edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Gallagher Martin: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Gallagher Martin: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14873] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donnelly Brian: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14316] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I refer you to the situation that occurred in 1999 when National had two members in the House and I think Rodney Hide was representing ACT. He left the House and the question was put. John Carter who was the National whip chased after him in the House and no one made any call at that particular time. In fact the Speaker was recalled on this particular issue. It was a confidence matter. The Opposition at that time claimed that because no one had called on that particular vote then the vote had to go the way that the Opposition had called. As it was the Chair at the time was Geoff Braybrooke and he put the vote a second time. David Carter who was the Minister in the chair made a call. It was on the basis of David Carter’s call that the Chair then allowed a party vote to be called for. But had that not been the case it was quite clear at that time that it would have gone in this particular favour. That particular vote was a matter of confidence. I refer back to that incident.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:617;Page:13301] 
Wednesday 26 May 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following what I understand was the unanimous agreement of the Health Committee this morning I seek leave for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to be extended to 30 July 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? 
John Carter 
: I just need to double check. Can we put it a little later? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We can come back to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will putthe question of leave a little later.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15156] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising a serious point of order which I will certainly have a look at. The last thing I want to do is to copy the Australian question time procedure which merely gives the Government—and only the Government—the chance to score points. In Australia all Opposition parties promise to change the question time procedure when they become the Government but as soon as they become the Government they discover how useful it is and never change it. I certainly would not want to have that in New Zealand. The member has raised a very valid point and I will have a look at it.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6983] 
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 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Burton Mark: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Burton Mark: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:617;Page:12926] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to the consultation that I understand Tim Barnett chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee has undertaken with whips and following a resolution of the select committee I seek leave of the House to extend the date the committee must report the Sex Offenders Registry Bill to Thursday 18 November 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Franks Stephen: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21981] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the documents that Mr Fairbrother has just asked for including a letter to the Chief District Court Judge raising exactly the points that the member urged be raised. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Vote agreed to.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6424. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How is the Government delivering on its goal of building an education system that equips New Zealand with 21st century skills enabling participation by all in the growing economy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The $77.6 million injection into information and communications technology in this year’s Budget will include vast improvements to online access more laptops for teachers additional information and communications technology professional development clusters more opportunities to expand e-learning practices in schools and improvements in the coordination of schools’ information and communications technology initiatives. That is a massive boost. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: How is the Government addressing the current unevenness of high-speed Internet access which is impeding the ability of some schools particularly in remote areas to gain the full benefit from information and communications technology learning opportunities? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We are investing heavily in regional broadband Internet access through Project Probe which is making good progress. That project is rolling out to schools in rural communities with coverage of 99 percent of schools due by the end of next year. A major benefit is coming from that and a lot of support is coming from the farming community which stated that at least it is great to have a Government that will intervene in that vital infrastructure area for it.
Field Taito Phillip: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16211] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am very pleased to contribute briefly to this very good Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill. I really feel sorry for the public out there who are listening to the tedious waffle from Opposition members. I congratulate the very good Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) on this bill. We all know that there is a question about how many universities a small country of 4 million-odd people should have and I am very pleased that this bill will in effect clarify and streamline the processes for establishing universities so that the strategic national-interest issues are addressed in that process. That is a common-sense rational approach that every New Zealander can understand. I cannot understand why Opposition members do not understand that. I support this very good bill.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16686] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 81 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 297 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 3 and the following amendment in his name to clause 131 be agreed to:  
to insert the following new subclause: 
(2AD)In subsection (2AC)(b)  
psychologist 
 means a health practitioner who is or is deemed to be registered with the Psychologists Board continued by section 114(1)(a) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 as a practitioner of the profession of psychology.
Wong Pansy: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19073] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I support the Civil Union Act because I believe in individuals making commitments to each other. Regrettably the Labour Government’s pre-emptive move a few years back in introducing the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act makes it difficult for me to support this piece of accompanying legislation to the Civil Union Act but because I support the Civil Union Act I will vote for this bill. 
