edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:618;Page:13911] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: 
 I apologise Mr Speaker. Of course as always we are open to negotiation.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19814] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9011] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Nandor Tanczos— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could I just point out that a point of order was taken on my pronunciation of that member’s name and it was pointed out to me that I was not pronouncing it correctly. You happen to be saying it in the very same manner that I did and I would ask that you pronounce his name correctly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. I call the honourable member Nandor Tanczos.
Soper Lesley: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Soper Lesley: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21407] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6307] 
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 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 31 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause 2(d).
Shirley Ken: Visiting Forces Bill — Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Visiting Forces Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14099] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party supports the Visiting Forces Bill. It is clearly necessary legislation. It is clearly overdue legislation. The status of visiting forces is an important issue and all around the world various jurisdictions have confronted this problem. I note that back in 1998 the New Zealand Government signed an agreement with Australia with the intention of amending the law to bring it into line with international law and practice relating to the status of visiting forces but that it could never be ratified because of New Zealand legislation dating back to 1939. Our 1939 legislation prohibited us from ratifying the agreement we signed with Australia in 1998. 
I guess the issue here is why the Government has taken so long to bring what I regard as important legislation to the House. Admittedly we are now doing the third reading under urgency but the Government has been in office for over 4 years and surely could have brought this matter—which is quite a minor matter in a procedural sense—to a close earlier. The bill clearly has the support of the whole Parliament. It is not a question of battling it through Parliament. I say to the Minister Mark Burton that he really has no excuse for not having brought this bill to Parliament at a much earlier date than today. 
Suffice to say that the ACT party will support this bill. In so doing we express our regret that New Zealand is now so far out of the sphere of influence of other forces. New Zealand has become isolationist and that is of deep regret to the ACT party. We have been cut off here in the South Pacific and our military people are very concerned that they do not get to exercise enough and that we do not have sufficient foreign troops exercising in this country. We used to have the Five Power Defence Arrangement which was very active. I say to the Minister that it still exists in name but unfortunately there is nothing like the scale of activity that we used to see. I know that New Zealand’s armed forces used to benefit considerably from the activities under that Five Power Defence Arrangement. 
But ACT is happy to see the bill going through the House and we express regret that this Government has taken so long to bring it here.
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:8737] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say to members and I make this point because a member asked me to clarify it that I think that is a fair question. The member is assuming that the evidence was illegally gathered— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No no.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Anniversary—John Armstrong’s Arrival in the Press Gallery 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Anniversary—John Armstrong’s Arrival in the Press Gallery 
[Volume:623;Page:18151] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Mark Sainsbury the chairman of the parliamentary press gallery has advised me that today marks the 20th anniversary of Mr John Armstrong’s arrival in the gallery. I am sure all of us would wish him well.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16921] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 4 be agreed to.
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13158] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was I who moved the motion to have you recalled. The reason is that I am aggrieved. I cannot question or challenge the decision of the Chair. But what I would like to have addressed is what I believe was the unfair way in which I was treated by the Chair. The Chair knew full well some three calls prior to that that I was seeking a call. The Chair looked at me directly in the eye on all occasions and awarded the speaking slots to other members. Now that is the Chair’s right and it is perfectly appropriate. I was keeping tally of the numbers of calls that each party was given. I then sought the call again but my question to you is: what recourse do I have when the Chair deliberately looks the other way starts to issue a statement and not only ignores my first point of order but ignores my second third fourth fifth sixth and seventh points of order and then goes on to tell me that I cannot challenge her decision? Somewhere in here there has to be some protection for members who want to get their points of orders made and want to get equal representation in this House as they are entitled to according to the proportionality of seats they hold.
