edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9017] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to insert the following new clause 3A be agreed to: 
3APrinciples  
The new court of final appeal must: 
(1)Rule of Law reinforce the rule of law in New Zealand and in particular the principle that to the greatest extent possible the laws of New Zealand should be known or accessible in advance to enable all persons required to comply with such laws to shape their conduct accordingly and to enable the courts of New Zealand to apply such laws in respect of any matter before them; 
(2)Separation of Powers affirm the principle that powers of legislation adjudication and administration should be held by the separate branches of government and that the role of the judiciary should be to decide the cases before it in accordance with the established and accessible laws of New Zealand; 
(3)Parliamentary Sovereignty respect the principle that substantial issues of public policy in New Zealand and the establishment of new principles to govern the duties of private persons should be decided by the outcomes of the Parliamentary process and not by judicial legislation.
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:8780] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think what is being asked for is fairly clear. Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.
Tanczos Nandor: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4527] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to retake the vote on the third reading of the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill.
Vote: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9297] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand National 18; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 74 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Amendments not agreed to.
Obituaries — Sonja Davies 
Obituaries — Sonja Davies 
[Volume:626;Page:21243] 
Obituaries 
Sonja Davies 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 12 June 2005 of Sonja Margaret Loveday Davies member of the Order of New Zealand who represented the electorate of Pencarrow from 1987 to 1993. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for her memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
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:20955] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Power Simon: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14026] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You made reference to the fact that there had been a previous Chairperson’s ruling that that type of conduct was not to occur during the Committee of the whole House. I ask you quite genuinely whether there is a reference in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 or in the Standing Orders where we can find a grounding for that ruling or is it just part of the general flow of the Committee and your exercising your discretion pursuant to presumably Speaker’s ruling 69/4? [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There will be no interjections at all during points of order; they will be heard in silence. I say to the member that the actual Chairman’s ruling was read into the Committee of the whole House on a previous occasion. Whether it goes into  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 will be decided when the Standing Orders or  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 are reviewed. That is up to the Speaker of the House.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14167] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; United Future 8. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to.  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Marc Alexander to add new section 107A(e) in clause 10 be agreed to.
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3354] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Government information that shows that 42400 people have been paid a benefit for more than 2 years. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:6001] 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
: Will the committee either set down the petition of Kenneth Wang and others regarding the imposition of English language tests or seek to refer the petition to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee or any other committee so that it can be heard? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 The committee will be setting down a time at some point in the future to hear this petition in line with the answer I gave to the previous question. It has no intention of referring it to any other committee and I am not aware of any other committee that is seeking to have it referred to it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the House to understand that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has decided not to refer this petition to any other committee and that there is a 2-week adjournment coming up but it has not even scheduled a single hearing; and how can the committee possibly justify its cavalier attitude towards this and other petitions? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The House is to understand no such thing. The House is to understand the facts which are that the committee is dealing with its business in an orderly way in the order in which it is received. The committee is not going to oblige the ACT party’s political stunt by advancing this petition just to suit Mr Wang’s opportunity. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That answer was out of order. He is not in charge of the ACT party and indeed it is news to me that committees decide to schedule business in the order that it is received. No other committee does that. What we actually have is a lazy committee and a United Future party that goes out and says it is defending ethnic communities but then actually does nothing and whose leader will not even have the committee meet during the adjournment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made a good point but it is not a point of order.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:609;Page:6625] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House the first item of Government business will probably be the completion of the first reading of the Care of Children Bill. Urgency will then be taken. The likely business to be included in the motion is the remaining stages of the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) the Consumer Protection (Definition of Goods and Services) Bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill the Biosecurity Amendment Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the second reading of the Retirement Villages Bill. It is possible that the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill will also be included. The House will rise by 6 p.m. on Friday.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10494] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that the police sought funding to establish three methamphetamine teams and the Government supplied funds for only two. 
Document not tabled.
English Bill: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
English Bill: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16511] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I was quite impressed with the deep knowledge that my colleague Lockwood Smith showed in this part of the bill and the relevance of it to current events. I was looking at clause 32 “Rebate for gifts of money” where we have among other things a list—and I presume this is eligibility for rebates for gifts of money—included in which is Medicine Mondiale the New Zealand Jesuits in India Trust and the Operation Vanuatu Charitable Trust but not the Waipareira Trust. That is not covered under the provisions for rebates for gifts of money. 
