edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
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 (b).
Urgent Debates Declined — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship 
Urgent Debates Declined — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship 
[Volume:623;Page:18673] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Deborah Coddington seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the announcement by the Associate Minister of Education of the assembly of an expert group to look into deficiencies in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) scholarship system. The assembly of the group is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However it does not meet the requirements for the immediate attention of the House for two reasons. Firstly the setting up of an inquiry will rarely justify an urgent debate. Even when an inquiry reports it is only in an exceptional case that the report will justify a debate—see Speaker’s ruling 155/6. Secondly the House held an urgent debate on the problems with the NCEA only last week. There can be no justification for another debate today.
Hartley Ann: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Hartley Ann: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6760] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The time has come for me to leave the chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. until 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Wilson Margaret: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21972] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising this matter. As he correctly said he raised it with me. I apologise for the time that it took to respond but it did take time because I received several different streams of advice from several different parties including Parliamentary Service. At the end of the day the decision was mine to take. I took that decision. 
As I said to the member it was a marginal call and I agree with the Auditor-General that certainly it is time that these whole guidelines as they are characterised—not rules but guidelines—need to be reviewed. Therefore I hope that the Parliamentary Service Commission will see itself clear to be able to address this issue if not before the election—unfortunately because time does not permit—but certainly in the new Parliament. It seems to me that that is a matter of urgency. 
Vote agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8796] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am now a bit confused because the House acquiesced and did not deny leave so the motion was carried. I totally agree with the Hon Peter Dunne. I think he has made a very good point because people may have had a totally different feeling if they understood them to be the draft minutes. I think the Deputy Leader of the House would have to withdraw the previous leave he was granted then reapply for leave to table the appropriate document which is the draft unapproved minutes of the Business Committee. Otherwise I do not know how the  
Journals of the House 
 would record it. We would have a somewhat messy situation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is pretty clear cut. I thank members for their contributions and for their guidance. What was done was done and it was done quite rightly. The Minister may not have described them as draft minutes but I do not think that is a big enough error—if an error at all—to negative what happened. The House was fully entitled to agree with the leave that was sought to table those minutes. It is irrelevant—and I mean no disrespect to the committee about which we are talking—what the committee does next week. It is totally irrelevant to the tabling of that document.
Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Number of Questions 
Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Number of Questions 
[Volume:616;Page:11825] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Number of Questions 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the Standing Orders provide for 12 oral questions every day and today there are only 11 questions. My understanding is that the reason is that one of ACT’s questions has now been allocated to Mrs Awatere Huata who has not exercised that right. I think that that shows the ridiculous situation the House is now in. I would like you to take the matter up with the Business Committee. It appears to me that we are losing Parliament’s right to hold the executive accountable if we are in a situation where we are allocating a question to a member who cannot even turn up to ask the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This was a decision of the Business Committee. I am happy to accept the honourable member’s attention and I will put the matter on the agenda for the next meeting.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19091] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Bradford(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Turei(P) 
Teller: 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ward(P) 
Locke  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Noes 103 
Adams(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Alexander  
Duncan(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Scott(P) 
Anderton(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Baldock  
Dyson(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M 
Barker(P) 
English(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Barnett  
Fairbrother  
McCully(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Franks  
McNair  
Stewart(P) 
Beyer  
Gallagher  
Newman  
Sutton(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goff(P) 
O'Connor  
Swain(P) 
Brown  
Gosche(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Burton  
Gudgeon(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch  
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Parker(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins  
Peck(P) 
Turner  
Carter J (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Perry  
Williamson(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Hereora  
Peters J (P) 
Wilson(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hobbs  
Peters W (P) 
Wong  
Choudhary(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Clark(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Worth(P) 
Collins(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Power(P) 
Yates 
Connell(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Prebble  
Copeland(P) 
Jones(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Key(P) 
Ririnui  
Cullen(P) 
King(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Laban(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dalziel(P) 
Mackey J 
Ryall(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to
Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22220] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Actually your intervention did not help because in order for us to understand what the honourable member is requesting we need to hear precisely what his dilemma is. That was not clear. He said he “thought” he had made an error. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I ask the member to clarify— 
RON MARK 
: We are being asked right now whether we object to something about which we are not clear. I think the member deserves an opportunity to make clear precisely what the problem is so we can decide.
Gallagher Martin: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17290] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11173] 
10.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: Is he satisfied with the amount of money given by the Government to the victims of flooding in the lower North Island including the Manawatu and Rangitikei; if so why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Yes because we are working to meet the needs of the community as those needs are identified by local and regional government civil defence organisations. These needs are also being addressed by Government agencies. The Government will give millions of dollars. We are working to support the victims not grandstanding with false information as the National Opposition has done. 
