edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16710] 
8.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: What recent successful resolutions have there been regarding trade disputes? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 I am delighted to confirm that our second-longest running trade access issue has been successfully resolved. From the end of this month the export of honey bees and honey bee semen from New Zealand to the United States will be allowed. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What is the impact of this trade breakthrough? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: It is estimated that the initial value of the new United States market might be about $140000. That is not a large amount but this market is an important new market for our bee industry and it has the potential to grow. It will also help our $1.09 million honeybee exports to Canada as they can now transit through Hawaii. This Government works hard to provide new opportunities for exporters. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What progress can the Minister report to the House on the access of New Zealand apples into the Australian market? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is wide of the original question but the Minister may answer. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The member refers to our longest-running trade dispute. It has been going for over 80 years now and I am hoping that the deputy sheriff might follow the good example of the sheriff. 
Rod Donald 
: Has the Government successfully achieved its Speech from the Throne goal of better incorporating labour and environment standards in trade agreements especially with Thailand and China; and will it require both countries to comply with core ILO standards before it signs agreements with them? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am honestly unaware of any labour or environmental issues associated with the trade in honeybee semen. I can inform members however that it might well be an animal welfare issue because as members probably realise the act of mating for a drone bee involves its head falling off and the experience of being involved in the donation of semen is no more pleasant.
Ewen-Street Ian: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Ewen-Street Ian: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:614;Page:10332] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this motion. The issue of Air New Zealand becoming a public organisation is one that we have raised with Dr Cullen in the past. We are pleased he has responded in this way to our requests. It is vitally important that a company that has so much taxpayers’ money invested in it with over 80 percent public ownership receives parliamentary scrutiny. The accountability mechanisms of Air New Zealand were an issue that we raised with the Auditor-General over a year ago and as a consequence we support Air New Zealand becoming a public organisation for the purposes of the Standing Orders. It is however a shame that the Government is not prepared to do the same thing with the Overseas Investment Commission so that we can give it the scrutiny it also deserves.
Collins Judith: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Collins Judith: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10287] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise this issue because it is obviously one that will affect people. This bill is really in two parts only. It is a bill that should have been in normal drafting in several parts and I expect that the debate will be allowed to be wide ranging. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a matter for the Committee to decide. Is the member seeking leave to do so? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament—Appointment of Auditors 
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament—Appointment of Auditors 
[Volume:622;Page:17664] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 38(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001 this House appoint for the financial years ending on 30 June 2005 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007 CST Nexia Audit of Auckland as auditor of the financial statements accounts and other information of the Controller and Auditor-General relating to those financial years.  
This motion answers that old question “Quis custodiet custodies?”; in this case it is CST Nexia Audit.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17141] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That 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 not agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13354] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7551] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill be now read a second time.
Copeland Gordon: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16375] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 This will be a split vote for United Future members of Parliament. However I will be supporting Dianne Yates’ bill. We human beings have a special duty to preserve safeguard and enhance this beautiful planet for ourselves and for all the creatures with whom we share our world. Amongst these of course is man’s best friend—the dog. We sometimes lament and rightly so man’s inhumanity to man. Perhaps these days I should say people’s inhumanity to people. But it is also true that we have a duty to be humane in our treatment of our animals and especially those that we describe as domestic—those animals that literally share our homes and our farms with us. 
This means turning away from an attitude that sees in a dog for example an opportunity to gain status. We should not make a dog a status symbol at the expense of a dog’s natural design which includes its personality nature and communicative abilities such as tail-wagging to express pleasure and tail-tucking to express embarrassment or fear. Cosmetic procedures may be chosen by those people whose vanity drives them to expensive and painful plastic surgery but they should not be needlessly imposed on a dog for the dog itself has no such choice. 
However tail-docking that is in the interests of the dog is a separate case. I ask the select committee that will consider this bill to provide an exemption for hunting dogs when docking is undertaken to avoid the likelihood of tail damage. That action I am sure can be justified as being consistent with the best interests of the dog itself which should in every individual case be the guiding and paramount consideration as to whether a dog may or may not be curtailed. Shane Ardern said that this practice has gone on for hundreds of years. When I heard him say that I thought that he had not read Dianne Yates’ notes which she very generously circulated with the bill. In fact the practice developed hundreds of years ago as a tax avoidance exercise. It had very little to do with whether it was desirable that a dog had a tail. 