The fact that the Labour Government a few years ago introduced the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act to recognise—or should I say “impose” almost—obligations on de facto relationships has made the passage of the Civil Union Act through the Parliament a lot more difficult. Most of us believe in one form or another that legal recognition rights and responsibilities should be accorded to individuals who make a deliberate choice to make a commitment to each other. But to impose any further obligations on individuals other than those who choose to commit to each other—either a man and a woman through the Marriage Act or a man and a woman or people of the same gender through the Civil Union Act—because they are living in “a relationship in the nature of marriage” is to me entirely unnecessary. It is State interference taken too far. 
So I seek to have the Minister take a call to reassure members like me that in the deletion of a lot of references to de facto couples in this current bill there has been at least some attempt to recognise the special status of relationships that Parliament has passed legislation—the Marriage Act and the Civil Union Act—to recognise. I hope that in the future Parliament will revisit this issue and say that as society through the Parliament has enacted legislation to recognise relationships under either the Marriage Act or the Civil Union Act then people who have deliberately chosen to live together in a de facto relationship should have no further obligations to or interference from the State. I am sure that Parliament will revisit that issue at some stage in the future. 
I listened with interest to the speeches and read with interest the minority report from United Future. United Future has a quite interesting perspective on the union of men and women: “… the cultural expectation of marriage as being an exclusive commitment for life between a man and a woman for the primary purpose of successfully nurturing the next generation.” I found that quite interesting. I am kind of grateful that when I was young and still shall I say idealistic my husband and I happened to fall in love. I am not at all sure that at that stage I allowed the primary objective of being the breeding ground for the next generation to dictate our relationship. I am glad that after 20-odd years of marriage my husband has not chosen to use that as grounds for divorce. I think that in modern times we need to recognise that individuals come together for emotional reasons as well.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10659] 
5.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on improving Maori achievement in education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Today I released the results of a research project  
Te Kotahitanga 
 which has shown significant evidence of improvements in Maori students’ achievement through a new approach to teaching. It considers ways to keep students enthused and excited about learning and shows that it is the quality of the in-class face-to-face relationships and interactions between students and their teachers that makes an enormous difference to student achievement. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister outline what steps the Government is taking to lift Maori student achievement? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government is committed to ensuring that all our children have the opportunity to reach their full potential in education. We are putting a real focus on using research like this to help to lift Maori student achievement as it puts a spotlight on what works in practice in the mainstream classroom. We look forward to this valuable work being extended further next year. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the Minister telling the House that the former view of Ministry of Education officials that all we had to do was to teach Maori students te reo me nga tikanga Maori and educational underachievement would miraculously disappear is not in fact the complete answer to the issue? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In relation to the final part of the question yes. I am not sure whether all the member’s earlier assumptions were correct.
Simich Clem: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Simich Clem: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10858] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Who is he? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Mr Carter who interrupted during my point of order.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:616;Page:12365] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On 24 March 2004 the Hon Dr Nick Smith was found to be in contempt of court by the High Court. Dr Smith subsequently wrote to me seeking from me a ruling as to his status as a member of Parliament in view of this finding. Under section 129(1) of the Electoral Act 1993 if the finding of contempt did operate to create a disqualification it is the Speaker’s duty to declare the seat vacant. I have considered the position created by the finding of contempt and have received a superb piece of work from the Clerk of the House which I will table shortly and which I would invite all members to read. I have concluded that the finding of contempt against Dr Smith is not conviction of a crime within section 55(1)(d) of the Electoral Act and that consequently Dr Smith’s seat is not vacant. Therefore no further action is necessary on my part.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16268] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17985] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18543] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343 in relation to question 9. I take personal offence at the intimation I was personally involved in the establishment of Te Kupenga a Kahu Trust a primary health organisation with the Lakes District Health Board. I have the utmost faith in the Lakes District Health Board and its ability to manage the process and establishment of any primary health organisation including Te Kupenga a Kahu Trust.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20972] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c).
Barker Rick: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21733] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I wish to clarify my statement to the Committee earlier. I seek leave to withdraw proposed subsection (2) from new clause 30AA set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370. I wish to leave in subsection (3) which enables the registrar to make an order remitting a fine imposed if the registrar is satisfied the person is dead and the fine cannot be recovered from the person’s estate.