Simon Power 
: Why is the Government so reluctant to commit a substantial sum of money to bring relief to flood victims when the Farmers Mutual Group has contributed $100000 to the cause and has challenged the Government to match it and at 2 p.m. today the locals have already raised $650000 including goods and services to help the clean-up? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am very pleased that people are contributing. When New Zealanders are in trouble through natural disasters Kiwis are at their best. This Government is also at its best. 
Darren Hughes 
: How important does the Minister think it is that in civil defence emergencies accurate information is given to the public? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is vital that the information that is circulated is accurate and reliable rather than grandstanding off the misery of one’s own constituents as Simon Power has been doing. 
Simon Power 
: Will the Government immediately match the Farmers Mutual Group contribution and the immediate relief of $1 million made to the Southland relief fund in the floods of 1984 especially given as the Minister said earlier today the looming bad weather forecast for this weekend; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: This Government is providing money that is needed and we are helping with the overall situation. We are not grandstanding on anything. 
Simon Power 
: They need the cash. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member is rubbing his fingers again. He knows that the Government is giving millions of dollars—I have told him how many times. I told him on Tuesday afternoon just outside the House and then he chose to tell people something different. That tells me more about his political gumption than anything else.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9886] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 30 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following: 
30Section 58 of the principal Act is amended by omitting all the words commencing and after the words “summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $20000 and must order the destruction of the dog if the presumption that the dog is dangerous is not rebutted.
Pettis Jill: Income Tax Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Income Tax Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3545] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 The purpose of rewriting the income tax legislation is as Mr McNair has just finished saying to make it clear by having it plainly written and structurally consistent. We do need to have legislation written in a more simple and easily understood form. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What does this mean on page 2104? 
JILL PETTIS 
: I have better things to read before I go to sleep than the tax bill. I am presently reading  
Stupid White Men 
. I recommend it to the member. The rewrite of the current legislation will make it easier for readers to locate all the material they need and to understand what they read ultimately saving time and cost which is good for business good for the consumer and good for New Zealand. I support the bill.
Carter John: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Policing Functions—Parliamentary Precincts  
Carter John: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Policing Functions—Parliamentary Precincts  
[Volume:616;Page:11937] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the draft agreement on policing functions within the parliamentary precincts.  
I move this on behalf of Matt Robson the chairman of the Privileges Committee. My comments will be very short because basically the report speaks for itself. The purpose of the report is to ensure that police and parliamentary staff are given clear guidance with regard to the roles and powers of the police within the parliamentary precincts.  
One comment in the report that is worthwhile repeating is that when parliamentary business is being transacted the buildings take on a unique constitutional status and parliamentary privilege applies to the transaction of that business and that is important. This arose because of an earlier incident that involved Shane Ardern and the view was that we needed to ensure that everybody understood the way in which the protocols worked. I believe that the Privileges Committee has set down a good report. The recommendations are for you Mr Speaker to decide finally on how they are to be implemented. However I would recommend that you take the recommendations seriously. They are very good and were made unanimously. I thoroughly commend them to the House. 
Motion agreed to.
Woolerton R Doug: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4840] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I congratulate the hop growers on forming a cooperative company to market their produce and to sell their hops. 
I have just a couple of comments on the points made by the previous speaker. This is not the sort of structure that the previous National Government and the former Minister the Hon John Luxton would have suggested for this industry. This is a move to form a cooperative that retains the single seller in all but name. Why? Because it is the sensible thing to do in a small country like New Zealand when we are competing worldwide with other countries that are subsidised. This very small industry has done the sensible pragmatic thing. This is not what was proposed by the previous National administration and I congratulate the hop growers on doing what they have done. New Zealand First supports them in their endeavours. New Zealand First supports this bill and wishes the hop growers good luck long life and great wealth.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7901] 
2.  
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What reports has she received on the first year of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 The New Zealand Food Safety Authority completed its first year of operation on 1 July. It has been a very busy year for the authority. It has built on existing relationships with industry and various authorities; developed new ones domestically through activities such as the consumers forum and focus groups with territorial local government and public health units; and made its presence felt internationally. 