Chadwick Steve: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6893] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Peters Winston: General Debates 
Peters Winston: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6570] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He cannot withdraw by way of a whisper. Let us have it nice and loud like he objected. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have dealt with the matter. I call the Hon Matt Robson.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16396] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table two title reports of houses that Mr John Tamihere owns with his mate Michael Tolich. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I seek leave to table another title report of a house that John Tamihere has just bought which would not need to be disclosed in this year’s result. He has bought the house with Mr Michael Tolich. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11759] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 My difficulty is that I think I have a reputation for being reasonably conscientious and for reading papers and looking at them carefully. The questions I really want to satisfy myself on are how many hazardous substances we have in New Zealand and the status of those substances at the moment. I asked the Minister for some figures to clarify that but in fact she confused the issue even more. She is now talking about the possibility of 215000 toxic substances being present in New Zealand— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Notifications. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: OK. The figure we have is that there are approximately 80000 existing hazardous substances presumably captured under the old legislation—that is what I think because another chart states that they were legally in New Zealand as at 1 July 2001. Then the report states that approximately 8000 of them were previously regulated. So that leaves 72000— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Yes. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Regulated non-regulated or what? We have it stated that 80000 substances are legal and 8000 were regulated. What has happened to the other 72000? How are they legal? I am then left with a figure of 70000 and I am told through the Education and Science Committee’s report—and I was there at the committee and we asked the officials precisely what the number was—that there are 70000 substances that are not official. That is the precise wording. 
I am left with a real confusion about the status and the number of the different hazardous substances in the country which this particular legislation now has to handle over the next 2 years. It only has 2 years in which to do that. What is the status of the hazardous substances and what are the numbers that we are talking about? At this particular point in time it would appear that if we have only done a few thousand from 2001 then we will not meet the deadline. So I do ask the Minister whether she can clarify that for me. As I say I think I have an average IQ and I think my maths is reasonable but I am getting more and more confused over that particular issue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Chair—
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16016] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This question was not strictly urgent but I thought in view of the fact of the local elections that I would make an exception in this particular case.
Cosgrove Clayton: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17078] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: Debate on Iraq 
Prebble Richard: Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:607;Page:4125] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move without debate the motion I foreshadowed to the House so that we can vote on the issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to move that motion. Is there any objection? There is not. The question is that the motion be agreed to. The member read it out during the course of his speech. Those in favour will say “Aye” those of the contrary opinion will say “No”.
Fairbrother Russell: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3948] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this bill. The electorate of Napier has a proud tradition when it comes to supplying people who have fought overseas and although this bill really affects only about 100 people it makes clear the difference between those who are entitled to work and receive a pension because of past service and those who draw a benefit and do not work. The point of this bill is to recognise past service and those who can work despite their age will still be entitled to their pensions under this bill. That is a major advantage. It recognises the dedication to duty of those who served this country well and it recognises the duty and dedication that is recognised continually in Napier at the Returned Services Associations and various functions for the veterans and those who have a great sympathy and support for them. For that very brief and short reason I enthusiastically support this bill.
Vote: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19888] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the word “at” and substitute the words “not earlier than 3 years and not later than 5 years”.
Cosgrove Clayton: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6951] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Kelly Graham: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Kelly Graham: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6484] 
GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16336] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think the important point here is that if Mr Cosgrove decides to do that and to defend Mr Tamihere the House will have to be liberal because I am sure that Mr Cosgrove will defend Mr Tamihere with a series of parallels of behaviour that we know about and that are sneakily denied but whose facts will become clear.
Woolerton R Doug: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4847] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the third reading of this bill and supports it happening very quickly so I will be brief. I will answer a couple of questions and read a little bit from the explanatory note to the bill to explain a couple of things and to give some indication of why I said what I did. It says here that “on the restructuring day the Board is converted into a cooperative company registered under the Companies Act 1993”. Further on it also talks about the conversion of the board into a cooperative company and so on and so forth. Clearly the hop industry participants have something in mind along the lines of the old board. They very clearly have a cooperative marketing structure in place and they very clearly desire to carry on as before but under a cooperative company. That is what I said and that is what I believe. That is not what National proposed when the special committee sat to look at the restructuring of industry boards per se. I take issue with what has been said. We have a difference of style and intent but we are all of one view at the end of the day and that is to congratulate the Hop Industry Board on getting on with its business as it sees fit. We hope that it will remain for a very very long time to come.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Prime Minister—Replies to Written Questions Nos 17295 and 17296 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Prime Minister—Replies to Written Questions Nos 17295 and 17296 
[Volume:622;Page:17673] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents. They relate to written questions to the Prime Minister that were lodged on 29 November and are the two answers received on 7 December in which she argues that the matter of car registrations is sub judice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two answers. Is there any objection? There is.