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22221] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As far as I recollect although Mr Mallard is of course an important instrument for the Government he is not the Government on his own. Perhaps he thought Mr Ward was seeking to change a vote again or suchlike. It seems to me to be an extreme demonstration of a lack of generosity not to allow the man to take another 2 minutes to finish what may well be his last speech in Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member but I have made a decision.
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18457] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you— 
Government Members 
: Oh no! 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Over on this side of the House you gave the House one final warning for interrupting in question time. We heard three Ministers call out after you had called Mr Ron Mark and we are waiting for you to action your “no more warnings” ruling. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that I had not heard Mr Mark say a word. Had he done so members would have been leaving the Chamber.
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
[Volume:607;Page:4290] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 This afternoon President Bush has announced that military action against Iraq is commencing. The Government reiterates here its profound regret that the diplomatic process being conducted in the Security Council and through the inspection and disarmament process was unable to run its course. New Zealand strongly backed the work of the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission including by sending 13 military personnel to support the weapons inspection team. We continue to hold the view that the inspection process was making good headway and it is unfortunate that the UN Security Council was unable to agree on its continuation. We have consistently said that only through full compliance with the demands of the Security Council could Iraq have avoided the catastrophe of war. 
The fact that Iraq failed to take the opportunity provided to it to cooperate fully with the inspection and disarmament process means that the Iraqi people now face the prospect of serious hardship. The Iraqi leadership must take its full share of responsibility for that. Now that military action has commenced we clearly have a concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people. For that reason the sooner that the military action is over the better it will be. It is the strong wish of the New Zealand Government that peace is restored as quickly as possible and that the issue of the next steps over Iraq is swiftly brought back into the multilateral arena. At the end of this conflict which I very much hope will indeed be short the international community must be ready to contribute to the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq and to humanitarian relief. The Government has this afternoon indicated that it will participate fully in reconstruction and humanitarian efforts within the umbrella of the multilateral system. Funds have already been pledged to relevant UN agencies and consideration will be given to whatever further contribution New Zealand can make to the post-conflict challenges that Iraq will face. 
The international community was regrettably unable to reach common agreement on the best means for disarming Iraq. It is however important that the international community now finds a way to come together at the end of this conflict in order to meet the needs of the Iraqi people for humanitarian relief and for reconstruction. New Zealand will play its part in that process.
Barker Rick: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9297] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8605] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a similar point of order but not exactly the same as the point of order raised by the Hon Richard Prebble. The proposition in respect of which National seeks a considered ruling is based on this: that the police breached parliamentary practice by entering Parliament to interrogate Shane Ardern on 9 September without the express authority obtained in advance from you. Further the proposition is that in Parliament House the police are subject to your authority and their powers are limited by the powers and privileges of the House. Those limitations are not based on any presumed sanctity attached to the building but on the principle that Parliament should be able to conduct its business without interference or pressure from any outside source. 
As Mr Prebble has said it has been parliamentary practice in Australia for more than 35 years for the police not to have the power to enter Parliament to interrogate MPs without the express permission of the Speaker secured in advance. That issue is discussed—I just give a reference to the Clerk—in the Australian 
 House of Representatives Practice 
 at page 146. I am advancing the proposition that that should be the practice of this House that there has been a clear breach of it if you did not give approval to the police to enter the premises to interrogate Mr Ardern that the police are in breach of their obligations and that you should take action. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I said I will look at that matter.
Obituaries — Rt Hon Frank O’Flynn 
Obituaries — Rt Hon Frank O’Flynn 
[Volume:612;Page:9299] 
Tuesday 21 October 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Rt Hon Frank O’Flynn 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 17 October 2003 of the Rt Hon Francis Duncan O’Flynn QC who represented the electorate of Kapiti from 1972 to 1975 and that of Island Bay from 1978 to 1987. He was Minister of State Minister of Defence Minister in charge of War Pensions Minister in charge of Rehabilitation Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Associate Minister of Overseas Trade and Marketing from 1984 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with his wife Sylvia and 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.