I also thought that Shane Ardern—and Minister Jim Sutton has also mentioned this—gave us a pretty alarmist speech when he said that this legislation could creep on to cover sheep horses and cows. Gerry Eckhoff said that—goodness gracious me—it had ramifications for the circumcision of young boys. I say to those members that this bill is not some Trojan Horse; it is simply a bill about dogs. I think that we should stick to the point do the common-sense thing and allow this bill to go forward to the select committee.
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:8799] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is fresh point of order and an important one in view of the second attempt—well it is actually not a second attempt; it is a new attempt—by the Deputy Leader of the House to table the unapproved draft minutes. The question I would invite you to consider is why on earth the Deputy Leader of the House would be seeking to table draft minutes— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Because his colleague asked him to. That’s why. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There is actually an issue of privilege here Mr Assistant Speaker. The Privileges Committee has been sitting for weeks on a whole variety of cases that have been brought before the Privileges Committee on the issue of documents of various select committees being released before they are approved. Yet here we have the Deputy Leader of the House seeking to table a draft document not approved by the committee and one could only speculate about that very act. Ironically I am actually helping the Deputy Leader of the House but I have to express my surprise that the Deputy Leader of the House is so deficient in knowledge—well that is not a fair statement but it is one that it invites—as to actually invite a breach of privilege by seeking to table minutes. It is extraordinary. I would ask the Speaker to consider that point.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21639] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 7; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10726] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish the member would consult the Standing Orders closely. A decision tomorrow cannot give grounds for a debate today.
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18734] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Speaker gave us a ruling that confirmed the authority of the Chair to invite someone to interpret but the Speaker did not give us a statement on the role of the interpreter. We are now on a separate matter from that. We are now asking why there is what appears to be such a significant difference as the omission of “te runanga” which refers to the governing body as opposed to the whole tribe. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: These are matters of debate that members can raise later on. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: No they are matters of interpretation. I do not want to argue; I just want to understand. We have an interpreter in the Chamber who sits here night after night and is never called on and now we want an explanation and he will not be called on. No one can tell me why.
Pettis Jill: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15298] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Burton Mark: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20212] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I would like to start by echoing the comments just made by Mr Brownlee. I think accepting this part is an act of generosity by Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. As he said this part is at the heart of the bill. It is about providing for full and final settlement and it should be treated with the seriousness that the member gave it. 
As to the comparisons of results I can reassure the member. I want to echo what I said earlier in response to his colleague which was that I agree entirely that it is highly desirable to have the maximum possible level of participation. Our obligation is to ensure the opportunity is there for that participation but we cannot force people to exercise their right to participate—it is after all a right. But by way of reassurance to the member in comparison I can think of two good examples that have stood some test of time. In the case of Waikato-Tainui the participation rate was 40 percent of which 65 percent voted in support of the final settlement. In Ngai Tahu there was a 50 percent participation rate of which 94 percent voted in support of the final settlement—somewhat higher than for Waikato-Tainui. In the case of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty there was a 55 percent participation rate and 95 percent approval. So it stands well in that company. I agree with the member that we should always pursue the best level of participation but participation in this settlement process was certainly better than in the two largest settlements that have stood some test of time.
Cullen Michael: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6228] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am happy to be here to support the third reading of this bill. It represents a strong agreement between particularly the Labour Party the Progressive party and the Green Party— 
Dail Jones 
: And New Zealand First. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —and New Zealand First.
Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9874] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In reference to Part 3 the point just made by Dr Hutchison is correct. There was I believe an intention at the time to encourage best practice—in other words for there to be improved or better practice on the part of territorial local authorities. So clause 9 is a discretionary clause. But clause 10 regarding the disqualification of owners is an absolute provision. It uses the word “must” and in that regard there will be consistency of enforcement throughout the country. Several bodies raised the issue that there be consistency with regard to enforcement and that is there in clause 10. It was the intention of the Local Government and Environment Committee at the time that that be so but that the legislation be fair and reasonable. There are three strikes and it is after the third strike that people are out. If people are out after the third strike then they are on the bench for 5 years. That is what the clause states to a dog owner who has not been responsible and has not taken due care of an animal. I think that both clauses are fair and reasonable and deserve support.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5330] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 45 
Abstentions 9 
Question agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Green Party 9.
Hunt Jonathan: By-Election — Te Tai Hauauru 
Hunt Jonathan: By-Election — Te Tai Hauauru 
[Volume:618;Page:14293] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to section 185 of the Electoral Act 1993 that the name of the member elected to the House of Representatives for the Te Tai Hauauru electoral district is Tariana Turia. I understand that Tariana Turia is present and wishes to affirm. Would she please come forward to the chair on my right.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10507] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16133] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could you tell me how much time we have left firstly before the dinner break and secondly for the member who was last speaking when the debate was interrupted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I was just about to say that. We have 3 minutes left. When the Committee was last considering the bill the Hon Richard Prebble was speaking and has 3 minutes 5 seconds remaining if he so wishes.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Iraq—Debate 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Iraq—Debate 
[Volume:606;Page:3976] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very hard to believe that this issue is being treated in such a frivolous fashion. The National Party having failed in its seeking of leave I seek leave that the original leave sought by Mr Dunne now be put again to the House and we will take the House’s direction on it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought and I understand that what Mr Dunne said was that after the Budget Policy Statement there be—[ 
Interruption 
] Leave was sought to put Mr Dunne’s question again. Perhaps Mr Dunne can state it because he alone knows exactly what it is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I assist the House by saying that we are reluctant to support our having this debate in members’ time. I want to make that very very clear. It is unacceptable that the Government wishes to move that a debate on something that it must make a decision on be held in members’ time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is not a debatable issue. I am putting leave. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are in the middle of a point of order— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have sought leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought and we have to go from there. Please be seated. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I am speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No; leave has been sought and leave must be put when it is sought. Would Mr Dunne please state his request for leave.
Barnett Tim: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22023] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I have to say that I think that that was an unnecessarily gloomy presentation by Murray Smith of the situation of the Ministry of Justice. It did occur to me as I was listening to him that he represents a party that I understand is supporting tax cuts yet it seemed from what he was saying that he was very clearly supporting further spending on what some people would quite unfairly label “pen-pushers”. 
It seems to me that there is a very successful story to tell both in terms of law and order and in terms of justice. In the last 6 years we have seen New Zealand’s crime rate go to the lowest level for 23 years. Labour in Government has responded to the outcome of the referendum in 1999 by implementing a series of tougher laws. That means that the more serious offenders spend longer in prison having been sentenced for longer periods; also there is a higher barrier prior to their getting released. The Parole Board is looking at issues of community safety rather than at previous criteria. Four new prisons have been opened in that period and New Zealand now has internationally a very high imprisonment rate. At the same time we have invested in more police staff and in more resources so for the first time this year the police budget went over $1 billion. Many of us will see the challenges now as being in improving rehabilitation. Therefore the new investment in the Budget this year was also looking at how to turn round the lives of people who end up in prison. 
Side by side with that law and order policy we have a number of notable successes in justice and Murray Smith spoke a bit about the situation in justice. I think the ministry has been very successful in what it has done to improve the human rights and civil liberties of New Zealanders. I shall give just a few examples. We expanded the human rights legislation so that individual New Zealanders can challenge Government for breaches by Government and in law about human rights principles. We passed the care of children legislation that came in just 3 weeks ago—a major rewrite of our guardianship and parenting law. We removed New Zealand’s link with the Privy Council and established our own domestic Supreme Court—a highly significant decision. We passed legislation to give rights to people in same-sex relationships and civil union. We have passed legislation to improve the ability of individual New Zealanders to complain about judges. We now have a proper judicial complaints system. We have built up powerful victims’ rights legislation and the Justice and Electoral Committee that Murray Smith and I are on now wants to embark on a further stage of strengthening victims’ rights. We passed clean-slate legislation which affects about one-third of a million New Zealanders. It enables them to hide minor past convictions to get on with their lives. 