Jones Dail: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Jones Dail: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20208] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The comment that my friend Dr Wayne Mapp made was that New Zealand First is not taking a call. That was in the future tense and I said to him that he could not tell us what we were going to do. As you know Mr Chairman the National Party is entitled to two calls and New Zealand First is entitled to one call in the Committee stage. Georgina te Heuheu had one call Dr Mapp had another call and then it was my turn to get the call. Dr Mapp should learn a little more about the Standing Orders and about tenses before he gets carried away. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I wish to reply to the accusation just made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we are getting into a debate between the two of you and I do not think we need to take it any further. In regard to the matter of the speaking order everything is OK.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8967] 
6.  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What reports has he received on economic growth in the small-business sector? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 According to the National Bank’s small business monitor released last Friday the small-business sector grew 1.4 percent in the 3 months to 30 June taking year-on-year growth to 5.5 percent under this Government—solid and dynamic growth producing tens of thousands of jobs. 
Mark Peck 
: Did the report highlight any Government initiatives that might assist small-business growth? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The report highlighted the following initiatives as targeted at supporting small business: establishing a small-business advisory group involving small business in the heart of Government; the valuable research on the small business sector generated by the small to medium sized enterprise/business directorate out of the Ministry of Economic Development; and the recently released tax simplification discussion paper recognised by the report as a move to make life simpler for small-business owners by reducing the compliance costs associated with paying tax. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Given that in each of the last six National Bank surveys the most important problem reported by small businesses has been Government regulation does the Minister agree that his Government’s attempts to address business concerns over regulation have been totally unsuccessful; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No because given a search of over the last 10 years regulation always appears in the top five priorities of business regardless of Government. I can assure the member that this Government is mitigating quite excessively the impact of compliance costs on small business.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16694] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2A be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 2A agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13055] 
4.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes will he be making to strengthen the jury system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 To encourage and allow greater participation in the jury system next week’s Budget will make provision for $9 million to allow for the increase in juror fees and also to provide assistance to meet the costs of childcare and parking for jurors. That is designed to help offset the financial costs of doing one’s civic duty and serving on a jury. I think it is really important we give that greater financial help to ensure that a whole cross section of people can serve on juries and that people are both able and willing to do so. 
Tim Barnett 
: Will any other changes be made to improve participation in the jury system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The increase in juror fees is just one of a number of changes that will be made to improve participation in the jury system. Under legislation to be introduced probably next month a number of other changes will be forthcoming. One of the important changes will be to allow people to defer jury service if they have good reasons—for example because the jury coincides with some personal or employment obligation. This will allow more people to serve without having to seek exemption. There will also be protection against employees suffering disadvantage from employers because of the requirement on them to serve on a jury. Of course the penalty for evading jury service will also go up from $300 to $1000. All those things taken together will see much better participation on juries by a wider cross section of New Zealanders. 
Richard Worth 
: Instead of focusing on increased juror participation why does the Minister not tackle current imperfections in the jury system and adopt a raft of strategies such as increasing the threshold for an accused’s right to elect a jury trial and permitting applications for judge-alone trials for extended cases; this juror participation plan is just playing at the edge of the issue is it not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am glad the member raised those examples because he seems to have entirely overlooked that I made a statement saying that for long cases—for example ones that last more than 4 weeks; complex fraud issues—a jury trial can be replaced by a judge-alone trial. I seem to recall that when I made that announcement Mr Worth’s colleagues—maybe Dr Mapp—were totally against doing that.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18723] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I think this is a more serious matter than perhaps your understanding of it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: All matters are serious in this Chamber and this one probably more so than most. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is why I am hearing from the member with a view to trying to accommodate the member’s wishes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to give some explanation because I do not want to sound trite in this. But you could perhaps appreciate the situation where this bill has had a haphazard approach to it from the Minister. The Maori Affairs Committee was given a very short time to consider an extensive Supplementary Order Paper that was put on the table last year early in October. As you know the House concluded its business in December. That Supplementary Order Paper has found its way into this bill. There was quite a bit of pressure in the select committee process to get it there. The desire of the Committee I am sure is that all parties would want to support a settlement bill. But matters like this are not inconsiderable. It is about the mandating opportunities that the iwi concerned has. And I have already expressed some severe reservations about that process. But here we have as Mr Pita Paraone has just made clear a bill that creates a new if one likes designation for a group within the Ngati Awa group—a hapu which is a much bigger status than a group that has the affiliations that Mr Paraone just spoke of. I do want to see this taken through and the House given the opportunity to send it back to the select committee for perhaps another week’s work. Accordingly  
I move that the Speaker be recalled.
