edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7767] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8819] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
I take a call to say to the member who has just resumed her seat that what she does not realise is that what the Parliament has been through this evening is a measure of the Committee’s frustration with this bill. This is a deliberate parliamentary tactic to delay the passage of this stupid legislation and in the time that remains the Government should listen— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported.
Sowry Roger: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
Sowry Roger: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
[Volume:608;Page:5679] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday during the exchanges that occurred when the Prime Minister was giving her answers I was one of a number of members who were required to stand withdraw and apologise for questioning the veracity of the Prime Minister and her answer. She has since come down to the House and given a corrected answer which places me in a position of wondering whether there is any way the  
Hansard 
 record can be changed to expunge the withdrawal and apology that I had to make because what I was saying was proved to be correct.
Sowry Roger: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4021] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 It is interesting on this day when we have debated the Budget Policy Statement that the first member’s bill the Government is supporting—immediately after we have had a debate that has shown that the Government has walked away from its ambition to take this country into the top half of the OECD by 2011—and the very first piece of legislation we are about to debate is Matt Robson’s Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill. This is the bill that Labour said 2 weeks before the election it would not be voting for. This is the bill that Labour said as it was drawn out of the ballot that it would not be voting for. This is the bill that will be another compliance cost—another cost on business. Business New Zealand has come out today and said that this bill with other measures that the Government has passed will add costs in total of around $7000 to every business in New Zealand. This is not a bill that is encouraging jobs. This is not a bill that is encouraging growth. This is a bill that is an obstacle to jobs and to growth. 
This bill will also be a test for the United Future Party which just a week ago voted with the Government against business against employers and voted for extra costs on employers with the Holidays Act review. Once again we will see in the House today the United Future Party being tested on this legislation. 
This legislation will be considered by the Government as part of the holidays review and will be reported back to the House this side of Christmas. So much for the Prime Minister’s promise to business before the election that 4 weeks’ leave would not be on the agenda—a hollow promise a broken promise! This is like the promise the Government broke to superannuitants that it would deal with asset and income testing last year. It broke that promise last year. There are members in this House—and Mr Hughes is one of them—who wrote to their local Grey Power saying that it would be OK and would be fixed because there would be a new bill before Christmas. 
Well Grey Power is laughing at those members now. Grey Power knows that Mr Hughes and those other members broke their word on that promise just as business knows that Mr Hughes and Labour members of Parliament have broken their word on this legislation. 
We believe it is important that this country grows. We believe it is important that businesses are encouraged to hire staff. We believe it is important that where a business is doing well the businessman or businesswoman thinks that with a bit of stretch he or she can hire a new person. It means taking a risk; it is another wage they are responsible for. Business people know that when they hire staff it is hard to get rid of them but they take the punt and create the extra job. This bill tells business not to do that not to take the risk because if one takes the risk then the cost starts to outweigh the benefit of hiring the extra staff.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
[Volume:620;Page:15867] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I confirm my previous ruling. I read it just then and it was one of those occasions when I thought I had made quite a good ruling—and certainly it was very appropriate to the situation. It is for a Minister to judge whether he or she got the answer wrong and then to take the appropriate steps. I am not the quizmaster; I am merely the referee.
Robertson H V Ross: General Debates 
Robertson H V Ross: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8539] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Speaker encourages members to speak privately to him. This has always been done. It happens all the time. In fact there are times when members approach the Speaker to ask what order of speaking they are entitled to take. It happens frequently and it is one thing that will continue to happen.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10086] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Revenue 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. There are no schedules to this bill. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Sitting date: 16 June 2004. Volume:618;Page:13625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Government Administration Committee to meet in Australia from 21 to 25 June 2004 and to adopt such procedures and practices as are considered suitable for the conduct of its business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7801] 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except Winnie Laban”.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16388] 
5.  