I think that represents a very powerful story in law and order and in justice and I am very proud to present that record to the Committee. 
Vote agreed to.
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:609;Page:6233] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Standing Order 256 be suspended to permit the introduction of the Business Law Reform Bill to amend: the Building Societies Act 1965 the Commerce Act 1986 the Companies Act 1993 the Co-operative Companies Act 1996 the Distress and Replevin Act 1908 the Financial Reporting Act 1993 the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 the Life Insurance Act 1908 the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 the Securities Act 1978 the Securities Markets Act 1988 the Superannuation Schemes Act 1989 and the Unit Trusts Act 1960. 
 The purpose of this motion is quite simple. It is to allow the introduction of a Business Law Reform Bill covering a range of technical amendments to legislation. The reason it is required is that under the Standing Orders an omnibus bill of this sort can be introduced with the consent of the Business Committee but the consent of the Business Committee is according to near unanimity and that is interpreted to mean in effect all parties. Any one party has an effective veto power within the Business Committee. Although this bill is supported in its present form by all parties except one—that being New Zealand First—it could not be introduced— 
Simon Power 
: France exercising the veto. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the Soviet Union has exercised the most vetoes in the history of the United Nations. I would not want to compare New Zealand First with the Soviet Union. For example New Zealand First is open all hours which is more than one could ever say about the Soviet Union. So all parties other than New Zealand First were in favour of the introduction of this bill. I believe that it was reasonable therefore to seek parliamentary support via a motion to allow the bill to proceed to introduction and first reading because it is very widely supported in terms of its removal of compliance costs its clarification of various statutory provisions and its consistency between different legislative requirements. 
It is supported by the Institute of Directors the New Zealand Law Society Business New Zealand the Investment Savings and Insurance Association of New Zealand the New Zealand Society of Actuaries the New Zealand Association of Credit Unions Trustee Corporations Association of New Zealand the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand and others. It is seen very much as a business-friendly measure. Indeed business groups themselves in response to demands from within the business community suggested a great number of the measures. Assuming the motion is passed we will probably deal with the first reading in the fourth week of this sittingor perhaps a little earlier. I think that is all I need to say at this point.
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12133] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Mallard Trevor: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5019] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I just want to ask the member who has moved this amendment a brief question. That is: was it her intention to open up as a result of this amendment the ability of board directors to direct on editorial or presentation matters? That is what this amendment does. 
Sue Kedgley 
: No.
Brownlee Gerry: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8777] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I was at the Business Committee and I am not sure that the minutes would indicate that the situation was as clear as the Acting Leader of the House is proposing was the case. Certainly our taking the bill through all stages today was agreed to. There was discussion about whether we needed to have the Committee stage given that most of us at the Business Committee understood that no amendments would be moved because quite a bit of work has been done by Tim Barnett myself and other members in the Canterbury district to ensure that various people who had concerns about aspects of the bill have had those concerns allayed at least to the point where they are comfortable for it to rest with the resource management process as opposed to the bill itself. The United Future representative on the Business Committee Mr Copeland raised the possibility that his party might not be able to agree to that arrangement. Mr Speaker then said that very well we will leave it at that that the person moving the motion or responsible for the bill can seek leave at the start of the proceedings and if leave is granted then so be it. 