Hawkins George: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — Consideration of Report of Law and Order Committee 
Hawkins George: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — Consideration of Report of Law and Order Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6238] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Law and Order Committee on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6). 
 The progress of this bill is very important. The decision was taken to divide the bill. I think that the faster this bill progresses through the House the better.
Business of Select Committees — Membership 
Business of Select Committees — Membership 
[Volume:608;Page:5457] 
Wednesday 7 May 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Membership 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Stephen Franks and the Hon Matt Robson to be members of the Law and Order Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Corrections Bill and for Bernie Ogilvy and Keith Locke to be members of the Government Administration Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the petition to repeal the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 but in each case 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.
Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee Procedure 
Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:618;Page:14420] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave of the House to table the New Zealand First - National Government coalition agreement that specified and catered for and delivered 500 extra police under New Zealand First governance. 
Document not tabled.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17940] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Roy Heather: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Roy Heather: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:607;Page:4360] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I withdraw ACT’s vote? We are voting in favour of the motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is out of order.
Mackey Janet: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mackey Janet: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8482] 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5577] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 77B(2) by adding the following paragraph: 
(e)the consent authority must be satisfied that the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor.
Worth Richard: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20632] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification on behalf of National. Are we voting for this bill to be referred back to us within the default period of 6 months? Is that a substantive part of the motion? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a Standing Order of the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I know we are voting for it to be referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Shirley Ken: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6969] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raised a point of order prior to the lunch break when you were not in the Chair—we had another presiding officer at that time. The situation was that I had brought my mug of hot Milo into the Chamber and one of the messengers had tried to wrestle it from me and take it out. I sought clarification from the then presiding officer whether that was permitted and she said that it was not. I then was issued with a statement from Speaker Jonathan Hunt dated 30 November 2002 stating articles that are not permitted. It mentioned bags umbrellas and briefcases and it said in item 5 “food or drink”. Of course we have water in here—we are allowed to drink water. We are not allowed to bring our lunch or eat a pie and I understand that is a reasonable provision. I notice that a lot of the Government members regularly chew lollies. That of course would come within the definition of food that should be banned but we have a convention that that is permitted. 
The point was that as a member of a minor party or a smaller party I am holding the fort as it were today. I needed a hot drink but I cannot be here following and participating in the debate and also having my hot drink. We are allowed to have water. What is the difference between a glass of water and a mug of Milo? I refer to Speaker’s ruling 14/1. This is a ruling brought down by Mr Braybrooke as Chairperson in 1997. It states: “Eating or drinking a cup of tea is not permitted in the Chamber.” I do not know how we can eat a cup of tea but that is what our ruling says. It does not ban the drinking of Milo in the Chamber. It only mentions eating or drinking a cup of tea. 
This is an important matter. We are under urgency. Members are under a lot of strain we are missing meals and we have to have our sustenance. I invited the former presiding officer in the Chair to consider it over the lunch break and come back with a ruling. I notice we have now had a change in presiding officer. I am wondering whether she did discuss it with you. I would certainly like a ruling on whether a mug of Milo is permitted. If it is not could I put my Milo in a glass? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Interjections are to be terse and to the point—Standing Order 84(3). I think the member has made his point. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: No there are a number of issues. One is the temperature. We can have a cold glass of water but we cannot have a hot mug of tea. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: We do not know about cocoa or Milo. If it is based on temperature what is the temperature? Hot or cold?
Duncan Helen: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Duncan Helen: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14060] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 That was a rather sad little speech from the member. He talked a lot about what National will do when it becomes the Government. Of course that will not happen. One has to say that the National Party had 9 long years to do something and what did it do? It did absolutely nothing. The citizens of Auckland know what that Government did and they are really pleased to see this Government making the changes to land transport governance in Auckland that will make it more efficient and effective. 
