support for this bill. I hope all members will help it to go through the House quickly this afternoon.
Pettis Jill: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pettis Jill: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17868. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8997] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I have given a specific ruling and I will not go into hypotheses. Members must be referred to as members or honourable members. There are lots of ways that they can be accused of not entering into a debate—all the types of things that are made. I am sure there is a great deal of skill that a lot of members have in this regard.
Points of Order — Member's Withdrawal from Chamber—Sandra Goudie 
Points of Order — Member's Withdrawal from Chamber—Sandra Goudie 
[Volume:624;Page:19646] 
Points of Order 
Member's Withdrawal from Chamber—Sandra Goudie 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have left the point of order until the conclusion of question time. It relates to your requiring Sandra Goudie to leave the Chamber. We do not of course dispute that decision; that would be contrary to the Standing Orders. I seek from you some guidance on interjections and your ruling on how members are to be treated if they interject during points of order. My records indicate that on 16 March this year—they are my records alone—Annette King interjected three times during points of order and no action was taken at that time. My understanding—and I stand to be corrected—is that Sandra Goudie interjected during a point of order for the first time. I would ask that a degree of consistency be applied between senior Government Ministers interjecting on points of order and Opposition back-benchers doing the same. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I take the member’s point. As has come from the debate during question time today there will be a much stricter application of all the rules in the future.
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17026] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I think that we all know what your ruling has to be but I want to make the point to you that Mr Peters’ suggestions with regard to Mr Brownlee’s conduct are not fair. It is correct that before the lunch break he had three points of order but two of them were from me and the Chair upheld me both times. I will not go into what Mr Peters was saying but for him to suggest that Mr Brownlee was interrupting his speech is just not correct. Those points of order were raised by me. 
Having said that I do not quite know why you have been called back because obviously you have to support the Chair. But I suggest to you—and perhaps through you it will go back to the Chair—that it would be most unfortunate to have a debate on a major matter when the deputy leader of the National Party who has been the Opposition’s senior spokesperson on this matter and who was on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee is not in the Chamber. My suggestion to the Chair is that perhaps after we have the vote on this part Mr Brownlee might return because without him we cannot hold a proper debate.
Chadwick Steve: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7064] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mallard Trevor: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Mallard Trevor: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:622;Page:18022] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Horomia Parekura: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Horomia Parekura: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12991] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:624;Page:19105] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. Priority will also be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill which as members will know is a 4-hour debate. As previously indicated on Thursday the third reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill will be the first item of business on the Order Paper. And of course Wednesday is a members’ day.
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19158] 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I don’t mind interjections during this. Has he received any recent reports on how the regions are responding to the challenge— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When a member is called it is quite simple: he or she stands up addresses the Minister and reads the question. The member does not go into a palaver like Matt Robson has. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Would the member please ask the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What was it about my point of order that meant it was not a point of order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In the point the member made as I understood it he was trying to say that the member should not have made any comment at all on the question before he had actually asked it. Is that correct? 
Rodney Hide 
: That is correct. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not regard that as a point of order. The member then went on to address the question immediately. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point here is that the member is not addressing the question—he is asking it. The Standing Orders are extremely explicit about how questions are to be asked. Mr Robson has a very liberal view of how the world should be. It would be unfortunate if his view of how questions could be asked—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask members to be quiet during points of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It would be unfortunate if Mr Robson’s view of how questions should be asked were to become the normal way of operating. Mr Hide was quite right to point out that Mr Robson was acting very much outside the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I take the point from the member. In future members should not make any comment; they should address the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could I have it recorded in the record that I did raise a point of order and that you ruled in my favour? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member may if it makes him happy. I am happy to concede that.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12397] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Burton Mark: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Burton Mark: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17571] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Perhaps I could speak to the point of order. It is an interesting issue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is an interesting issue and the member is absolutely right. I was about to ask the member what he suggests we should do about it. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although obviously it is in your province to make a judgment on this matter Mr Chairman now that it has been raised surely the thing of most import to the Committee is that the intent of members is clear and that their vote is appropriately recorded. If a whip is holding a proxy for a member then the member’s intent is clear. It seems to me it would be quite inappropriate if the end result were that the member’s vote either was recorded opposite to his or her clear intent or was not counted at all when he or she had properly indicated his or her intention to the whip. Although Mr Prebble has raised an interesting point I think good sense and natural justice would suggest that—even if from this point forward you determine that a different practice should be followed—it would be a gross injustice to overturn the obvious intention of a member in casting his or her vote.
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18389] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That 
 this House has no confidence in the Government led by Helen Clark who given the opportunity to outline her vision for New Zealand has failed to even identify the big challenges which lie ahead for our nation whose Government has confiscated from hard-working New Zealanders the fruits of the best international economic conditions we have enjoyed for many decades and who sees our future as the creation of an all-powerful all-knowing Government rather than the result of the Kiwi spirit of enterprise skill innovation and hard work which resides with individual New Zealanders. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10005] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer Mr Brown to Speaker’s ruling 17/3. The member is persistently challenging the Chair which makes it a highly disorderly situation. He should also refer to Standing Order 85(1). He has his first yellow card.
