edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Supplementary Questions 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Supplementary Questions 
[Volume:608;Page:5242] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the Easter adjournment I was asked to give consideration as to whether extra supplementary questions can be allowed in certain circumstances. The short answer is yes. Speaker’s ruling 128/4 contemplates that if a Speaker feels that a Minister is trifling with the Chair further supplementary questions can be permitted. I confirmed on 8 April that this ruling still applies. 
However I do not want members to misunderstand this. The Speaker does not judge whether ministerial replies are adequate or make political judgments on how well Ministers have responded in the House or indeed how well other members are performing. Those are matters for members themselves for the press and for the public generally. There is nothing new about members being dissatisfied with Ministers’ replies and appealing to the Speaker about them can be seen by Speakers’ rulings in the book going back at least to 1892. That was before I became a member. All a Speaker can do is to ensure that Ministers are relevant—that is they address the question. In addition Speaker’s ruling 128/4 makes clear that if a Minister answers facetiously the Speaker has a discretion to penalise the Minister by permitting further questions.
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3697] 
11.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Will she categorically undertake that the putative “Article 4” of the Treaty of Waitangi will not be allowed to influence future Treaty settlements; if not why not?  
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why should we expect this hasty ringbarking by the Minister and the Prime Minister of a blossoming fourth limb of the living treaty to work any better than the solid legal rebuttals of the imaginary partnership principle have worked with the courts the Waitangi Tribunal and probably the politically correct appointees to the new Supreme Court if they think it is handy? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The putative fourth article has been around since 1840 and has not in fact been accepted as an article of the Treaty of Waitangi. So I cannot see that it will now be accepted as an article of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Mark Peck 
: Is the Minister saying clearly to the House that there is no such thing as article 4 of the treaty? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Minister’s view will she instruct the Waitangi Tribunal not to consider or discuss article 4 in the light of comments today from claimant Harvey Ruru who says of the tribunal : “They believe that it’s a whole new claim area. It does raise lots of issues for the Waitangi Tribunal. And that was from Professor Keith Sorrenson at the Waitangi Tribunal itself.” When will she direct the tribunal to stop considering article 4? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It would be totally constitutionally improper for a Minister to direct any independent legal body’s decision making in that way.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8115] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Cullen can rise to his feet with a sense of outrage and anger but he owed the Opposition some openness and candidness when he knew that the Minister would not be available for that reason and he should have had the decency to advise the Opposition so it could rephrase the question to someone else. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did do that when he was asked— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No he didn’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes he did. I heard him say it on a point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No not just then but about 5 minutes ago. I invite the member to look at the transcript. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He should have had the decency to advise the Opposition then and not be outraged now.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19208] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Tax Administration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 77 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P)  
Laban(P) 
Roy(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P)  
Samuels(P) 
Barnett  (P) 
Ewen-Street 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M(P) 
Simich(P) 
Beyer  (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Franks 
Mahuta(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Swain(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa  (P) 
Ward(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Wong(P) 
Dalziel 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Donald (P) 
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donnelly 
Kedgley (P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King 
Robson(P) 
Hughes 
Noes 43 
Adams  (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Baldock(P) 
Field 
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones  (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole  (P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5587] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 46 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 in the name ofthe Hon Marian Hobbs be agreed to.
Carter Chris: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter Chris: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14013] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I would like to thank Dail Jones from New Zealand First for those kind and truthful comments. The Government has attempted to work through this process in as engaging and consensual a way as possible. It has involved a great deal of the time of my officials and Government members in meeting with Auckland territorial authorities and engaging with other political parties so that we can come up with solutions that start to address this critical problem of transport within Auckland and particularly its governance structures. 