Almost all the submitters who came along to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee supported the intent of the bill. They had some suggestions for small changes which by and large the committee was pleased to implement. The bill is a better bill now that it has been through the select committee process. It addresses the issue of the fragmentation of the land transport plans and the work of the territorial authorities in Auckland. It will give us an integrated and sustainable programme that will address the transport ills of Auckland which were not addressed when that member’s party was in Government. 
The people of Auckland have waited a long time for a Government that will listen to their concerns and take action and that is what we plan to do. Aucklanders are really pleased about this as that member well knows. We are just going to get on and do the job.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21116] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be amended by omitting all the words after the word “House” and inserting the following words: “has no confidence in the Labour minority Government and those who for 21 years have blindly supported failed neo-Liberal policies and records with regret that the Government has failed to provide leadership and policy to enhance New Zealand’s export performance and per capita incomes has failed to address New Zealand’s burgeoning balance of payments deficit has failed to deal with escalating violent crime has failed to provide sufficient numbers of police has failed to deliver a first world health system has failed to curb the burgeoning Treaty of Waitangi industry has done nothing to stop excessive and unfocused immigration and does nothing to lay the foundations for building a better more prosperous nation for future generations.” 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6362] 
Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Franks Stephen: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20631] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you just clarify then exactly what the motion is that we are to vote on? If the motion is to refer the bill to a select committee then I think that is unexceptionable. If the motion is as the Minister mentioned it which was to refer the bill to a select committee with no report-back date impliedly it would be suspending the Standing Order for this bill and I do not think that was intended. So we simply need to know that the motion is not exactly as the Minister moved it; it is as modified by deleting the words “no report-back date”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. As I said before the Minister was incorrect. The motion is simply to approve the first reading and in doing that he covered the fact that he wanted the bill referred to the Government Administration Committee. No doubt that will be moved by the Minister in due course.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8079] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:607;Page:4485] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to take urgency on Tuesday rising by 6 p.m. on Friday. I will circulate a full list of business to be included in the urgency motion to all party whips by late Monday. However I can say that it is all but certain that it will begin with all stages of the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill followed by selected first readings as listed on today’s Order Paper.
Turei Metiria: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12300] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Please excuse my failure to realise what was going on. The Greens are voting against this bill. Is there a second vote to be had?
Urgent Debates Declined — TVNZ—Rescission of Requirement 
Urgent Debates Declined — TVNZ—Rescission of Requirement 
[Volume:619;Page:15165] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
TVNZ—Rescission of Requirement 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the rescission of a requirement for TVNZ to return $450000. This application arises out of a newspaper report that New Zealand On Air may be repaid some or all of the loan in respect of a television programme. But according to the report discussions are still continuing and it is unclear what the outcome will be. In these circumstances there is no particular case of recent occurrence. The application is declined.
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18834] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I regret that Wayne Mapp has chosen to enter into some quite fundamental interpretation of his own. The word “cultural” means “cultural”. He has chosen to interpret it to mean many things that simply do not exist in this legislation. 
I have to point out to the member first and foremost that most settlements including and in particular Ngai Tahu’s include statutory acknowledgments. In the case of the Ngai Tahu legislation they go on for pages. That legislation recognises the iwi’s longstanding cultural association with and the significance to the people of particular Crown-owned sites. That is in order to enable local government for instance to understand that reference. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: There’s no reference to spiritual values in the Ngai Tahu legislation. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have to say to the member that he is drawing a long bow. In my submission the reference in the legislation to those relationships to ensure wide community understanding and acknowledgment of the strong historical links between the people and those places so that they can be properly recognised in the future has no place in a discussion about dividing our nation. On the contrary I think that the references in this bill serve to do what we as a nation should want to do going forward. I suggest that our democracy is in the end the stronger for our celebrating and embracing our differences. They are the things that make us unique. They are the things that strengthen us and give us a unique cultural heritage going forward. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I’m not denying that. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the member has confused the practical function of this legislation in its reference to cultural heritage with things that simply are not referred to in the legislation.
