edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Speaker’s Ruling 47/1—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Speaker’s Ruling 47/1—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
[Volume:624;Page:19625] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Last week the Rt Hon Winston Peters asked me to reconsider my reliance on Speaker’s ruling 47/1: “It is just as unparliamentary to apply an offensive term to members of a party as to apply it to members individually.” Mr Peters argued that it was an old ruling—it was given in 1914—and it has been suspended by a Speaker’s ruling given at the time that the Alliance broke up in 2002. The ruling may be an old one but it has been consistently relied on in the House. I do not see any reason relating to its longevity to depart from it. In regard to the Alliance the Speaker was required to make a number of rulings relating to the status of that party. Two of those are recorded in Speaker’s rulings 5/6 and 5/7. These rulings were concerned with continued recognition of the party under Standing Order 34. They did not in any way undermine Speaker’s ruling 47/1. That ruling continues to have full force.
Personal Explanations — World Trade Organization Meeting Cancun 
Personal Explanations — World Trade Organization Meeting Cancun 
[Volume:613;Page:10043] 
Personal Explanations 
World Trade Organization Meeting Cancun 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On 19 September 2003 I addressed this House about the World Trade Organization meeting at Cancun. I made certain allegations about reports of Professor Jane Kelsey that were cited from this House. My comments about Professor Kelsey were incorrect. I accept that Professor Kelsey was present at the meeting’s press centre each day and that she attended various briefings and press conferences throughout the Cancun meeting. I also accept that Professor Kelsey’s reports were based on substantive information and that she did not make them up. I regret the incorrect comments.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21200] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. One of your jobs is to make sure that the New Zealand Parliament is held in reasonable respect by the public. What Mr Hide has just pointed out may well be a matter of privilege but how is it going to look when not only the patient affected but also his mother are sitting in the gallery knowing full well that the information given to the House by the Minister was wrong and when a member who wants simply with two sentences to correct it ends up being slung out of the House? How does that help maintain the New Zealand public’s opinion of this House—or does it in fact do exactly that?
Fairbrother Russell: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7004] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: I am proud to represent the electorate of Napier which hosts one of the country’s busiest and most progressive ports. Against that background I support this bill wholeheartedly.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8395] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say to the member that the point of order is an interesting one. If he wants to make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee about having a particular Prime Minister’s question time then that would be very interesting. I understand that the Prime Minister is not averse to that idea at all.
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5143] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
Noes 40 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17355] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10678] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I am very very proud to be a member of this Government. New Zealand is in good economic heart and it is a very fair and decent society. The principles behind the employment relations legislation are about participation opportunity dignity and fairness. I am very proud to stand and support this legislation especially the change-of-employer situations. Special protection will be given to specific groups of employees who are particularly vulnerable in change-of-employer situations and who lack effective bargaining power such as our cleaners and our food service employees. These employees finally will be treated with some dignity. They will have the right to choose to transfer to a new employer on their current terms and conditions of employment. I am so proud of that clause and we need to say thank you to and acknowledge not only the employers and the business people but the workers and the unions who all contribute to a strong economy and a decent society with a heart. Other employees will also be given protection through a requirement for their employment agreements to contain an employee protection provision. I thank the Minister of Labour the Service and Food Workers Union the employers and our New Zealand society.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12768] 
11.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Following his scheduled meeting with the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) in Auckland last Thursday will he be instructing officials to work on changes to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have met with a range of organisations—including the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) last Thursday—to clarify issues relating to the bill. The bill is currently before a select committee and I look forward to the committee’s report including any recommended changes in due course. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Now that the Minister has met with the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) is he prepared to accept the unanimous motion of 230 of its members that the Government withdraw the union-dictated Employment Relations Law Reform Bill and enter into a process of industrial relations discussion that includes employers non-union workers and unions; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. I have made it clear to all the organisations I have met that the bill will not be withdrawn. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that there are huge concerns in the public arena about this bill; and if he is aware of that does he not think it would be a genuine act of good faith to withdraw the bill and get industry players together to discuss whether there are any concerns because the most common statement to the select committee is: “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am aware of concerns about the bill. I think the unions are saying it is not strong enough and I think the employers are saying it is too harsh. The idea of a select committee process is to bring those people together to have the select committee hear them and to have it recommend changes back to the Government in due course. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Does it surprise the Minister that the business groups he has met with have no faith in a Minister who hides behind the select committee process when they all know that the Labour members on the select committee do whatever the Minister wants? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: If it were as easy as that I would really enjoy the job. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Why does the Minister not believe businesses such as Fisher and Paykel and others around the country that have said this legislation will make them less competitive? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am aware that some business groups and businesses are making claims like that. The purpose of the select committee is to get those issues out then report back in due course.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:607;Page:5033] 