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent steps has the Government taken to support the resource management processes of local government? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 This week I launched the Making Good Decisions programme for councillors and commissioners. All chairpersons and most hearings panel councillors or commissioners will have to have training. The programme will help secure good environmental outcomes and ensure more timely and efficient hearings. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What responses has the Minister seen to these and other proposals to improve the implementation of the Resource Management Act? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: These proposals have won wide support from local government business and community groups. I also note that the environmentalist Guy Salmon a high-ranking National Party list candidate in 2002 has removed from the Internet any links between himself and the National Party presumably because of National’s stance on the Resource Management Act climate change and the environment generally. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Would the Minister agree that one of the big problems that local government has faced since the original Resource Management Act was passed in 1991 in terms of being able to institute proper processes has been the complete failure by every Government since 1991—with I think one exception—to put in place the framework of national policy statements that the Resource Management Act originally envisaged; and does she have any plans for change in that regard? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I totally agree with some of the points raised by the questioner. I remember that in 1991 the then National Government gave no central support or leadership to local government. It changed the entire planning world and left local government to deal with it all by itself. This Government has already introduced national environment standards and we have planning and funding for many more. 
I seek leave to table printouts no longer available on Guy Salmon’s website in which he criticises Nick Smith. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
[Volume:624;Page:19166] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was going to raise a slightly similar point of order Madam Speaker so with your indulgence I will make my point now and perhaps you can respond to both Mr English’s point of order and mine at the same time. In your ruling which I do not contest you appeared to imply that there may be not only other occasions for this debate to be held but other developments that may necessitate or justify a debate at some future point and it is on that matter that I would be grateful for your guidance. As I understand the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings they relate to a matter being raised at the first available time in the House. The risk therefore may well be that if this matter is to take Mr English’s example the subject of ongoing Government actions at the point that a letter is submitted in the future that immediate point of urgency and immediacy has been lost. So I would be interested in some clarification in your response on that issue and some assurance that the ability of members to seek an adjournment on this matter at some point in the future has not been compromised by the ruling you have given today.
Tabling of Documents — Question No 7 to Minister 22 July 
Tabling of Documents — Question No 7 to Minister 22 July 
[Volume:610;Page:7211] 
Tabling of Documents 
Question No 7 to Minister 22 July 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Yesterday in question time during question No 7 in reply to a supplementary question that I asked the Minister of Police said: “The police do not have quotas for traffic offences.” I seek the leave of the House to table a report in which Inspector Derek Erasmus from Canterbury discusses the new police policy of issuing one ticket per hour. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Shirley Ken: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15650] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I distinctly heard you say that there are two distinct questions. That is really the point being raised by the other Opposition party and I certainly concur with it.
Peck Mark: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Peck Mark: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6510] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Yates Dianne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20204] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have to deal with some amendments. The amendment in the name of the honourable member Stephen Franks is out of order under Speaker’s ruling 102/4 by Chairperson Simich: “An amendment that purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties is out of order in a bill to give effect to that agreement.” 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 1 be agreed to.
Ogilvy Bernie: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12184] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on Part 2 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). In particular I refer to new section 77HB which relates to the appointment of employees following the closure or merger of schools. Although not much has been made of this aspect in the bill I understand that there is also a Supplementary Order Paper to go with this. The bill deals with the matter of redundancies resulting from school mergers or closures which is a very topical subject at this time given the Government’s desire to proceed with some network reviews and properly I would imagine they will continue. 
Although each board is still a separate employer in the case of a merger or a closure an employee may be offered a similar position by another board in the same locality but without the need to comply with provisions in the Employment Act that require employers to advertise vacancies and give preference to persons who are best suited to the situation. 
I am very sympathetic to teachers and indeed all the communities families and children who face the prospect of school closures or mergers at the present time. However I do believe that schools recruiting teachers should have the merit of their applicants uppermost in their minds. In the case of a merger a teacher who has experience with one of the former schools might well be viewed as the best qualified but on a merit basis may not be. 