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16065] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I am appreciative of the fact that the Chairman has acknowledged the importance of the points of order made by both myself and the Hon Richard Prebble. This is a very very large part. I will not be able to canvass in the space of 5 minutes the full range of issues. 
The very first pernicious feature of this bill is that it dramatically expands the scope of good faith. Bargaining is a robust process. People put up maximum positions in the process of bargaining and expect a robust bargaining process. This bill makes any breach of good faith potentially subject to a penal sanction. It will not be just an issue that might be called before the Employment Relations Authority. It will be subject to a penal sanction and a fine. That will have a chilling effect on the way both businesses and employees will be able to conduct their negotiations. It is an intrusive and heavy-handed approach of the State in what is essentially a private contractual arrangement. 
Secondly the Government has said that whenever an employer offers terms and conditions of a collective contract to a person on an individual contract which has the intention and effect of undermining that collective that will be a breach of good faith and will lead to a fine. What is more the Minister in his second reading speech boasted of the fact that if in the process of negotiation there was simply the effect of undermining the collective contract that also would be a breach of good faith which would again lead to the punitive penal sanction of a $10000 fine. 
Thirdly breaches of good faith not only attract a penal sanction but they allow the Employment Relations Authority to determine the terms of a contract. Freedom of agreement between an employer and an employee is lost because we once again have judges or authority members deciding employment contracts. How on earth can people negotiate fairly and reasonably in such a climate when the legislation is intended to have the chilling effect of destroying the ability of people to reach agreements? 
My fourth point is that the Government via a Supplementary Order Paper will introduce a bargaining fee. That is tantamount to compulsory unionism. The reason is that every union in its collective contract will demand that the collective contract includes the ability for a bargaining fee. Employers will have no real choice. They will agree to that. If there is a ballot of the workers and the majority say yes it means that every single person in the workplace pays a union fee. That is compulsory unionism. That is wrong.
Dalziel Lianne: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9676] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Field Taito Phillip: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16039] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mark Ron: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20571] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I am looking at the clock and I see there are only 2 minutes to go so I will start by reiterating New Zealand First’s minority view. It is really interesting when one picks up a report from a committee that one knows includes members from the Labour Party National New Zealand First the Greens ACT and United Future and one finds that every party except Labour has expressed a minority view in that report against the bill. It will make interesting commentary on the hustings when the people of New Zealand see that because it really is confusing. 
Stephen Franks 
: It’s the minority view of the majority. 
RON MARK 
: I think I shall wait until we come back to the House so that I can use my other 8 minutes to have an uninterrupted speech. I simply say that New Zealand First will oppose this bill. New Zealand First was inclined and said so at the outset to support this bill. But with the Government’s refusal to establish a victims’ claims rehabilitation account into which all moneys would have been paid—leaving the inmates with nothing—we can no longer give this Government our support on this bill at all. We will oppose it in the Committee and we will oppose it going through the House. 
Debate interrupted.
Power Simon: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
Power Simon: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5699] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 53/2. The constant barrage that my colleague had to endure from the member for Otaki who shifted his seat to better position himself for interjections is something that this House has had a long custom of discouraging. I ask that you speak to the member about the fact that if he is going to change his seat he should not use that to his advantage to interject on members who are carrying out their contribution to the general debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that point. He is quite right. It had crossed my mind that Darren Hughes had changed seats specifically for the general debate. But I guess if I can stand it members can too. It is the general debate.
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11697] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17170] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I want to respond to the Minister of Maori Affairs and to some of the outburst that he gave members just before. He spoke about his deep care and concern for Maori and about his Maori caucus’s fearless advocation on behalf of Maori.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Advocacy. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well advocacy then—I thank Mr Peters. In a former life Mr Peters was a primary school teacher. He has made little progress. We know about those primary school teachers. They always gave that stuck-up snooty look to old technical teachers like me.  
As for the Labour Party everyone knows that it has always hated the worker. It has always despised the worker and I cannot help thinking that that same attitude came through towards Maori in the speech of the Minister of Maori Affairs. When I look at this bill I see the extraordinary constraints that the Government has put round Maori when it comes to customary rights. I am moved to say— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Make up your mind. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —that the only people in this country—I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Firstly where is the clock?