Thursday 10 April 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following the House rising today it will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 29 April it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) The Consumer Protection (Definition of Goods and Services) Bill and on Thursday 1 May the third reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill. Wednesday 30 April will be a members’ day. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 This is a little out of the ordinary but I wonder whether the Leader of the House might comment on the next members’ day and the discussion about the Prostitution Reform Bill. Does he have any thoughts about how the House might handle that legislation ? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes. The Committee has taken leave to take the bill in two questions: the title and the remainder of the bill. It is really in the hands of the House or the Committee as to how it proceeds on that matter but clearly debate has been going on for some time on the title of the bill. I think there was a feeling in the Business Committee—amongst a number of members anyway—that it might be useful to move on reasonably soon to the consideration of the details of the bill and the amendments that have been moved as people seem to be making up their minds fairly clearly on which way they will vote.
Beyer Georgina: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4585] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5456] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 65 
Noes 26 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; Green Party 4; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 10; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 3.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9062] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 151 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Part 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9980] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7429] 
4.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received of the success of Government literacy initiatives in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 A literacy project in Otara and Mangere is making significant improvements in the reading skills of 6-year-olds according to research I released at the school last week. The research is a watershed for literacy teaching in New Zealand and shows that professional development of teachers has made an enormous difference to student learning. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What was a key finding regarding those children in low-income low-decile school areas and for the wider environs? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A key finding was that schools and teachers that are able to sustain high levels of achievement are the ones that track the progress of their students over time and use that information to adapt and target their teaching. The study also found that children can achieve regardless of their socio-economic background and that professional development should focus on raising teachers’ expectations of what their students can do. The study backs up what our Government has been focusing on in education. Although I realise we now talk about “reducing disparities” this result is a clear win out of the closing the gaps initiative. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If the Government has been so successful in its literacy initiatives why do the results of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study released in April this year show New Zealand children ranked 13th which is second bottom of English-speaking countries and having the longest and greatest disparity in literacy learning; and therefore how can the Minister describe those appalling results as “very pleasing”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A number of factors should be taken into account. First the long tail is a legacy of the National Government’s abandonment of poor schools. Secondly the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study includes a number of countries that measured children who were a year older than the New Zealand children and that says something for the difference.
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6139] 
9.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he take full responsibility for answers to parliamentary questions and Official Information Act 1982 responses signed by him; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes but like all Ministers in all Governments I am reliant on the accuracy of the information provided to me to answer parliamentary questions and on the appropriateness of material provided for Official Information Act releases. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: In the light of the  
Dominion Post  
article headed “Te Puni Kokiri boss apologises” of 31 May of this year which quotes his chief executive as saying of the Minister: “He has asked for an explanation and I have been in front of him and accepted the fact that some of the information that we have given him was not correct.”; does he still stand by his answer to a supplementary question today that he was first told the answers were incorrect a week later? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In part yes. Can I put it into chronological order so that we can tidy this up. On 18 February I lodged an answer to question 253. On 10 April I received an apology from Mr Comer for an incorrect answer to parliamentary questions regarding Maori Sportscasting. It was about the wananga attendees. Members should note that 253 was not part of that apology. It was not known that 253 was incorrect. The corrected question was pq2261. 