Progress reported.
Cullen Michael: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6095. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am delighted to support this bill. It is all very well for the senior Opposition whip to whinge away like he did about how terrible life is. That is what he does in public but if one rings him up on his cellphone what does one hear? “Things just keep getting better” is the message on John Carter’s cellphone if one rings it up. He knows how well things are going under this Government. 
He wanted to know of a company that was helped by Industry New Zealand. A couple of weeks ago he was sitting there in his electorate next to Dover Samuels handing out the awards to Living Nature. Living Nature was built from nothing to 80 employees in Kerikeri with the help of the Government. John Carter is right; things just keep getting better.
Tamihere John: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tamihere John: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13083] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I stand to commend the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill to the House. It is not often that I differ with the honourable Dail Jones. I agree with part of his view that much of what John Carter contributes to the House is irrelevant. However in this particular bill I would like to indicate the following. Reclamations are clearly ruled on within the foreshore and seabed legislation actually although they are not within its purview. I invite members opposite to actually read that piece of legislation but with respect it has no direct impact in respect of the particular bill we are talking about. This is one of those kinds of circuit-breaker bills that most politicians come to Parliament to actually pursue. That is why Dail Jones is so enthused with it. 
This is a small bill containing just four clauses dealing with 1500 square metres. It is a piece of reclaimed land known as Jack Ilottt Green. I appreciate that pretty soon there might be an amendment at the Committee stage to try to rename that land “Dail Jones Green”. The reality is that this is a very small bill. It has no impact on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill notwithstanding the fact that it is subject to the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. That is dealt with quite carefully and clearly with regard to the legislation on the foreshore and seabed. 
The select committee did a sterling job in taking a significant number of submissions in respect of this bill—in all I think there were two. After much debate covering no less than 15 minutes according to the report the select committee agreed that clause 4 as introduced was unnecessarily broad in the discretion it gave to the council. We have to be very careful in giving lots of discretion to councils particularly in the Wellington region. 
The committee recommended that the council deal with the land in accordance with the Local Government Act. This amendment will maintain the intent of the bill by removing specific constraints on the council while ensuring that any sale be publicly notified. The community would therefore be placed on notice and consulted. This is a constructive change that we welcome. 
As an Aucklander I am delighted to speak in favour of a bill that is going forward to support the Wellington region. As a consequence on behalf of my colleague Mahara Okeroa who helped to represent the area we commend the bill to the House for its second reading.
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21713] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67.  
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (a)(i) of the definition  
serious default 
 in section 141AD of the Immigration Act after the words “(or any other” the word “lesser”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 15 to omit paragraph (b) of new section 141AE(4) of the Immigration Act set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker be agreed to: 
to omit this amendment.
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:7799] 
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. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “any member of Parliament” and substitute the words “the Hon Harry Duynhoven”.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8652] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s point. It is properly raised and yes that will be done. I will discuss this matter with the Clerk and he can explain the proper procedures to the police. But I can assure the member that that will be done.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
[Volume:624;Page:19167] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Madam Speaker as my colleague the Hon Bill English pointed out to you we accept absolutely your ruling on this issue but I would appreciate your clarification on another issue for the future. If I heard correctly I think you used as one of the reasons for declining the application the fact that further questions could be asked on the matter in question time. I think you included language to that effect. What troubles me about that is that I am not sure I have ever heard a Speaker use that kind of thinking in a ruling prior to now. The reason why it is important is that it would be almost impossible unless the House was in urgency or about to enter into urgency for any application to meet that requirement because every application could be further addressed during question time unless the House was going into urgency on the next sitting day. I am deeply troubled by that part of the ruling as a principle because if that sets a precedent for the future it would be almost impossible to obtain an adjournment for an urgent debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on—
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17730] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 2 be agreed to.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15589] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold this question over until Mr Hawkins is in a position to be in the House to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to hold the question over. Is there any objection? There is.
Pettis Jill: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19016] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 There have been some very positive speeches tonight. I think that that speaks volumes and it speaks significantly about the recognition by this House of the importance of the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill and of the importance of agriculture to this country’s economy. 
There are occasionally times in this House when we all rise together in support of legislation that is in the country’s best interest. I am pleased to take this very brief opportunity to congratulate colleagues who have spoken well and to support the bill.