I suggest to the Labour Party members that a lot of work has been done by a lot of people behind the scenes on this particular bill. The Robert McDougall Art Gallery the Canterbury Museum the boulevard and indeed the whole arts precinct are things that most of us from Christchurch are very very proud of. To be restricted to simply three speeches of 10 minutes does limit the opportunity that local members have to comment about something that is important in their local area. I do not think it is unreasonable given that the House is going to save a considerable amount of members’ day time by not having the Committee stage—it is a four-part bill; it could have gone on for some 4 hours perhaps—that we simply ask for some indication that if we want to put up six speakers the Government will not oppose that idea. Government members themselves of course can take as much or as little of the time allocated to them as they wish. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am unable to assist either side or any parties on this matter. The leave is sought simply to have a second reading full stop. Members are all aware of that.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:626;Page:21191] 
Thursday 9 June 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to take urgency. The likely business to be included in this motion will be the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises the Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill including a second reading of an Imprest Supply Bill both of those being of course time-limited debates and the remaining stages of the following bills: the Land Transport Amendment Bill the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) the Overseas Investment Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Noticing that the Order Paper is not all that deep at the moment and that of the bills the Leader of the House has just mentioned only a couple require passing before the 30 July deadline and they could be taken through urgency in a very short time can he indicate to the House whether he expects urgency next week to flow through to Friday; if so what does he expect the need for that is given the light Order Paper? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Government orders of the day are nearly 2 pages long. A number of the items—the time-limited debate the land transport bill the tariff bill the taxation bill and the misuse of drugs bill—are required to pass urgently. The terrorism suppression bill certainly has to pass before October; otherwise the designations of terrorist organisations will fail. Obviously if the Opposition is indicating that the House may finish earlier then we may look forward to an ordinary Thursday afternoon which would please me no end.
Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Minister for Foreign Affairs 
Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Minister for Foreign Affairs 
[Volume:621;Page:16215] 
Tuesday 19 October 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Papua New Guinea—Minister for Foreign Affairs 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that Sir RabbieNamaliu Minister for Foreign Affairs Papua New Guinea is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
Sir RabbieNamaliu accompanied by the Hon Phil Goff entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6850] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “1 August 2003”.
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7894] 
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We have made excellent progress so I seek leave Madam Chairperson that you report progress. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none. 
Progress reported.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
[Volume:613;Page:9656] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In order to maintain good order in the House I want to make it clear why we objected to that and perhaps give the member an opportunity to reconsider the type of leave that she seeks. The Minister is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues and it is her responsibility to assist the Prime Minister on matters relating to Auckland. The eastern corridor is a matter that is of great importance to Auckland. It is part of a programme of roading that the Government puts a great deal of store in. I am quite unclear as to whether a Minister should use the personal explanation process when she has been quoted while talking about a Government policy. It would be quite improper for the House to grant leave for a personal statement on that basis. Personal statements are usually very personal to the member. There is nothing personal to this member about the eastern corridor. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 The only question I have which might lead people to think I was in opposition to this proposal is as the MP for Auckland Central. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am speaking to the point of order. I am happy to seek leave to table the letter I wrote to the newspaper which had grossly misquoted me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made the point. That was not really a point of order from the member who spoke previously but he got the point over that he wanted to make. The member has sought leave to table the letter. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Minister of Textiles Republic of India 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Minister of Textiles Republic of India 
[Volume:608;Page:5899] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Honourable Kashiram Rana Minister of Textiles of the Republic of India accompanied by the Minister of Agriculture is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15425] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendment agreed to and preamble as amended agreed to.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17937] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
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. 
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6303] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 84 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 9(1)(b) be agreed to.
Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—Minister's Comment 
Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—Minister's Comment 
[Volume:616;Page:12532] 
Points of Order 
Unparliamentary Language—Minister's Comment 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise an issue with you for consideration over the Easter break. Yesterday in the House a Government Minister referred to members on this side of the House by using the term “born-again Horis”. I want to know whether that was parliamentary and whether it is a term we would be able to use in the future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the phrase; I was in the Chair. If I had thought that that referred to any member of this Parliament not only would the member have been asked to withdraw and apologise but his speech would have been terminated. I understood the member referred to people outside this House. I still regard the phrase as very infelicitous and that word can be looked up in the dictionary if members are unaware of what it means. 
Hon Member 
: Do we have one? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes we have and it is over there.