Mark Peck 
: What actions has the Minister taken to improve the quality of information he receives in answers to parliamentary questions? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have discussed that directly with the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri and I intend to ensure that the servicing of the Minister’s office is strengthened. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister recall responding to a question from myself yesterday regarding a capacity-assessment grant for a South Island minibus tour for a group of kuia and kaumatua with the statement: “I am unaware of that.” and can he reconcile that statement with the fact that the detailed files in relation to that trip were released under cover of a letter signed “P T Horomia Minister of Maori Affairs”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am made aware of it now and I apologise for that.
Hunt Jonathan: Obituaries — Hon Allan McCready 
Hunt Jonathan: Obituaries — Hon Allan McCready 
[Volume:610;Page:7819] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 8 August 2003 of the Hon Allan McCready QSO who represented the electorate of Otaki from 1960 to 1972 and that of Manawatu from 1972 to 1978. He was Minister of Defence in 1972 and from 1975 to 1978 and Minister of Police from 1975 to 1978. 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 his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15639] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17045] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Simich Clem: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9975] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. One could say that the amendment in the name of Richard Worth was just put in there to test you but it was not. It was a generic amendment. We have passed that stage and we have voted on it. In looking at all the amendments I have just ruled out of order I mentioned that the bill is a public bill and it contains matters of public policy that affect the general law. The vehicle for an exception to the public law is a private bill and exceptions could be for example for an individual a statutory company or a private corporation. Exceptions of this nature cannot be accomplished by an amendment to a public bill. They can be achieved only by means of a private bill. That is the reason I am ruling them out of order. I would like now to move on to the amendments we have at hand.
Vote: Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:616;Page:11957] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Companies Amendment Bill and the Insolvency Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bills read a third time.
Field Taito Phillip: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Field Taito Phillip: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7533. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 With due respect I say that I think it is a rule and an understanding of this House that when members are addressed they are to be addressed by their correct names. Mr Bill English referred to me as Phillip Field. He has been in this House for a long time and knows very well that my name is Taito Phillip Field not Phillip Field. I would like to point that out to him first and foremost. 
In relation to the point of order I say that as far as I was concerned my involvement in the request made by the New Zealand Police to speak to me yesterday was public business. That was the reason for my absence yesterday.
Ward Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ward Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19442] 
9.  
MIKE WARD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Is she satisfied that the New Zealand Packaging Accord 2004 has been effective in reducing the use of non-recyclable packaging; if so why? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: The accord was signed 7 months ago to run for 5 years. It is in its early days. Baseline measures will be established over the accord’s first 2 years and measurable improvements including reducing the use of non-recyclable packaging are expected in years 3 4 and 5. I am satisfied the accord will be effective in this regard. 
Mike Ward 
: Is the Minister disappointed by Meadowfresh’s recently introduced non-recyclable plastic and cardboard composite milk carton and does the Packaging Accord have measures for persuading manufacturers to withdraw packaging that is so clearly contrary to the spirit of the accord? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am aware of the issue in terms of the non-separability or the difficulty of separability of the cardboard from the plastic which also does not carry the required identification. I encourage the member to make use of the appeals procedure which is part of the accord to raise that concern with Fonterra. 
David Parker 
: Why is the Minister confident the accord will work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Over 80 percent of the supermarket business—Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises—and more than 200 organisations including 85 percent of packaging manufacturing and a number of significant brand owners have signed up to the Packaging Accord and intend to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. The accord clearly states that the Government will consider regulation if such voluntary measures do not work. 
Mike Ward 
: In view of the fact that the Minister clearly knows about this package can we not expect the Minister to make use of the provisions to do something about it? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I will certainly consider that possibility in discussion with my colleague. 
Mike Ward 
: Does the Minister believe that the Meadowfresh package has been designed in cooperation with the resource recovery sector or that it has been reviewed against the packaging codes of practice provided for in the Packaging Accord; if so does the Minister for the Environment not think that this package represents a failure of the accord to prevent the production of unsustainable packaging? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do not have the information with me that would enable me to usefully answer that question. 