This bill is aimed at promoting increased integration of decision making. We had some presentations earlier from some National members stating that the bill increased the number of bodies making decisions. Actually it does not; it goes a long way to integrate and streamline those processes. Part 1 is a fairly narrow part. It deals with title commencement purpose and integration. I would like to comment very briefly on just two things. The first is the Supplementary Order Paper and the commencement part that I intend to introduce. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority is supposed to be up and running on 1 January. If it manages to appoint its chief executive and get everything ready before then we are very keen for it to start as soon as possible. So the Supplementary Order Paper allows the authority the flexibility if it is up and running earlier to get started and take full responsibility. 
The other area I would like to comment on very briefly is the integration of all the Franklin district into the area that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be dealing with in its planning processes. The transport systems in the Waikato are very integrated with Auckland’s transport structures. We have widened out the reach here beyond the Auckland Regional Council to the Waikato Regional Council in an attempt to try to integrate this incredibly complex Auckland transport network into an effective and efficient system. It will be a Herculean task but this Government has both the commitment and the resources to try to address this question.
Benson-Pope David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6486] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Dail: Sittings of the House 
Jones Dail: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:20487] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to give Rodney Hide the opportunity to apologise for the statements he has made with regard to Jim Peron as we would expect any honourable decent gentleman to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Jill Pettis who wished to take a point of order. She was seeking leave for the House adjourn.
Smith Nick: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15201] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I want to make it quite plain to listeners that I heard you interject that scampi was not in the bill yet I have read quite explicitly in Part 3: “Introduction of scampi into quota management system …”. I think you owe the member an apology—
Beyer Georgina: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19087] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14168] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 107BA(1) the following new paragraph: 
(aa)that sentence was received prior to the enactment of the Sentencing Act 2002; and.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18744] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 After a brief discussion with Brian Donnelly I seek to correct the name of the paper to SOC98M18/1. It had three references and I gave the wrong one. It is a Cabinet committee paper.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19750] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I just want if I can to table a document that has come into my possession this afternoon. It is dated with today’s date. It has a time on it of 12.45. It is a statement from the Prime Minister in which she describes John Tamihere as wonderful colleague who puts in 150 percent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the member whether he has sought leave to table that document. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I have. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
King Annette: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18613] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9657] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19255] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for the parties. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18381] 
11.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What reports has she received if any on the Ngati Aukiwa occupation of lands at Stony Creek station in the Far North? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I have been kept informed of developments through regular briefings by officials. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the police have taken no action against the Maori occupiers of Stony Creek station because of Government instructions not to do so before Waitangi Day; if not what is the explanation for the 6-week delay in evicting these illegal occupiers? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: On behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations no I cannot confirm that because it is untrue. The officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements laid a formal complaint with the police on 1 February 2005. It is now an operational decision for the police to determine how best to resolve the situation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister now telling the House that the Office of Treaty Settlements a Government agency is having to wait for a considerable period of time for the police to take action on this serious matter just like thousands of other rural households throughout the country that have no confidence in the police either? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: On behalf of the Minister no I am telling the member that an occupation that has arisen out of a longstanding dispute between members of the hapu and Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa is being attended to and that the police after this period of time have had a complaint laid. They will make the operational decision as is their responsibility in due course. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did the Office of Treaty Settlements take so long to lay its complaint with the police and is it true that the farm has been unattended since the occupation began in late December; if so what has the cost to the taxpayer been? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those questions can be answered. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Firstly the Office of Treaty Settlements as is its wont has worked with the police and particularly with local police liaison in an endeavour to find a constructive resolution. At this point that has not worked so a complaint has been laid. I can say to the member that I am informed that the property has continued to be looked after by the farmers and the stock have been farmed. There has been some difficulty with access to some buildings but there has been no detriment to the farm as such.
Copeland Gordon: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13283] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I would like to note that a member of this side of the Chamber is also seeking a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That had not escaped me.