Simich Clem: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16775] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This does not concern Jeannette Fitzsimons of course but it is as long as the member who wishes to vote is in the House before the vote is concluded. That would be my interpretation of it. We could look at it further but that would be my interpretation. As long as a member is in the House before the vote is concluded. So we have proceeded correctly.
Power Simon: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18604] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek some guidance from you. During the course of the debate Mr Hide pointed out that the National Party New Zealand First ACT Green Party and United Future had all submitted minority reports on this bill. Would you be able to advise the Committee whether that in any way binds the way that those parties vote on the bill?
Points of Order — Urgent Question 
Points of Order — Urgent Question 
[Volume:612;Page:8951] 
Wednesday 8 October 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Urgent Question 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I lodged with the Clerk’s Office an urgent question at 7 minutes past noon today that related to a speech to be delivered by the American Ambassador; perhaps the most significant speech an American Ambassador has given in this country. I was advised that you declined the acceptance of that question. Could I perhaps have a reason for that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I declined it under the Standing Orders. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In view of my raising the issue in the House could you perhaps refer me to the Standing Orders under which you declined it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I looked at the question and worked out whether it was an ordinary or urgent question. It did not appear to be one that could not be asked quite properly tomorrow.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
[Volume:613;Page:10014] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To help some of us and to prevent any possible misinterpretation by others listening that this may be a ruling of convenience—a misinterpretation we would not want them to gain—could you then please explain to me at a time that is appropriate when that Standing Order was first written into the Standing Orders of this House because since then we have had some changes in the way in which seats are allocated and the proportionality is determined; and precisely why was such a Standing Order deemed necessary if it were the intent that people could make their comments and move closure motions from any seat allocated to their party? It would seem that such a Standing Order was not necessary at all if that were its intent and purpose. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What the member says is very interesting because that is precisely the point. There is no Standing Order concerned—none at all. There is Speaker’s ruling 53/6. In that Speaker’s ruling there is a figure of speech used and I have interpreted that as have other Speakers as meaning that any person who is in his or her allocated group of seats can speak from any one of those seats.
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17098] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Points of order are to be heard in silence. I now ask the member who is a longstanding member to withdraw and apologise 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise for that outrageous comment. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If anyone wanted to have proof that there are two standards of citizenship in this country I am a living example of that. What I want to say to you is this. [ 
Interruption 
]
Hughes Darren: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21554] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17430] 
9.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What feedback has he received on the restructuring of Victim Support? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 As an incorporated society and a non-governmental organisation the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups determines its own constitutional and organisational structure. I am advised however that the internal changes being made by that organisation are supported by the vast majority but not all of its member organisations. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister prepared to stand by while large numbers of long-time volunteers in places like North Shore west Auckland and Christchurch depart and what impact will that have on the services to victims in those areas? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I find it curious that a member of this House would want me to involve myself in the internal affairs of an incorporated society. The member has made an allegation that indicates that not all the groups affiliated to Victim Support approve of the restructuring. However I am informed that it was carried out constitutionally and by an overwhelming vote of the members of that organisation. 
Tim Barnett 
: What services does Victim Support provide in return for partial Government funding of the organisation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Victim Support provides an incredibly important support service for victims on a 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week basis. It works closely with the victims of crime. It visits victims and provides advocacy information support and counselling. For that we pay a little over half of its funding with the remainder of its funding derived from corporate support and the organisation’s own fund-raising efforts. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister convinced that his decision to allow money that is voted for victims to be spent on new managers will provide better services for victims and how will he know whether that occurs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will answer the last question first. We will know whether that occurs because there is ongoing evaluation of the value for money that the Government gets from Victim Support as there is with any organisation it funds. The first part of the question relates to the professionalisation of the organisation. I am aware that Victim Support previously operated through 70 different local groups. That was a somewhat unwieldy structure and it has now been reduced to 14 which represents the number of police districts in the country. We will be closely evaluating the success of that in terms of the funding that we provide to the organisation.