If alternative employment is offered then there is no entitlement to redundancy compensation but the select committee recommended that that be clarified so that among other things employment offered in another school refers to the replacement school or another school affected by the merger or closure. As a select committee we felt that this addition correction and modification to this bill would add value to all occasions where mergers and closures would take place not only now but in the future. I just want to add this as part of our contribution from United Future. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Copeland Gordon: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10699] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to raise the point that on the list agreed to by the Speaker and published Muriel Newman was to have taken the sixth speaking slot. She neglected to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I would like to finish my point of order because— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am not going to let you finish because it is not a point of order. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: It is about the speaking order and it must be a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. It is a procedural matter that I am quite aware of. I have called Muriel Newman and I do not intend to change that. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Discussion occurred on this at the Standing Orders Committee and I was informed by the Speaker that he would undertake to advise yourself and the other Assistant Speaker that in a situation where a party did not take the call in the order agreed to by the Speaker it would drop down to the bottom of the list. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is wasting time. The first three positions are set. The others can move around. As far as I am concerned and while I am in this chair ACT has not had its call and it is going to get it. I call Muriel Newman.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10002] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think I can be of assistance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I hope so. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Your account of events is not correct. You certainly attempted to put the vote. There was a lot of interruption. I was calling for a point of order from the moment Mr Hughes moved the closure motion. I called for a point of order several times. You were not looking in my direction because of the general uproar. You then noticed me right at the end of the process but before you had declared the vote and you called me for the point of order that led to the Speaker being recalled. So the two points I make are that firstly I had been seeking a point of order before you even put the motion and secondly you acknowledged that and called me before you had declared the result. Therefore the process had not commenced. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Dunne. I again say that it is my recollection that I asked and Government members said “Yes” and members on this side said “No” and in-between that I heard your 
point of order. Because there was such an uproar it was difficult for me to hear as well. I have a different recollection of the situation. The chief Government whip has asked that the Speaker be recalled. The question now is that the Speaker be recalled. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed.
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:9026] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Leave is sought to take the Minister’s clause 2 and clause 3 amendments first then to retake the Opposition amendments to clauses 2 and 3 after that. Is there any objection to that? There is.
Pillay Lynne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12190] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19125] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedules 13A to 15 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Simich (P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher   
Mahuta(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard   
Tanczos(P) 
Burton   
Gosche   
Mapp(P) 
Tizard   
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei   
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes   
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Roy(P) 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban   
Shirley(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 45 
Adams(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry   
Turner(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wang(P) 
Baldock  (P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth (P) 
Brown(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith M 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy   
te Heuheu(P) 
Tisch   
Schedules 13A to 15 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16414] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20257] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9391] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. The House has moved into Committee so we cannot go back now. We need to progress with the Committee stage.
Cullen Michael: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Cullen Michael: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18594] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8144] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Points of Order — Referral to Privileges Committee Apologies in the Chamber Question Time 
Points of Order — Referral to Privileges Committee Apologies in the Chamber Question Time 
[Volume:612;Page:9035] 
Points of Order 
Referral to Privileges Committee 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled  
Co-ordination and Collaboration in the Criminal Justice Sector 
 and a draft agreement on policing functions within the parliamentary precincts. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the draft agreement on policing functions within the parliamentary precincts to be referred to the Privileges Committee for its consideration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Apologies in the Chamber 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Late last evening the Hon Damien O’Connor apologised for a minor misleading of the House yesterday during question time. Subsequently I believe you offered some apology for an altercation between you and me at the time of that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And I have sent the member a copy. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have not received it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I sent it about a minute ago after I received a phone call. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I was in the House a minute ago so I have not received it. My point is simply this. Firstly I think the way in which question time was conducted yesterday got a little bit fractious and it is not particularly pleasing for a member to hear a Minister correctly get into an altercation with the Speaker then find that that Minister sneaked into the House at 5 minutes to 10 that night when no one is really listening to make his apology. I accept that the answer will be that he has to make his apology at the first available opportunity and that of course with the House being in Committee was at 5 to 10 last night. I ask you to consider whether in future when Ministers make mistakes in question time that lead to the sort of situation we had yesterday they should be required to make their correction and apology at the start of question time on the following day so that those around the country who do follow Parliament and do not want to stay up until 5 to 10 at night will know that the Minister made a mistake and that the Opposition was right all along. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course the point about the matter is that that was with the leave of the House so no one objected but I take the point the member makes and I will give it consideration. 
Question Time 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have two questions down to be asked of the Minister. I was not aware that he had made a correction and that being the case I am sure that some of my supplementary questions may be misdirected. I wonder whether it would be possible through you for the Minister to seek leave again and help us through this question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is something the member could approach the Minister about personally. It is not for me to do that.