Peters Jim: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22322] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in respect of Part 2 which has now substantively become a bill in its own right. I remind the Committee that the Local Government and Environment Committee heard a very interesting submission from New Era Energy. I want to quote the Hon Rob Storey a former Minister for the Environment because his comments are in line with our thinking in New Zealand First—and this is talking not just of the original bill but of the revised bill. He said: “As a former Minister for the Environment I am horrified at the amount of uncheckable and largely unfettered power which is proposed to be given through this law to any Minister who in future holds this portfolio.” He also stated that he was mystified as to why an advocate which is normally the role of the Minister for the Environment could in future be forced into a situation under this bill where “the environmental interest may be secondary to short-term commercial gains”. 
If that statement was to stand alone one would think that that was a matter of opinion. But today we read that at long last—although it has widely been known in the wider world—this Government is planning a series of new national standards particularly in regard to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure and that these when they come on line particularly national policy on contentious topics such as electricity generation should help to set a standard for construction and operation. One must regard the late addition of this section of the bill as being one for justifiable suspicion because that is the way it would seem. 
One of the issues about this bill—and on behalf of New Zealand First I want to express this very strongly—in regard to policy statements and national standards is the uncertainty and the mixed message that the Government has been sending throughout its time. What happens is that Government members have probably gone off to a conference been clapped on the back and cheered by the party leaders there— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Go drinking! 
JIM PETERS 
: They probably go drinking as well in the after hours then make an unfettered promise that they would fix it. Then they come back here and suddenly realise that the reality may be something different. So we have a whole series of uncertain opinions culminating in the bill that is before us. There can be no other explanation for this very late change. Those of us who heard the submissions were particularly interested to see that the small but interesting section was put right particularly in regard to where works could be carried out above the ground or at which height. 
New Zealand First still has reservations about what national standards and policy statements under this Government would mean particularly with regard to their gestation and the lack of community input throughout the whole process.
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:8736] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 14/7 which goes back to 1891 and there have been numerous similar rulings since then. It states: “The Speaker’s ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice.” That is where that matter ends.
Parker David: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19378] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 We have just heard the member alleging concerns about the cost of building a house. The reason for this legislation is so that owners of copyright material such as building standards are not required to give that information free of charge. If we did not do it that way—if we were to fund it through central government or local government—then an increase in building consent fees would be required. 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s right. Yes and they would whinge about that. 
DAVID PARKER 
: In fact they would shout about that. Mr Connell loves shouting in this House. 
This is actually very simple legislation. It is a very small bill that makes it clear that copyright information is protected—and I say to Mr Connell that copyright is a property right. Most people in the National Party understand that copyright is a property right that ought not be taken away without fair compensation by central government. As a consequence of a small technical mistake in the original bill which was not picked up by National or by any other party in this House those copyright rights were inadvertently taken away from the copyright holder. This legislation restores that property right to the copyright holder yet we have the National Party ineffectually railing against it. 
This is good legislation. I recommend it to the House.
Hartley Ann: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
Hartley Ann: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:615;Page:11342] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: OK. Thank you.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8483] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 62(1)(ma) be agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Sittings of the House 
Pettis Jill: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:20487] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Yes. I seek leave for the House to rise in 45 seconds. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15203] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just because the Standing Orders have changed the sequence in respect of the title it does not mean obviously that the Standing Orders have changed. New Zealand First members are still entitled as members of Parliament to four calls on the title clause. What have we had? One call. Now with respect we have been involved with the Primary Production Committee for a long long time and in this case back to 1986 if we talk about the quota management system. I think that one call is totally unfair especially on the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand where the member is coming from and I accept his contribution. All I can do because I have already put the motion is to tell the member that he can seek the leave of the Committee. I do not have any problem if the member seeks the leave of the Committee for one more call. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave for one more call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?
Worth Richard: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Worth Richard: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4527] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 This is a great title for a bill. National supports the bill. I have pleasure in speaking in support of the title.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
[Volume:616;Page:12366] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 If it were a requirement that every time a policy statement was made a ministerial statement was made in the House we would spend most of our time having ministerial statements and responding to them. I invite the member in particular to check his  
Hansard 
 from the period 1984 to 1990 to see how many times he for example announced State asset sales without any announcement being made in the House before it was made in the public arena.