Burton Mark: Masterton Trust Lands Bill Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill — Procedure 
Burton Mark: Masterton Trust Lands Bill Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:608;Page:5198] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Masterton Trust Lands Bill and the Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill to proceed from the second readings directly to the third readings. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. It will be so ordered.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8799] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is all part of the official record. The first one—and we accept that there was a slight misdescription—is part of the official record. It is the draft. That is the one he seeks to table; it will be exactly the same and they will both be in the custody of the Clerk. If members wish to view them and to prolong this matter I am quite happy. Dr Mapp has a fresh point of order.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18756] 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 on behalf of  
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does the current Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding meet the needs of special-needs students? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Generally yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: What comfort can the Minister give Miss Joanne Newlands whose severely developmentally delayed 9-year-old son Nathaniel used to receive 16 teacher-aide hours a week but this year has been twice turned down for any Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In the 2004-05 year just under $438 million has been appropriated for special education. That is a significant increase over the almost $111 million of 1999. Notwithstanding that and despite such a significant commitment to special education I acknowledge that often particular cases of application need to be revisited. I am aware of the case concerned and I am also aware that one of the Christchurch members of Parliament is advocating on behalf of Nathaniel. I will undertake to investigate that case. 
Paul Adams 
: What financial support will he give to those young people with disabilities their families and school communities that have all benefited immensely from the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme for the first 4 years of schooling who have applied for continuation of the funding but have been denied that because the school does not have enough funds either through the special education grant or the operational grant and how will he help those families now? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The amount of funding budgeted for those purposes was clearly finite and that is the reason for allocation systems such as those that exist. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can any New Zealander believe that this Government cares when Miss Joanne Newlands having failed to get any help from her Labour MP over 4 weeks borrowed the money to fly herself and her son Nathaniel to Wellington hoping to see Minister Marian Hobbs for just a few minutes but was denied that opportunity? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I cannot answer for my colleague or any colleague’s diary but I have already undertaken to have the case investigated. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has been approached by a Christchurch member of Parliament who has met with Joanne Newlands and has raised the case with him on her behalf. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I can confirm that I have been approached by Ms Dalziel. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table the letter that Miss Joanne Newlands wrote. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Field Taito Phillip: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4878] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge the contribution made by Katherine Rich and other members who were part of the Social Services Committee and the work they did to bring this bill to a state where it is favourably recommended to the House—which is more than what I can say for her colleague Nick Smith. As a former Minister of the National Government Cabinet I would have thought that that member would be a lot more knowledgable than was evident by the way he discredited himself with the sorts of questions he asked. This regime of registration for social workers is something that has been recommended. The sector certainly made it clear that it needed such registration. 
 I want to congratulate the Minister and this Government finally after so many years on giving the social workers sector in New Zealand something that is quite important and encouraging to it in terms of what it has been asking for. In particular it is improving the standards of social work in New Zealand and I commend the registration regime that is to be set up. The board to be set up will be a Crown entity appointed by the Minister and the Government and in monitoring the standards of that board it is important that the accountability returns to the Minister. 
The regime also looks at registration on a voluntary basis. I think that the concept of mandatory registration presented in the various submissions particularly from different areas of the social workers sector is an important point. But the wise move in this legislation is to look at what happens over 3 years and then to have a review. Certainly some of the important evaluations that need to be made can be done in 3 years particularly with regard to mandatory registration. 
The other issue that I thought was quite sensible in this legislation was to ensure that people who practise social work in New Zealand have the qualifications and skills to make the right judgments with regard to the care of children particularly in ethnic communities. There has been some comment in this Committee stage debate about why we have reference to ethnic communities. If we look at the mix of clientele in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services we see that Maori and Pacific Island communities are truly over-represented. Because of the overwhelming numbers it is only common sense that that service deals with Maori and Pacific Island communities. Other ethnic communities are also growing and we also need qualified and competent social workers to work in those areas. 
I am very supportive of what is in the bill. It ensures that those who practice do so competently and that the regime will encourage the standards and improve the quality of decisions made. Finally I say that this bill is good legislation that is well overdue and I want to congratulate the Minister and Government on getting it through this House.