Mike Ward 
: What does the Minister suggest that community groups in Central Otago like Central Otago Wastebusters that already has mountains of non-recyclable packaging do with these latest non-recyclable packages? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have no useful suggestion for them other than to avail themselves of the complaint process that is part of the accord.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20021] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 91 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Bill read a second time.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8737] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You might go back centuries to a ruling but I say to you that that would be a very unfortunate position for you to take because you now leave me with no option whatsoever but to seek such a motion. I have simply asked for information to ensure that the matter sits on all fours with what we have been told and you have said—contrary to what you said yesterday when you said this matter would be judged by the House—that that is not to happen. 
I am not bringing the case of Mr Ardern as an example. I am raising the issue in respect of an incident on 21 May. How many trail bikes could have been vandalising the lawns of Parliament?
Sowry Roger: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18931] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I was not going to take another call but one of the worst speeches I have heard in the Chamber—it was made by the United Future member Murray Smith—makes me do so. I know that United Future is not noted for doing its work on an issue but I would have thought that Mr Smith who claims to live in the Wellington region would not get up and give a speech in which he says that there is no flat land involved in this that could be built on. Well actually yes there is. Any tour of Wellington Regional Water Board land would show that there is quite a lot of flat land. 
Secondly Mr Smith said that we do not want to mine coal on the land because the water supply would become contaminated and the land is in the water catchment area. I say to Mr Smith that of course we will not be mining coal on the land because there is no coal in the Wellington region. It is a small detail I know but I am sure that even he—no I am not sure that even he could understand that. What we could do is build a combined-cycle gas-to-electricity plant on that land particularly in the Wairarapa if gas is found offshore and on the level of probability there is a fifty-fifty chance of that happening. Offshore Wairarapa is one of three areas in New Zealand where people are currently actively exploring for gas the other two being Taranaki and Canterbury. 
I would have thought that if United Future wants to stay in Parliament and stay representing some Wellington area people it would say: “That’s good. We hope we find some gas in our region.” I would have thought United Future would say that that would be tremendous. If we do find gas we would pipe it ashore and at some stage it would have to be processed. The gas can be processed in a building about half the size of a Woolworths store. About 1500 square metres of flat land would be sufficient to do that including space for all the necessary carparking. With trees around such a site people would not even know that it was there. 
In fact such sites are in Taranaki now and Mr Smith has probably driven past and not even noticed. He has probably not noticed the Taranaki combined-cycle plant. We could duplicate it in Wellington if this silly clause were not in the bill. It was not in the bill that Marian Hobbs was asked to sponsor. I blame Marian Hobbs for a lot of things but I will not blame her for this. She was asked by the Wellington Regional Council to sponsor the bill and she is dutifully doing that. I say to Marian Hobbs that this bill could be one of the last that she puts through the House—let us get it right. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh Roger! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is nice to see the senior Government whip back from dinner. It would be good if Marian Hobbs got it right. We should remove this clause.
Pillay Lynne: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6916] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: This is yet another example of a great bill before the House this evening. I support it fully. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Pansy Wong— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already called the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Like who cares what she thinks? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. I have already called the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have not had a speech here yet. She has. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member will be seated. I am on my feet. Under Speaker’s ruling 23/3 I have already called the member and I call her again now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The fact that you have called her improperly is no explanation. We have a thing called precedent here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that the member has not spoken— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am sorry Mr Speaker but we have a thing called precedent here based on parliamentary rules. I am calling my first call in this debate. I ask you to ask the Clerk what the rule is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think the member might not have picked that in the last few minutes we have moved from the Committee of the whole House and are now on the third reading of— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It’s on the bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it is not on the bill. It is a question of debate on a particular question. I think those rules have not changed even in the last quarter of an hour or so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that. As I said previously the honourable member Pansy Wong has not spoken in this debate. I have called her under Speaker’s ruling 23/3. I cannot take the call away from her. I call the honourable member.
Hunt Jonathan: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13157] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does anyone else wish to make a very brief contribution? 