Tisch Lindsay: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6503] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we are in a predicament in this case. Although the copy of the legislation that the Minister has which her advisers have provided may well be right—and I am not questioning its validity—Mr Power has made the point that the statutes on which we rely and that are the means by which we can check references in this debate have not been forthcoming. I believe that the question should lie on the Table and that this debate should be adjourned. We cannot use the statutes as the highest document of authority the means by which we can check validity and can check off sections we are debating. I seek leave of the Committee that this debate lie on the Table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for making— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have sought leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Standing Order 182: “A committee of the whole House may not adjourn its own sitting or the consideration of any matter to a future sitting.” We have a situation in which the information has been tabled and copies have been provided. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt you—I would certainly not think that I am known for that sort of thing—but the member has sought leave for the matter to be put. My understanding of Standing Orders is that in that environment the question has to be put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have read out Standing Order 182. The member cannot move that the House adjourn. [ 
Interruption 
] Will the member just hang on? Members can move that we report progress. That is an entirely different matter and can be done only on a call. I am going to call Dr Paul Hutchison now to give his 5-minute dissertation.
Hide Rodney: Motions — Bali Bombing—Second Anniversary 
Hide Rodney: Motions — Bali Bombing—Second Anniversary 
[Volume:620;Page:15998] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party supports the motion. Two years ago today terrorism was brought into our homes into our country. Although the bomb went off in Bali three New Zealanders were among those who died. We are a small country so we are only one or two people removed from the New Zealanders who died that day. 
It also brought terrorism home to Australia in a large way and reminded us that what we face with terrorism is not something happening on the other side of the world. New Zealanders do travel all over the world and are exposed to the sort of shocking crime that was committed 2 years ago. I hope our Government is determined through the Indonesian Government to see that the perpetrators of this evil deed are fully punished and I hope that we take a lesson from this terrible terrible crime and recognise that as a country and as a people we have to stand shoulder to shoulder in the fight against terrorism.
Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have any further comment on my ruling. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am not commenting on your ruling but there is an issue that arises out of your ruling. I note particularly the reference in your ruling to words to the effect that members may wish to take further parliamentary time to debate the matter. I think it raises an issue as to whether the fact that this report was released on a member’s day raises the possibility of the general debate being used as a de facto adjournment debate or whether if this matter had been raised on a Tuesday or a Thursday an adjournment debate would have been granted. I am not questioning your ruling but I think the point about the proximity of the general debate to the issue is relevant and I would be grateful for some assurance from you that in determining whether an adjournment debate is to be granted the fact that there is a general or other debate looming is of little relevance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct on the last point about whether a general debate is looming. But there are numerous ways in which this matter can be raised in Parliament: by questions in the financial review debate and in the general debate if members want to use that. But I was not just referring to one particular thing.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17580] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Alexander(P) 
English(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Franks(P) 
Power 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Jones 
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos (P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins 
Okeroa 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to schedule 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from Part 1 the item relating to the Privacy Act 1993.
Tisch Lindsay: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11823] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I wish to take a brief call to add National’s support for this legislation. So many of us fly around the country and overseas and I was fortunate to sit for 1 day on the select committee in Auckland and learn of the sorts of things that can go on without our knowing. 
This legislation will allow the pilots and crews to take action if they are dealing with unruly passengers. Some passengers do lose control through the alcohol they consume although it is not always through alcohol. It may be through fear of flying or maybe they have been smoking. I think we were told that in the 6-month periodfrom January to June last year there were 241 serious offences where action needed to be taken. This bill will allow that to happen. 
As the Hon Maurice Williamson said we have all travelled around places where we have experienced unruly behaviour that is not only unbefitting to the person but brings discredit on other people. During the second reading I mentioned an occasion when I was flying between London and Hong Kong with a stopover in New Delhi. I would never again want to experience the behaviour that went on at that time. 
A major part of the bill is also the mutual recognition with Australia. It brings together one civil aviation market and if that reduces compliance costs allows flexibility and safer flying for the airline and passengers concerned we welcome that. National has supported this bill through all its stages and we are happy to do so in the third reading. 
Bill read a third time.
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:20946] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
3Purpose of this Act 
The purpose of this Act is— 
(a)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2007 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and 
(b)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2007 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal before the commencement of this Act.