Jones Dail: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Jones Dail: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20210] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a funny old Parliament is it not? There we were on Part 1 and I was getting—shall we say—attacked by Mr Franks about supporting the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and we learnt that we could not put forward that amendment anyway because it was an agreement. So New Zealand First called everybody’s bluff and we put forward an amendment to remove the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” because I had heard from Dr Mapp that he seemingly supported the removal of that phrase. I had had that very strong impression from Dr Mapp. He had challenged me to take a call and had made the point that I had not taken one so I took a call and said that I would put forward an amendment to delete references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Then what did we have? We had the deputy leader of the National Party make the speech that I had made on Part 1. That is what it boiled down to. He had seen the light. So we have almost three views from the National Party: we have the Gerry Brownlee view the Dr Wayne Mapp view and the Georgina te Heuheu view. 
Of course I was amused by Mr Stephen Franks. He accused me of being a snake oil salesman. What was his second speech if not a speech from a snake oil salesman—with all due respect to Mr Franks! 
Well we have put forward the amendment and we will be arguing for it to continue. Interestingly for the future exactly the same sort of wording is used in the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill that is coming up. Perhaps we will take a different view on that legislation but having established this sort of trial on the wording this time I will still persist with my amendment and perhaps next time things will be different—the view having been confirmed around the Chamber on this occasion. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to amend paragraph (a)(i)(A) by omitting the words “or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8078] 
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 111 in the name of Heather Roy to the definition of “medical practitioner” in clause 5(1) be agreed to:
Paraone Pita: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17005] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 From the outset of the debate today I have wondered whether I was actually sitting in the Parliament of New Zealand given some of the vitriolic expressions in this Chamber towards the intent of the bill. As a New Zealander I reflect the face of our country in the sense that one part of me is Maori and the other part of me is of Irish and Scottish descent. This bill is all about New Zealanders. It ensures that the ownership of the seabed and foreshore that part of our country that lies between the high-water mark and the low-water mark is vested in the Crown for everybody—for Maori and Pakeha New Zealanders. The previous speaker wondered why New Zealand First was giving its support to this bill. That is the very reason we support the bill—because it is for everybody. It ensures that the ownership of that part of our country is vested in the Crown for and on behalf of every New Zealander Maori or non-Maori.  
We have heard in the debate this morning about the various descriptions the bill has introduced. I noticed that the speakers from ACT made particular reference to the last part of new clause 2A “Object” which states: “… including the protection of the association of whanau hapu and iwi with areas of the public foreshore and seabed.” I wonder whether in order to minimise that source of criticism we should have included “families extended families and clans” to describe the non-Maori make-up of our community. All that the wording in the bill does is to ensure that we recognise the connection Maori had with that part of our country before we were colonised. As I have used that word some of our Maori critics may feel that we have been colonised. But if it means that all New Zealanders can be assured of having access to that part of our country and of knowing that its ownership is vested in the Crown on their behalf then I am quite happy to say that I am colonised. 
 I just want to refer to the definition in clause 4 of “foreshore and seabed reserve”. In the discussions leading up to Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen it was suggested to us that we should include the phrase takutai moana in recognition of the belief that Maori had over that issue. New Zealand First and particularly its Maori members suggested that phrase should not be included and I will tell members why that was. I suggest to the Minister of Maori Affairs that when we talk to our relations about takutai moana 99.9 percent of my relatives and his relatives talk about where the sand begins and where the seabed ends on someone else’s coastline. By saying foreshore and seabed reserve we are quite clear as to the part we are talking about.  
The question was also asked of why New Zealand First supports this bill. One reason is that the legislation ensures the public foreshore and seabed is vested in the Crown. It ensures the rights of access and navigation of the public.
Carter John: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Carter John: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:608;Page:5289] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If I may I will talk on that particular point. I was on the phone at the time that the member Tariana Turia resumed her seat having made a very good contribution to the debate I might say—I was able to listen partly to the debate. I then looked around and realised that no other members at that stage looked as though they were seeking a call—the member had sat down having finished a little earlier than her 10 minutes. Even though I was on the phone while you were in the middle of looking to put the question I sought the call. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is dead right. So did I. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Hang on just let me finish; I am on a point of order. Again while it is your prerogative there have been many occasions in the past when Speakers have then said to members: “Well look I am in the middle of putting this but given that the member is now seeking the call and there is opportunity it would be appropriate; but the member must rise more quickly.” That has been a common occurrence. I want to make the point to you. Firstly there is precedent for allowing a call to be taken even though you may be in the middle of putting the question. Secondly you have a right even though you may be halfway through doing that to decide to allow a member to continue a call when the times are not used up. I would ask you to reflect on that—that there is plenty of precedent in these circumstances to allow me who sought the call or other members even to carry on with the debate. 