John Carter 
: I would like to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the member’s contribution when I was outside the Chamber.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Sue Kedgley to be a member of the Commerce Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the financial reviews of the Broadcasting Commission the Broadcasting Standards Authority Radio New Zealand Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Immigration—Morning Report Interview 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Immigration—Morning Report Interview 
[Volume:615;Page:11078] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is in the same vein—just to get better clarification from you about the use of the Standing Order that allows personal explanations to be made. A personal explanation was made yesterday by the Hon Steve Maharey related to the way in which he had answered a question during question time the day before. He did that as a Minister. He did that backed up by the full weight of his ministerial department and his staff who operate with him in the Beehive. The same position exists for the Hon Lianne Dalziel. As Ministers they are making mistakes when they are supposed to be giving answers consistent with the public good. Surely it would be far better that they used the mechanism available to them without recourse to the House—that of a ministerial statement.
Gallagher Martin: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14052] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the previous speaker. He is very much like a bird that has been finally let out of its cage. He was silenced by the National Party for a couple of years and he is obviously revelling in the ability to speak in this Chamber—and an interesting address it was too. 
I am speaking as a Waikato and Hamilton member. I want to reflect that if one looks at the history books—History 101—one sees that from 1990-99 there was a National Government. What did it do for transport in Auckland? If I turn the pages of one of those books I see they are all blank. I am not allowed to use that “H” word. Under this Government on behalf of Paul Swain it was my pleasure to open part of the expressway near Rangiriri—the Ohinewai expressway. We are actually doing it. We are not talking about it; we are doing it. Hamilton and the Waikato have an absolutely crucial interest in Auckland sorting out its transport woes because our economy is absolutely integrated into the Auckland economy. I applaud this bill if it will be a means by which Auckland moves to sort out its transport woes. 
I commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. This is a good bill. Let us get on with it and let us pass it.
Mapp Wayne: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations  and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21327] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
Last night I was referring to a document issued by Transit New Zealand in August 2004 to every household in the Auckland region. It talked about investing half a billion dollars in the Auckland highways with more to come. There were 17 projects listed with start dates given. The only problem is that the document has proven to be false. All the projects planned to start in 2004 and we must bear in mind that that was only 12 weeks after the issue of that document did not happen. Of the projects that were to start in 2005 the majority did not happen. The Government wonders why Aucklanders—the people of North Shore the Employers and Manufacturers Association and the chamber of commerce—are completely disillusioned fed up and disgusted with this Government. It is that kind of propaganda that has done it. I say this to the Government: it has lost the trust of New Zealanders and it has lost the trust of New Zealanders because it has misled them. I seek leave to table a copy of the document from Transit New Zealand. 
Document not tabled.
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 Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14278] 
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 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 54(2) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 54(3) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Simich Clem: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21634] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Dr Wayne Mapp.
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Kedgley Sue: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19716] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I felt obliged to say that I did believe that in the circumstances Dr Smith was trying to assist me rather than to interrupt in a disorderly fashion.
Ward Mike: Motions — New Zealand Black Sox  
Ward Mike: Motions — New Zealand Black Sox  
[Volume:615;Page:10781] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to add the Green’s congratulations. I was busy at another sporting engagement halfway up the South Island. I was in a restaurant and the game was on television. Everybody was watching and I have to say it brought immense glee to the people at that gathering. I got home and everyone was talking about it. The joy that events like these add to the country is enormous. I say “Well done!” to the Black Sox and to the New Zealand rugby sevens team. 
Motions agreed to.
Parker David: Third Readings 
Parker David: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17961] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of the third reading of the public finance and State sector legislation. First I will refer briefly to the National Party’s concern that the fiscal responsibility provisions that used to be in a separate Act now appear in this legislation. I read from the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report back: “it is true the Fiscal Responsibility Act will be incorporated in the body of the new Public Finance Act ”. The matter is that simple; the report I read from is in fact the National Party’s minority report in the commentary on the bill and whether the fiscal responsibility provision appears in Part 1 or Part 2 it does not change its effectiveness at all. National’s protestations to the contrary are just plain incorrect. 