Tisch Lindsay: Inquiry into Hospital-Acquired Infection — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Inquiry into Hospital-Acquired Infection — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14659] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 We support the three recommendations that were made. They are recommendations that I think stand the scrutiny of the profession and the public at large. I will not go through them as they are clearly identified. But I think it is important that we note what the conclusion of the report states as no one has mentioned this or spelt it out and I think it is appropriate that I do that. The Government assures the select committee of its commitment to improving the safety of public hospitals through better management of hospital-acquired infections. Significant progress has been made in improving the consistency of data sets and work is under way to assess cost-effective options for progressing a national surveillance system for hospital-acquired infections. District health boards I know will do all they can to build confidence. They do not want to have infections in their places of work and certainly they will be going out of their way to make sure that this is not commonplace. So National has pleasure in supporting this proposition. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15139] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I know that this is the procedure during question time but Committee time is also pretty important. The Minister Mr Benson-Pope has indicated that there is a third legal opinion in existence; he said that he has three legal opinions. That being the case I seek leave to ask the Minister whether he will provide us with that legal opinion. If he has it then we are entitled to see it.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11515] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As usual the member has raised a very valid point of order and what he said is perfectly correct. The House is not concerned with a member’s reason for objecting to leave to table a document—members should not give reasons they should merely object. As far as I am concerned I do not know what is in the judgment nor could I be expected to know what is in the judgment. Leave was sought to table a particular judgment. I did not take that as a reflection on my ruling. I took it as a member wanting to table a document. A member is perfectly entitled to seek the leave of the House not to do virtually anything but to do things that are within the Standing Orders of this House. I wonder whether the member wanted to make any further comment on that.
Pettis Jill: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9734] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Cullen Michael: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement 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 Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11292] 
5.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any reports containing recent assessments of ACC’s performance internationally? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. An Australian report on workers’ compensation comparison shows that although 6 years ago Accident Compensation Corporation and Australian levies were similar New Zealand rates are now on average 65 percent less than those of Australia. This gives New Zealand a clear competitive advantage in most industries. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Can the Minister explain why the Accident Compensation Corporation’s levy rates are now so much lower than those in Australia? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There are a number of reasons. As the Accident Compensation Corporation has focused more on injury prevention and rehabilitation—in line with legislation that this Government introduced in 2001—we have kept our workplace injury rates down compared with Australia and have provided much more effective rehabilitation. The corporation’s administration costs are about one-third of Australian schemes. We have far fewer disputes and that is in part due to the corporation’s no-fault principles. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of any reports or letters that indicate the concerns that physiotherapists have with the endorsed provider network scheme particularly in Auckland; and if she is aware of those concerns can she give the House an assurance that she will address them positively? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am very aware of concerns that some physiotherapists both in Wellington and in Auckland have with the Government’s proposed roll-out of the endorsed provider network scheme. Their primary concern is the agreement which the Government reached during the piloting of that for there to be no co-payment in response to an increased subsidy to the health provider—in this case the physiotherapist. That group of physiotherapists believe that it is their right to continue to charge. I cannot therefore guarantee that that issue will be satisfactorily resolved but I am happy to continue to work with them on it. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How is our scheme generally viewed overseas? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Frankly with envy. As well as the levy achievements that I have just outlined the accident compensation scheme has cushioned New Zealanders against the impact of substantial worldwide hikes in private insurance premiums. Many observers around the world will be wondering why on earth National—if it ever gets the chance—plans to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation and expose New Zealanders to similar costs inefficiencies and uncertainty.
Tisch Lindsay: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18513] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call to summarise National’s position on this legislation. Earlier when we last debated it Tony Ryall spoke and I will reiterate the points made during that time. We support the recommendation by Dianne Yates that this bill be discharged. It will not be passed because it has been superseded and overtaken by the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) which I note is set down for second reading as Government order of the day No. 15 on the Order Paper. 