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21479] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:610;Page:7979] 
Voting 
Correction 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 The New Zealand First vote on Mr Dunne’s amendment was incorrectly put by myself. There should have been 13 in favour of Mr Dunne’s amendment. I seek the leave of the House to alter the New Zealand First vote to 13 in favour of Mr Dunne’s proposal. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member did indicate this earlier. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. Thank you. That will be recorded.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18826] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
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. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 328 in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 14 be agreed to.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19829] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8798] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I get the message from the example you have used. I think it is a very extreme example. There is no way that you would have been able to do that if I was in the Chair. The member would not have been able to table  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 instead of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. He would not have got that past the Chair. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Point of order—
Prebble Richard: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17368] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 The old Standing Order which Mr Cullen will remember was that in the event of a tie there was a casting vote—that the Chair should vote to enable the Committee to consider the question again. So if the matter arose during the Committee stage the Chair would vote with the Government which was proposing the bill or with the proposer if it was a member’s bill. However when we get to a third reading the principle reverses if there is not a majority of MPs—that is how it used to be. When looking again at the voting we have now now that we have multiple parties the House decided that it did not want to have casting votes by the Chair. In fact the Chair’s votes are cast at every stage by the whips. So the principle is that if a vote in the Committee stage is 59:59 in fact the vote does stand. But it is an interesting situation because—and the Minister of Finance will be aware of this—if there is the same result in the vote on the third reading members had better be ready for an early election because this is a confidence measure. All tax measures are confidence measures and speaking for the ACT party I say “Bring it on!”.
Mackey Moana: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17366] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16169] 
5.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What involvement has New Zealand had in the steps being taken to reform the United Nations? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 New Zealand has long been an advocate for reform of the United Nations to ensure its greater effectiveness. The publication in December of this year of reform proposals by the Secretary-General’s high-level panel creates a unique opportunity to achieve change. New Zealand has presented reform proposals to the high-level panel—I did so personally at the UN this year—and we are active in the Group of Friends on UN Reform which was established by Mexico to help ensure that we can achieve reform on this occasion. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What reform of the Security Council is being proposed and why is it important? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Firstly I will answer why: because the United Nations Security Council is the top decision-making body in the United Nations. Why do we need the reform? Because it is important that the Security Council has a strong mandate to take decisions and achieve compliance with decisions. To do that it needs to be broadly representative of the international community. Currently it reflects the world as it was in 1945 so key countries and whole regions are omitted. That needs to change to reflect the realities of the 21st century.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20925] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Unallocated Cases Pike RiverCoalmine Proposal 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Unallocated Cases Pike RiverCoalmine Proposal 
[Volume:616;Page:11644] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate the Government’s conditional approval for access arrangements for the Pike River coalmine proposal. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to a debate on this subject over other business before the House. This application is also declined.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:621;Page:16701] 
Tuesday 9 November 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
:  
I seek leave for the sitting hours on Thursday 11 November to be from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and for the House to proceed to a motion relating to the Unknown Warrior immediately after the announcement of the presentation of petitions papers and reports of select committees and the introduction of bills. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:611;Page:8183] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Immigration Amendment Bill the completion of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the first reading of the Judicial Matters Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Mr Tsutomu Kawara 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Mr Tsutomu Kawara 
[Volume:607;Page:4799] 
Mr SPEAKER:  
I advise members that Mr Tsutomu Kawara the Chairman of the Committee on Fundamental National Policies from the House of Representatives in Japan is in the public gallery. I am sure members would like to welcome him.
Prebble Richard: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18908] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find myself in great sympathy with the point raised by Mr Brownlee. It is a matter of regret to me that I am unable myself to translate the Maori language. When we receive a bill of this sort and we discover that half is in Maori and half is in English and when we look at the texts then from an intelligent point of view—paragraphing is one example—it does not appear that one text translates the other. We could debate this matter in the select committee—you are quite right in that ruling Mr Speaker—but it appears to me that it would be helpful if the Speaker were at least to indicate that if the Government is going to bring bills that have translations those translations must be accurate. 
I am not saying that the translator has to certify that; I am just saying that it would be very useful if the Speaker were to make a ruling that there is an obligation on the presenter of a bill who decides to present a bill in more than one language—and of course only two are possible—to ensure that the translation is an accurate one. MPs are entitled to rely on that being the case.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Tariana Turia—Ministerial Dismissal 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Tariana Turia—Ministerial Dismissal 
[Volume:617;Page:12555] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a snap debate under the usual conditions on the matter of Tariana Turia’s dismissal from Cabinet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is.