Carter John: Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Carter John: Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5201] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I rise just to say that the National Party will support this bill through its stages.
Brown Peter: Appointments — Ombudsman—Beverley Wakem 
Brown Peter: Appointments — Ombudsman—Beverley Wakem 
[Volume:622;Page:17663] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Due to retirement we need a new Ombudsman and Parliament has selected that person. The process was efficient effective democratic and fair. The result is that we have appointed a lady with considerable ability a very impressive track record and one who will make a very competent Ombudsman. On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we are pleased to see her appointed and I take the opportunity of wishing her every success.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6285] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 3(1) be agreed to.
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17369] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is how it can be read yes. But Mr Prebble and to an extent Dr Cullen more fully explained the issue. I thank all members.
Vote: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Vote: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:20143] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 32 
New Zealand National 22; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3834] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 8. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to the schedules be agreed to.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15627] 
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 Part 5 be agreed to.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6880] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Carter to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to add the words “ except for provisions affecting water and wastewater which will come into effect by Order in Council”.
Robertson H V Ross: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9023] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell members that if amendments occur in the same place then the Minister has preference. We are doing these amendments at the end for that very reason. They have been done at the end before. By doing it this way it means that other members’ amendments are voted on. Otherwise those amendments could be ruled out. To me it is clear and simple.
Robertson H V Ross: General Debates 
Robertson H V Ross: General Debates 
[Volume:617;Page:13326] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members will recall that the first meeting of this Parliament in 1854 was recorded as being “all chaos”. Today we have another opportunity to distance ourselves from that dim dark beginning and we will have order.
Peters Jim: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Jim: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to speak very briefly with regard to Part 4. I see that the Minister is smiling and the only reason I can think of for that is because he is thinking of the Teachers Council one of the autonomous Crown entities which at the present time—and unfortunately on the very day that most primary schools in the country close for the year—has huge problems. No doubt the Minister is thinking quietly to himself about clause 82 which refers to how the Minister with as little formality and technicality as possible is permitted by natural justice and a proper consideration of the matter to bring appointments to the Teachers Council board to an end. If ever a council needed that thorough listing of issues of concern such as accountability and delivery of service it is the Teachers Council. The Minister ought to look at that very very closely because so many people in front of classrooms in the last term had no training were not qualified or registered or were people with limited authority to teach who had not been verified or checked. 
The situation in a number of schools that I can mention is such that the Teachers Council has no ability whatsoever on behalf of the Minister and the ministry to monitor the work of those schools at all. Secondly the council does not seem to be able to keep chief executive officers. They have come and gone so I suggest to the Minister very strongly that the provisions of section 82 need to be put into practice as soon as possible. When this bill is passed the Teachers Council should be the very first body to be addressed by this clause and the actions the Minister ought to have taken should be taken under this bill as soon as it becomes law with the Queen’s assent.
Goudie Sandra: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15646] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an undated document from the Finance and Expenditure Committee that is a commentary on the Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13161] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
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 the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (Abolition of Private Management of Prisons and Other Matters) Act”.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6863] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from new subsection (6) of section 41 the word “not” where it first occurs.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8859] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 15 
ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17620] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted 
. 
Ayes 70 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Simich 
Barnett  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton  
Benson-Pope  
Fairbrother  
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Tanczos  
Burton  
Goff(P) 
Mallard (P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
O'Connor  
Turei(P) 
Chadwick  
Hartley  
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker  
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Prebble  
Cullen  
Hodgson  
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia  
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel  
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt  
Robson(P) 
Donnelly  
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 49 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Turia(P) 
Alexander (P) 
English(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turner  
Ardern(P) 
Franks  
Perry(P) 
Wang(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters J 
Williamson(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Power  
Worth(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall  
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mark 
Smith N (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Copeland(P) 
McNair  
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Newman(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Tisch  
Report adopted.
Brown Peter: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19908] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mine will not be a long contribution. I accept that the Minister has stood and clarified why clause 51(a) has been inserted in the bill but I draw his attention to new clause 48 on the same Supplementary Order Paper 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Which clause? 
PETER BROWN 
: Clause 48. It is a modification of the existing clause 48 but I think it gives the Minister all the powers he needs to do everything that he just outlined to us. I cannot find any need for clause 51(a) to be reinserted into the bill. Having said that New Zealand First is quite happy with this bill. As I said in the second reading speech we believe that the railway needs a safety regime that is more practical and a little bit more comprehensive than the current regime. We are very supportive of this bill. If the Minister wants to put in clause 51(a) we have no real beef with that. We can understand it but we do not think it is necessary. We accept the Minister’s explanation but we think the issue is well covered. 