Hunt Jonathan: Responses — Mr T R Harrison BEM JP 
Hunt Jonathan: Responses — Mr T R Harrison BEM JP 
[Volume:615;Page:10861] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 161 to 163 on the application of Mr T R Harrison BEM JP relating to statements made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP on 26 August 2003.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18796] 
6.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Has he received any reports on plans to nationalise South Island high-country land? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Yes a report from the National Party’s Simon Power that this Government plans to nationalise the South Island high country—an unfortunate statement because it is already publicly owned. 
David Parker 
: How does the Government’s approach differ from that of previous Governments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government will keep pastoral leases where doing so is consistent with its high-country objectives whereas the National Governments of the 1990s just wanted to get rid of them. It follows that if leases are to be part of the long-term future paying the proper long-term rental is a good idea. 
Simon Power 
: Why would the Minister allow discussions to commence about reviewing rentals while the land-tenure review negotiations are under way and does that not meet a definition of bad-faith bargaining? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I refer the member to the front page of the Christchurch  
Press 
 of the Saturday before last which leads with a headline that states: “Farmers expected high-country rent rises”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the Minister not point that out to the questioner before the question was put later on the Order Paper—today at midday—because it would have had the effect of looking like this? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Mr Donald. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree with the conservation manager of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Kevin Hackwell that high-country farmers are paying less rent for their huge farms than most beneficiaries are paying for their State houses and as a consequence those farmers are ripping off the taxpayer; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I agree to the extent that I have advice that high-country leases are probably set at about a third or a quarter of market rates. However there have been increases on some runs in recent weeks.
Power Simon: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Power Simon: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6501] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have just one question—the Minister in the chair has indicated to me she has an answer to it—about Part 3 and it is in respect of clause 13(2) which states: “Section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is repealed.” Just happening to have a copy of that Act on hand I notice that in my version of this statute which is annotated to 1 January 2003 there is no section 75A— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That can’t be right. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well I do not know why that is so I ask the Minister whether I am right. I could be wrong; that has happened. I ask the Minister to take a call because if there is indeed a mistake in the annotation then there— 
Jill Pettis 
: Not allowed to. 
SIMON POWER 
: The whip interjects but this is quite an important point: either the annotated statutes in the lobbies are all wrong or the bill is wrong. So one of those two things has to get the attention of the Minister reasonably swiftly so that she can explain to the Committee why all the statutes in the lobbies are wrong— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Good question. 
SIMON POWER 
: —it is a good question because it is quite a serious question—or alternatively why the drafting of this small wee bill “Lucifer clause” and all refers to section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act. By my reading of the statute annotated to 1 January 2003 that section does not exist. There is a new section 73(2A) in the Act and a new section 73(5) but there is no section 75A. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Whose fault? 
SIMON POWER 
: This is what happens. The Hon Harry Duynhoven as I know is pretty concerned about procedure generally speaking and likes to get things right—to dot his i’s and cross his t’s. I can tell that beneath the mirth on his face he is concerned that we are seeing here a legislative process that requires a Minister to get up and explain to the people of New Zealand how this came about. Most people who looked at Part 3 would have thought the amendments were inconsequential but they are quite consequential when we find that bits of them are wrong or missing. I ask the Minister in the interests of clarifying this issue for the Committee whether all the annotated statutes in the lobbies are wrong or whether the drafting of this amendment bill is wrong. As members of the Committee I think we are here at least to facilitate the passage of this legislation in a constructive way so that—God forbid—we do not leave the judiciary to interpret this stuff. Let me now ask the Minister whether she will now take a call and explain to the Committee exactly how this hiccup occurred.
Gosche Mark: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9658] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am happy to take part in this debate on the title. I shall read clause 1 in its entirety: “This Act is the Land Transport Management Act 2002.” How could anybody be confused about that? How could anybody advise a new Leader of the Opposition showing off his wares in Parliament to make that speech? Mr Brownlee the new National spokesperson on transport is sitting next to Mr Brash. Mr McCully is advising him on how to behave in the House and he gets him to do a filibuster on the title clause. Oh my goodness! Dr Brash should get a new adviser quickly. He needs to know that it is not very statesmanlike when showing his wares as a future Prime Minister to make a filibuster speech on the title of a bill. Oh dear that is not a very good start on his first day. Clause 1 “Title” states: “This Act is the Land Transport Management Act 2002.” Who could have advised him to do a filibuster on that? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I deliberately waited until the member had gone past 2 minutes of his speaking time. The time he has spent straying from a discussion on the title is greater than that spent by Dr Brash even though in my opinion Dr Brash was speaking to the title—he was pulled up by the Chair and the Committee for supposedly straying from the title. Mr Gosche has simply used the word “title” on a number of occasions throughout his speech but he has not at all addressed the failings of the title nor has he been able to mention one single thing that justifies it. We know that this debate is very very tight—we do not doubt that at all—but if Government members take the call they should defend the title. It is just not defensible for them to say that members on the other side have not been advised properly or some other thing like that. We know that it is all rubbish. We know how terrified they are of the huge overwhelming public acceptance of Don Brash’s elevation in the National Party. We know that Judith Tizard is living in fear that her seat is now likely to disappear from under her.