The debate had not been completed and the situation was brought about because the member resumed her seat early. As I say even though you were in the middle of putting the question I did rise to take a call. I would ask you to reflect on that and on whether given the precedents on many occasions it might have been appropriate in this case to allow the call to be taken. Indeed we are now at the stage when we are well past six o’clock and we need to lift the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No we will not do that. 
Hon Richard Prebble withdrew from the Chamber.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
United Future 7. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 1; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Judy Turner to the heading of clause 11 be agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3715] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Was that not just a predictable speech from an old Tory? The Tories make sure they take their holidays at any time they want to. They make sure they maximise their holiday opportunities yet here they are trying to deny decent hardworking people the right to holidays. This bill is designed to modernise the workplace and they want to take us back to the time of the dinosaurs. This bill is about improving productivity and ensuring that people have a proper balance between their work and home lives. This is a good bill and the Opposition members should support it. They should get themselves into the modern world.
Sutton Jim: General Debates 
Sutton Jim: General Debates 
[Volume:613;Page:9958] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I am so glad I gave up smoking nearly 10 years ago otherwise I too might sound like the sort of rather hoarse Pauline Hanson from whom we just heard. This has been a remarkable recent period in New Zealand politics because what still passes for the main Opposition party has changed its entire front row 20 minutes into the game put all its substitutes into the game and pulled off its star performers of the first 20 minutes. When “Honest Bill”—the Hon Bill English—was leader National’s strategy was clear. It was the traditional strategy of the National Party—sit tight do nothing upset as few people as possible and wait for voters to get bored with the Government they had last elected and put National in again for its turn. 
National gave up a quarter of the way into the game—into the life of the Labour-led coalition Government—and it has a new recruit. He has a completely different strategy. No longer will National contest the centre ground the mainstream of New Zealand politics with the Labour Party. National has abandoned the centre. It wants to tackle the extreme right. Its leader wants to embrace ACT as a snake embraces a rabbit and digest it to make it one to stop the remorseless slicing away of the salami on its right-hand end that has been happening to the National Party recently. 
So National has a new set of policies. It is interesting because we can anticipate the slogans it will use at the next election: “Vote National. Sentence the unemployed to community service.” Don Brash wants to make local government the employer of last resort so that anybody who does not have a job can turn up at the local post office at 8 o’clock in the morning and say: “Look I would like to work today.” and the local government body would be obliged to give that person some kind of work. 
Here is another slogan: “Vote National and work till you’re 70.” Don Brash believes that 4 percent economic growth requires major changes in the terms on which New Zealand superannuation is provided including an increase in the age of eligibility. It is disgraceful. Another slogan will be: “Vote National. Mortgage your home to jump the queue at the public hospital.” I quote the good Dr Brash: “If you offer to supply something for free the demand for it will be enormous and if you don’t use price to limit that demand you will soon be unable to meet the demand and will be faced with long queues. The problem area of health care” the good doctor says “can be solved through the price mechanism.” Well if one has to pay enough to get on the waiting list then I guess the waiting list will get shorter. That is what National plans. 
On education Dr Brash says: “We might well be better off to look carefully at other models where the Government funds education but where most schools are privately owned and operated. For my part” he says “I don’t care who owns the schools.” Well I say to Dr Brash most New Zealanders do care who owns the schools.
Duynhoven Harry: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations of Telephone Taping 
Duynhoven Harry: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations of Telephone Taping 
[Volume:619;Page:14677] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal statement in relation to allegations made in this House on Tuesday by Mr Hide that I misled this House over the matter of the taping of telephone calls. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is.