The next point I will deal with is the suggestion that the Government is trying to take away academic freedom from universities. The Government is required—and all parties agree that the requirement is appropriate—to comply with international accounting standards. Those accounting standards require that the Government include in its books all the assets that fall within the ambit of financial reporting rules. University assets and liabilities fall within the ambit of those rules therefore the Government has an obligation to include them in the Crown’s finances. If the Government does not it is criticised and gets tagged accounts as happened during the last year when universities’ accounts were not consolidated into the Crown’s financial statements. That is the reason—the only reason—why it is that universities are now required to have their financial situations consolidated in the Crown accounts. That does not at all undermine the academic freedom of universities which this Government supports and will protect in the future. I commend this legislation to the House.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6052. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 on behalf of  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)  
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is she satisfied that immigrants entering New Zealand have legitimate and sufficiently comparable qualifications for which they are granted entry upon? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: I am largely satisfied because applicants are required to produce original or certified copies of their qualifications. Of course however there are occasions when fraud is involved and steps are taken to both identify and address those. 
Dail Jones 
: Why is it then that we are hearing from employers and employment agencies who are exasperated with the time and money wasted hiring immigrants who claim to have a sufficient level of experience and qualifications to work in a particular occupation only to find out that they are far from the desired standard for the job and is this not a serious failure of the Immigration Service which is allowing thousands of people into New Zealand each year but with no guarantee they are suitable to settle in work in and contribute to New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Government that introduced a points system that took away the emphasis on qualified job offers being part of the application for residence. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How is the Government addressing the risk of fraudulent documents being presented to support applications for residence? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The 2003 Budget provides for an additional $7.7 million spread over 4 years which will strengthen the present immigration intelligence capability and provide more resources for the investigation and prosecution of immigration fraud. 
Dail Jones 
: Despite all of that why is it that the Minister continues to turn a blind eye to fraudulent and improper activity when it is plainly clear that something unscrupulous is going on in so far as overseas authorities misleading the New Zealand qualifications authorities is concerned—for example correspondence with regard to Indian universities that at the end of the day proves that the so-called qualified Indian immigrant has no qualifications whatsoever? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: If that member has evidence of fraud I suggest he brings it to the attention of someone who can do something about it. I signed a deportation order only yesterday for somebody who came into this country with fraudulent qualifications. He came in 1995. Who is to blame? 
Dail Jones 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter dated 22 May 2003 to Lindsay and Associates with regard to such a problem with the attached New Zealand Qualifications Authority letter of 6 May and a qualifications assessment report of 6 May—two of them—for a person whose qualifications turned to dust. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Gosche Mark: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17048] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17776. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendment agreed to.
Event: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
Event: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19865] 
Fiordland Marine Management Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill 
name changed to Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill 
.
Beyer Georgina: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Beyer Georgina: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17346] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 What a disappointment it is to hear a speech like that from the member who has just resumed his seat. That was a mean-spirited lacklustre attack on one of the finest Prime Ministers we have seen in this country for many many years. It betrays the real depression that is descending upon the Opposition as it slides in the polls and slides into oblivion. Tonight we are dealing with the third readings of the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). I would like to focus very briefly on the Electoral Amendment Bill. It amends provisions in section 55 of the Electoral Act relating to when a member of Parliament must vacate his or her seat. It also cures an anomaly in section 55E of that Act that could see the Governor-General or a senior judge take a role in the party-hopping procedure that would be inappropriate to their constitutional functions. It also implements a regime to manage certain aspects of electoral signs by amending the Act to specify national standards for the management of those signs. Those are just some of the matters that are encompassed in the Electoral Amendment Bill which is one part of the bill that has been split in two. The other bill of course is the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2). I support the bills. 
Bills read a third time.
Smith Nick: Business of the House 
Smith Nick: Business of the House 
[Volume:606;Page:4059] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Further to the point that has been raised by the Leader of the House can he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Please be seated. The procedure for the business statement is that there is entitlement for a statement to be made and entitlement for the shadow leader of the House to make a response. It is not the custom then to carry on with large amounts of requests that can be easily made by way of a phone call.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10582] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter signed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters to me dated 7 May 2003 bringing to my attention the plight of two young British people who although he had not known them personally he thought would make excellent New Zealand residents and would bring skills and assets of benefit to our country. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Beyer Georgina: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7766] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Shirley Ken: Election of Speaker 
Shirley Ken: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18945] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I declare my nomination for Speaker.