I conclude by saying once again that a lot of work was put into this by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and by officials. I would like to compliment the officials. They went back three or four times to various rail participants. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We were quite hard on them. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think we bullied them a little bit if the truth is told. But they came back and delivered the goods and I think they have a pretty good bill. I am a little disappointed that the Government did not see fit to alert us to this Supplementary Order Paper. The Government had a lot of cooperation from the Opposition parties and we would appreciate a little— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It was nearly a case of all bets are off I tell you. 
PETER BROWN 
: It got close to that. It touched on our sensitivities. But I think the Minister has taken the point on board. When the Government gets cooperation as it has on this bill it would be nice if it would say: “Look we just want to amend it a little bit. Would you guys like to give it some sort of consideration?”. But the Government is the Government and one gets consideration from the Government only by insulting one’s own colleagues and calling them goodness knows what. Then one gets considered by the Prime Minister and one gets cuddles. But by cooperating with the Government one gets nothing except treated with a degree of contempt. I conclude by saying that New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation.
Hawkins George: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Hawkins George: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17404] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I usually sit down and keep quiet during conscience votes. Having strong opinions has forced me today to get up and say that the reason I joined the Labour Party was it is against discrimination. It is against making divides in our community. I remember back in 1981 the Springbok tour when people were against people—New Zealander against New Zealander—and I felt that was wrong. I also think that having different categories of people in New Zealand is wrong. I was privileged to be New Zealand’s first Minister for Ethnic Affairs and I saw how people were discriminated against when trying to get jobs. They are welcomed to our country but by golly if their accent or skin colour is different it is hard. I think those barriers need to be taken down. I believe that the Labour Party is a party in which we can have debate and argue these things. 
That does not mean that I think any less of marriage. I have been married for 37 years which probably says that I have a very tolerant wife. But I also believe that people can make their own arrangements. People can live in de facto relationships. Not many years ago if one was in a de facto relationship could one get a bank loan for a mortgage? Not many years ago the bank manager would have said no. Things are changing. This legislation is an important part of that change. This is about a country growing up and recognising that there are differences. The fact that there are differences is something we should rejoice in. It makes people feel better. 
I also respect those people who have a different view. I respect the four young people who came to my electorate office last week and said that I should not vote for the bill. I respect the pastors who told me the same thing. Their views are important but so are the views of others in this country who want to make a commitment to one another. When we consider commitment let us look at people in marriages who punch and beat their wives and beat up their kids; if marriage is the answer it must have been a hell of a silly question. Marriage works for most people. I think most people should allow other people to make decisions for themselves. I think that we as a country must allow other people to have the same freedom and commitment that I have and enjoy. Marriage is something that I hope my son gets involved in shortly. However that will be his choice. I also feel that for people to want to make a commitment to each other in whatever form that commitment must be really strong. They want to commit to one another—to commit as couples—and to have that commitment recognised by a country that is maturing slowly. 
I hope that this bill goes through this stage today and is passed next week. It will make a lot of difference to some people but it will not affect those whose marriages are strong and full of commitment and love. I just think that other people should be able to enjoy that.
English Bill: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
English Bill: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17806. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 Part 5 is the decisive part of this bill because it includes United Future’s amendments to change the thresholds for setting out the taxation rates. Of course there will be a test for the United Future members when we get to the end of this stage. They are proposing to vote for their amendments which we understand will be lost because the Greens are voting with Labour on them. But then the United Future members will vote for the bill even though the issue of the taxation rates is one of United Future’s main campaigning tools over the next couple of months. Generally if a party puts up amendments to a bill and they are lost it votes against the bill. The most critical issue in this bill which is the setting of the taxation rates will be resolved in an unsatisfactory way for United Future.
Samuels Dover: Tabling of Documents — Sky Videotape 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Samuels Dover: Tabling of Documents — Sky Videotape 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6414. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a video by Sky television showing quite clearly the broadcast that was done by Hemana Waaka Maori Sportscasting International on 15 June 2002 in Perth Western Australia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17769. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
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:16370] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I thank the National Party for allowing me to take the slot for this call. I say very briefly that with all our different and varying ideas in respect of this legislation New Zealand First’s position is that we would like to see it go to a select committee and to hear the various opinions around this country expert and otherwise. Having been through that procedure we will then make up our mind. I just want to put that on the record. 
I know that other parties have different views. I know for example that United Future is going to vote 4-4—four for the gun lobby and four for the other side of the society. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I don’t think so. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes I think it probably will. I want to say that for our part unless legislation is heinous wrong and evil then we are happy to see it go to a select committee and to take the views of the experts who make submissions as a guide in our deliberations as a caucus. We will decide then but right now New Zealand First intends to vote unanimously—we will not split our vote—to send this bill to the select committee.