Catchpole Brent: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7051] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I would like to agree with Gerry Eckhoff who made some very valid points in his speech. He mentioned that biosecurity is vitally important. This actually has to do with the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001. Does that ring some bells? This bill has been sitting here while the Government wonders whether problems will spread as the painted apple moth has spread. The Government has left the bill on the Table since 2001. In fact it goes back to August 2001 when it was introduced. The title clause 1(1) says it all: “… the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001.” This Government has sat on this bill when biosecurity is one of the most important aspects of our economy and when there are dangers to our economy from incursions of organisms that will damage our livestock and particularly our bees. When the varroa bee mite came into this country the Government once more sat on that incursion. It did not know what to do with that problem in the same way that it did not know what to do with this bill that has been sitting there since 2001. 
The Government has allowed all of those other incursions to occur because it was too slow in getting this bill into the House and to the Table for proper debate. The Government has waited all of that time and now under urgency we are trying to get the bill through quickly. 
I ask why the bill was not brought in under urgency a long time ago. Why has it sat there for 2 years while other incursions have occurred? We have a list of those incursions and I will not attempt to repeat the long list of them given by a previous speaker because it would probably take us all night to get through them all. It would probably take us to 2005 while we waited for this bill to come through the House again. But biosecurity is one of the most important aspects of our economy and to leave this bill sitting there since 2001 to be enacted as the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2001 is a disgrace. This Government really needs to get off its backside and sort out our biosecurity.
Vote: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12251] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to.
Ogilvy Bernie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ogilvy Bernie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8324] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that the Minister is not there. [ 
Interruption 
] He will do! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a Minister. As the member is a new member I must warn him that in future that comment would lead me to carry on with the next question. He must ask the question if he wants to.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8851] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 39 
New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Schedules agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
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:6992] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the outset I want to say that I am not relitigating the closure motion; I accept that you are the sole judge of that. I raise a point of order in terms of Speakers’ ruling 54/2 that was made by Speaker Statham in 1931 and reconfirmed by Speaker Burke in 1990. It has stood the test of time and says that the chairperson is the best judge of whether the closure motion ought to be put. Both former speakers expressed the hope that the ruling would not be applied too harshly. I am raising the issue in relation to the schedules debate because Dr Lockwood Smith raised a matter with regard to the ability of researchers to work on substances such as dieldrin and DDT. My reading of it is that they cannot. I did not have a chance to debate that in relation to the appropriate clause. I was waiting my turn but I was denied it. With appropriate reference I believe I can raise the matter in the schedules and I am seeking your assurance that you will indulge me to that extent—given that I was denied the right to address Part 2 of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I recognise the point the honourable member is making. I am sure that he will be given the opportunity to debate the issue in the schedules.
Mackey Moana: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13283] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15939] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I concur with your ruling. We have written proxies from our members which I hold here. I am not prepared to divulge who voted which way. I have cast the votes with the leave of the House for a split vote and it is certainly not my intention to divulge the information about our members’ preferences. This is not a personal vote where we go out to the lobbies. This is a split vote which the House has agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: And the House gave leave for that. Mr Lindsay Tisch is absolutely correct. That was exactly the procedure the House gave leave for.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18313] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Speaking on the latter issue I have not given any thought to that matter so I cannot respond to the member. On the former I am pleased to have the indication from the member that there will not be undue delay on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill passing through its Committee stage. That is always helpful. There are also on the Order Paper the Architects Bill the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill the Railways Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) the Charities Bill and the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. A number of bills that are in front of select committees are coming back to the House. There is of course the Budget to come at some time in the future. I think there will be quite a bit to be done between now and the election but if the Opposition parties wish to accelerate progress so that they have more free time for campaigning I am sure I will be happy to cooperate in that respect.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Germany—Delegation from the German Bundestag 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Germany—Delegation from the German Bundestag 
[Volume:623;Page:18447] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that three members of the German Bundestag who are part of a delegation to New Zealand led by the German Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed.
Smith Nick: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
Smith Nick: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5700] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 It has been a longstanding Speaker’s ruling that interjections will be rare and reasonable—the latest Speaker has added to it—and perhaps occasionally witty. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I agree. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: These are 5-minute contributions. The reason I chose not to take a point of order during the speech made by the deputy leader of the National Party was that that only adds to the breaking up of a member’s speech. Does the Speaker’s ruling that interjections are to be rare and reasonable apply to the general debate; if it does can you please enforce it?