Hunt Jonathan: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17408] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise members who are in the Chamber or who may be listening that there are two questions to be put and although the bells will ring for an extended period of time on the first they will ring for only 1 minute on the second.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18533] 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps has the Government taken to increase the financial support available to tertiary students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 We have taken numerous steps including ensuring students pay no interest on student loans while studying fairer student loan repayment policies and more targeted financial assistance to those on low incomes through Step Up Scholarships TeachNZ and other scholarships. In Budget 2004 eligibility for student allowances was increased substantially. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How many students are likely to benefit from the increased allowance eligibility? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We estimate that as a result of the $110 million investment in student support announced in the 2004 Budget over 36000 students will benefit from the increased eligibility. This will go a long way towards easing the financial burden that students face and decreasing the growth in student loan debt. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is it true that the reason the Government is removing the independent circumstances allowance is that it believes the allowance breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act by discriminating against students who do not work to support themselves and what kind of absurdity or excuse is that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is my understanding that advice from Crown Law was that employment history is not a valid reason for discriminating in those cases. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that a 24-year-old student living in Auckland who moved out of home years ago and whose combined parental income is $52000 can get an allowance of only $88 per week including the accommodation benefit and how does he expect that person to survive when that will not even pay the rent? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Like the vast majority of other students in similar circumstances through a mixture of part-time employment and student loans. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: What does he say to the thousands of students this year who have busted their guts working for 96 weeks while studying and living away from home but who now must go begging to their parents for the money to live and how are the changes in the independent circumstances allowances fair to them? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As the member is aware all those students are eligible to that level of income through the loans scheme. The member does know that.
Ririnui Mita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18406] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 10 May 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
referred to Maori Affairs Committee 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I put the question on the Minister’s motion the honourable member Stephen Franks has lodged an amendment which is to omit from the instruction all the words after the expression “10 May 2005”.
Shirley Ken: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Shirley Ken: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3495] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The Standing Orders are very clear on this matter and there have been numerous previous rulings. It is the prerogative of the party whip to call the vote. It has been called. That is the end of the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes the Speaker is not concerned to know the reason a party has not voted its full strength.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6992] 
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 amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of Hon Marian Hobbs to Part 2 be agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18756] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Has the member had the authority of the member to ask the question? 
RODNEY HIDE  
: 
 Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s word will be absolutely accepted. The member did ring me this morning.
Tizard Judith: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Tizard Judith: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:614;Page:10751] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I seek leave for any preliminary procedure in respect of a local bill or a private bill carried out in accordance with Appendices B and C of the Standing Orders before 10 February 2004 to be deemed to comply with the Standing Orders despite any inconsistency with the provisions of Appendix B of the Standing Orders as they apply from that date. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13157] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is a request through a point of order of you Madam Chairperson. It is this: when members feel they have been deliberately ignored by the Chair—and there are people here who would attest to such an observation—when members having stood to seek a call feel that the Chair has made eye contact with them on two previous calls and when the Chair is well aware that that member was seeking a call; when members feel that the Chair has given consideration to one other party of smaller size when members feel they have been deliberately ignored what rights of recourse do members have other than to recall the Speaker? Can you tell me what rights I have?
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9141] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19092] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven  
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke  
Shirley  
Barnett  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain (P) 
Beyer  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher  
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Burton  
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Turei(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor  
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins  
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora  
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs  
Pettis(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui  
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Hughes  
Noes 49 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Perry  
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander  
Franks  
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wong  
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Woolerton(P) 
Brown  
Hutchison(P) 
Rich(P) 
Worth  
Brownlee(P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Mark(P) 
Simich(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair  
Smith M 
Connell(P) 
Newman  
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch  
Amendments agreed to