Perry Edwin: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Perry Edwin: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18363] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 While I was enjoying my Christmas break I heard the dulcet tones of the leader of the National Party Dr Brash. He was pontificating on the virtues of National’s policies regarding social welfare. I say to Dr Brash with regard to his speech at Orewa that I do not think he will ever pinch the patch off that man there— 
Ron Mark 
: Who is it? 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Sir Robert Muldoon. Sir Robert has inscribed on his tombstone the words: “He loved his country”. Sometimes I wonder whether National members really love this country. After listening to one of the speakers talk about a problem with regard to the police I point out that when National was in power it had 9 years in which to fix that. Then who had to come along and help National to fix it but New Zealand First? I say to both the major parties that every election we hear the same old rhetoric about the different things they want to do. Well I say that New Zealand should wake up because New Zealand First is coming along at this election to fix things. Obviously the National Party has said it does not need us. That is fine; we will see about that when election night comes. 
I want to point out to Dr Brash some figures that I have. When Roger Douglas was in charge of his portfolio there were 86000 people on the unemployment benefit. It is a funny thing that when National came into power and Ruth Richardson came along with the “mother of all Budgets” there were nearly 167000 people unemployed. I see from the figures at the bottom of the page that Labour now has 78000 people unemployed. If that is a fact and the figure does not include people on the sickness benefit who have jumped across from the unemployment benefit then I need to say that Labour is doing a good job. 
I will reiterate some points here. Targeting people who are on benefits is easy but if we look back a few years we will see that the welfare system we have today is an end result of the policies followed previously by the two major parties when they have been in Government. When Labour and National sold off over $16 billion worth of our assets during the 1980s and 1990s they shifted many workers—and by extension their families—from meaningful work to the dole queue. New Zealand Rail the Ministry of Works Telecom the Post Office and the Forestry Corporation to name a few entities were all owned by us as taxpayers at the time when they were sold off to the highest bidder. The resulting loss of jobs meant that many New Zealanders simply ended up on the scrapheap. That is the result today of what happened. Our Defence Force is a pale shadow of its former self. The Army Air Force and Navy should still be training grounds for many young people today especially for those who need to have some guidance and support in their lives. 
Debate interrupted.
Ogilvy Bernie: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Ogilvy Bernie: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17710] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I will touch on two things I want to bring to the attention of the Committee. One is with regard to a regional council’s activities in relation to its duty to act efficiently and the other is something to do with tender money. 
In section 165I inserted by clause 21 there is a duty on a regional council to adopt the most efficient and effective allocation mechanism. I have thought about this. The Primary Production Committee discussed it and made a number of amendments. The section states: “… a regional council must—(a) have regard to—(i) the reasons for and against adopting the proposed method;”. So the council is to act out its role very fairly and squarely so that nobody can say he or she was not heard or did not have the opportunity to contribute. The regional council will also have regard to “(ii) the principal alternative means available;”. The select committee then struck out—I think appropriately—“(b) be satisfied that the adoption of the proposed method is the most appropriate for allocation …”. We discussed that and it became very evident from the submitters that it did not really meet what they were asking for. So now we have got the wording down to what is in section 165I(1)(b)(i) which requires that the council be satisfied that the proposed method is “necessary in the circumstances of the region;”. That has a great deal more impact than what was there before. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is the member sure of that? 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: I am absolutely sure. Also subparagraph (ii) states: “the most appropriate for allocation in the circumstances of the region”. As the regional council deals with that it will I believe bring about the most efficient and effective allocation that meets the concerns of farmers and applicants to become farmers. 
The other matter I want to touch on is section 165U “Tender money” inserted by clause 21. When the select committee asked why the Minister would have 50 percent of the tender money and the regional authority would have 50 percent the actual response was that it was a judgment call—if I remember right. There is no basis for that except that we note that when the regional council receives its 50 percent it must use its money entirely for the purposes of this Act in coastal marine areas in its region. So I see this bill as promoting the outcome that the money collected through the tendering process go back to address the local regional council’s concerns—multiplication exploration and all the rest—in setting up the marine areas they need for potential farmers in the region. I think the bill is in these regards very clear and explicit and I think we need to realise that there is no way that one can be double-minded as to what could happen with this money.
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14265] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9391] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 My recollection of proceedings is that the Minister moved the second reading and then you called the Hon Tony Ryall but he had barely got to his feet when the House adjourned. He did not get a chance to even get into his speech.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19828] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended 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. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.