Barbara Stewart 
: It is and it’s far too low. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First said that because of the importance that she or New Zealand First places on this bill it should be expedited and it should be much higher on the list than that. National would concur with that. We believe that anything to do with drug-assisted rapes which is covered by the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill is important for society. It is important that we have legislation that will cover these points. National’s position is that we are happy to support the recommendation that the bill be discharged or that it not be passed.
Hughes Darren: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3503] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in support of the bill which as members have said comes as a direct result of the Gisborne inquiry. The Gisborne inquiry was called for by the former Minister of Health the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech when he was deputy leader of the National Party. Following the change of Government the inquiry reported back to the Hon Annette King focusing on what happened in Gisborne through the 1990s up to the point where Dr Bottrill retired from practice. The inquiry came up with 46 recommendations for the Minister of Health to consider and this Minister has worked through many of those recommendations trying to get as many through as possible. The bill we are debating today contains a number of those recommendations. The bill is needed to enable improved evaluation of the screening programme and it is clear from the outcome of the inquiry that that needed to happen.  
I will pick up on Mrs Roy’s comment that the Government is rushing to make it look as though it is doing something and has not consulted enough people. I note in the explanatory note of the bill that a public discussion document was released and that there were 101 submissions on it from key stakeholders and members of the public. Consultation was undertaken with various Government departments and agencies and selected professional and women’s groups—that last part is very important as well. Those stakeholders were part of the process that has led to this bill taking place. It will go to the Health Committee so if the ACT party does not believe that there are enough privacy safeguards in the bill I hope it will come up with very concrete detailed suggestions for the select committee process so that we can make sure we progress the bill and deliver on the spirit and recommendations of the Gisborne inquiry.  
I am proud that Annette King is taking a very sensible approach to getting this inquiry through. I support the bill.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Points of Order — Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sowry Roger: Points of Order — Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6415. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did ask and I will ask you again whether you will go away and consider your ruling— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will; I am sorry I will— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: —because I just want to make the point that with a written question where a Minister does not answer the question within the time frame it is not uncommon for members to come down here and list the questions off to you. You undertake to make inquiries with the Minister’s office and some action is taken. I think that that sort of approach should be taken where a Minister says in the House that he or she will answer something and never does. A member should be able to come here after a certain time—it may be a shorter period of time because it is a question on notice—and raise it with you. I just ask you to consider that Mr Speaker as part of your considerations on this issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said I will consider it; I shall.
Awatere Huata Donna: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Awatere Huata Donna: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10507] 
DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a report to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) outlining a rescue plan for Carich that required only a confirmation letter of support from the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16520] 
6.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What ministerial duties and responsibilities are currently being undertaken by the Hon John Tamihere? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 None. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why did she fail to sack Mr Tamihere when it has been clear from the beginning that he has misled the New Zealand public by accepting a golden handshake that he said he would not take and why was Mr Tamihere left to make the decision that she should have taken herself? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said in answer to previous questions like all fair-minded New Zealanders—and I think that came out at something like 82 percent—I suspended judgment pending a full examination of the facts. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why was Mr Tamihere still receiving his full ministerial salary until he decided he should resign today and why was his treatment very different from that meted out to Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle who were both required to resign their ministerial posts while their actions were being investigated? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On the latter point—and I know the member was not here—both members tendered their resignations to me. As I have said endlessly the Minister stood aside. He was still a Minister but there were Acting Ministers appointed. That is why he was receiving the salary. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How can anyone seriously believe that John Tamihere’s resignation is anything but a sham when his ministerial portfolios have been left open for his return after he has clearly misled the public? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The portfolios are not open; they have Acting Ministers. I have decided not to appoint a new member of Cabinet.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3741] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d) from the definition of  
good employer 
.
Hide Rodney: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
Hide Rodney: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
[Volume:620;Page:15362] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party in support of all the other parties to condemn this monstrous evil. The entire world has recoiled from the events that have unfolded in a town that few of us knew existed. We have seen something truly monstrous where young children have been targeted and murdered for some political end. We heard the story of the small boy who was held hostage who did not know what it was about. He was hungry heat-exhausted and thirsty. He asked for a cup of water to drink only to be bayoneted in front of his school fellows by his captors. This is a monstrous evil. All around the world we must condemn it. 
We send our condolences from this Parliament to the Russian people to the people of Beslan and to those families who have suffered so tragically.
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15996] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think you need to explain the rules of yielding because they are quite complicated. 
Brian Connell 
: No I haven’t yielded. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Brian Connell has decided not to speak. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: No he has not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: He has not?
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17120] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 86 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subsection: 
(4B)A regional council must in relation to any coastal marine area that is subject to a territorial customary rights order share equitably by agreement with the holder of the order revenue received from a coastal occupation charge.
Jones Dail: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12865] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill may be only barely four pages but it is a very important bill. To give some indication of that I point out that the various notes and suchlike of an explanatory nature go to 12 pages. A considerable degree of interest in this legislation is evidenced. 
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Police Complaints Authority Act of 1988 to allow the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct established by the Governor-General on 16 February 2004 to fulfil its terms of reference—to inquire into the adequacy of any investigations carried out by the police on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority. So members and anyone else who is interested now know just what it is members are talking about. 
Normally one would not support legislation that breaches the privacy of people who engaged in police investigations—investigations not only last year but also many many years ago. Those people may have made statements and suchlike in circumstances where they felt their views would be privileged and protected. But this issue has caused a great deal of public interest and raises some questions about the credibility of our police force. New Zealand First has the highest regard for the police force. We want to make sure that as much information as is reasonably possible is made available to the inquiry. 
I am pleased that the Law and Order Committee which heard submissions on this matter and heard them extremely promptly and quickly returned the bill to this House with amendments that make the bill much better. New Zealand First does not want to see a situation develop where people start complaining about the inquiry that is taking place because not enough evidence was made available to it—that people complain that such evidence was available but was not provided. We do not want to see yet another inquiry into an inquiry. We want to try to bring this matter to an end in the best possible way and in the total public interest. So we have decided to support this legislation somewhat reluctantly. Hopefully it will only ever be a one-off. 
It is also important to note that in Part 1 clause 5 is a sunset clause. This unusual Act of Parliament unusually will expire “at the close of the day that is 1 year after the date on which the Commission finally reports to the Governor-General.” That is also a very important provision. So we will support the Committee consideration and will make various comments from time to time about it.
Turia Tariana: Motions — New Zealand Cricket—Tour of Zimbabwe 
Turia Tariana: Motions — New Zealand Cricket—Tour of Zimbabwe 
[Volume:627;Page:21953] 
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The Maori Party supports the report and recommendations of the special envoy to the United Nations. South Africa has now responded and we are satisfied with that response. New Zealand must apply the same consistency of action towards all countries where human rights are being abused. Will we condemn other countries and stop sporting tours there where human rights abuses continue? 
The Maori Party condemns human rights abuses wherever they occur and we do not support the motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the motion be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4588] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Part 2 stand part. A party vote is called for. Just before we have the party vote can I remind members that we need silence during the taking of the vote. If members look at Speaker’s ruling 56/4 and Speaker’s ruling 8/2 in the Supplement to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 they will see that silence is required.
Cullen Michael: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5389] 
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 (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Vote: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20604] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Vote: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12794] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Forests Amendment Bill do proceed. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill to proceed.
Brownlee Gerry: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16816] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for the advice that you have just given us but the House today gave leave and I am the person who indicated first that we would not deny leave on the fair understanding that Michael Cullen then sought leave for the matter to be debated. Now it seems it will not be a long debate so to go into an argy-bargy and waste the House’s time on whether this is an appropriate method is not on. The leave has been granted. It is a special case. Of course there needs to be some discussion of the policy matters around that.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9365] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Noes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.