Dave Hereora 
: What are some of the international activities with which the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has been involved? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: New Zealand has reached agreement with the US and the European Union on organic equivalents. We have signed off on the European Union vet agreement putting New Zealand’s exports to Europe on a much firmer footing and we recently achieved the US bovine-equivalents agreement which will save our meat industry around $4 million. These achievements show that the New Zealand Food Safety Authority is an internationally credible and trusted food authority. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why has the Minister allowed the continued use of nitrofuran veterinary drugs in the pig and poultry industries when these veterinary drugs are banned in many of the countries to which we export because they are cancer-causing and thought to pose a public health risk; and what steps has she taken to protect New Zealanders from those known health risks? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Any known health risks to New Zealanders are handled by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and by the setting of food standards between New Zealand and Australia. Any perceived risk would be handled by the authority. It has not identified risks that we should worry about in New Zealand.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16336] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave in respect of what Mr Prebble has prescribed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No no. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I seek leave for 5 minutes for matters related to John Tamihere and his defence. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave in terms relating to John Tamihere. Is there any objection? There is none.
Urgent Debates Declined — Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa Defence Cooperation 
Urgent Debates Declined — Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa Defence Cooperation 
[Volume:607;Page:4421] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Stephen Franks seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 a proposal to enter into a deed of settlement with Ngati Awa. An urgent debate is an opportunity to consider something that has occurred not something that is about to occur so the application must be declined on the ground that it does not relate to a particular case of recent occurrence. 
Defence Cooperation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate Government decisions to promote defence cooperation. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but it does not seem to me that the decisions result in a major change in defence policy. Rather they are aimed at delivering existing policies more effectively. In these circumstances I do not consider that this requires the immediate attention of the House. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am not sure what advice you sought on this matter but this is perhaps the most significant decision on the structure of our defence forces. It is widely recognised that what was done in 1990 has not worked. We have had some 13 years of dysfunctionality and finally we have a policy announcement of a Government decision— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot debate my ruling. He can seek leave to have a debate. That is perfectly within his right. He cannot debate my ruling. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I seek leave to have a debate in accordance with the letter I submitted and that you have just read. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just seek clarification of your ruling on the earlier application. I understand you to have said that the application was turned down on the grounds that it related to a decision or a matter yet to occur when in fact I believe that my letter referred to the decision of the Government which has been made to proceed with a signing tomorrow. In other words the part that is yet to occur is simply executory. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just refer the member to the first sentence in his own letter: “I request an urgent debate regarding a proposal for the Government to enter ...”. It is not a decision that has yet been taken.
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13916] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Look I do not want this to carry on because I am prepared to do what the member said and I will think about the issue he has raised.
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 clause 1 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. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5083] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendment agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5225] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I draw to the attention of honourable members that there has been an error in the voting on the question that clause 1 stand part. The result was announced as Ayes 62 Noes 55 abstentions 1. The correct result is Ayes 61 Noes 55 abstentions 1. I now order that the list be corrected under Speakers’ ruling 59/7.
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11932] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think the member does have a point although I have experienced a remedy that is available to the Speaker if the Speaker thinks that a point of order has been made in a way that is not appropriate. If the Speaker thinks that the person has pushed it too far the Speaker has on occasion required members to apologise and in extreme cases has required members to leave the Chamber. I have some experience in this area and it is my submission that the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings already take care of this area if a Speaker wants to use them. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sure the member is aware that many points of orders that are raised are not points of order. I also point out that any member can raise that matter with the Standing Orders Committee.
Cosgrove Clayton: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7796] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12177] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:614;Page:10751] 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I propose to seek leave for a number of transitional matters relating to the adoption of the new Standing Orders. 
I seek leave for the following sessional orders to be revoked with effect on 10 February 2004: 
Party votes (29 August 2002); 
Misuse of Drugs Orders (5 September 2002); 
Bill of Rights reports (5 September 2002); 
Copies of bills (17 December 2002); 
Questions for written answer (17 December 2002); 
Notice Paper (17 December 2002). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I seek leave for the subject areas of the Government Administration Committee the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Law and Order Committee and the terms of reference of the Officers of Parliament Committee and the Regulations Review Committee to be amended to reflect the Standing Orders as amended with effect on 10 February 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I seek leave for the Standing Orders Committee to be re-established with the terms of reference set out in the Standing Orders as amended with effect on 10 February 2004 and for the committee to continue in existence for the duration of the Parliament unless the House provides otherwise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I seek leave for any preliminary procedure in respect of a local bill or a private bill carried out in accordance with Appendices B and C of the Standing Orders before 10 February 2004 to be deemed to comply with the Standing Orders despite any inconsistency with the provisions of Appendix B of the Standing Orders as they apply from that date. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I seek leave for the requirement that the Local Government and Environment Committee report on compliance with the Standing Orders in respect of local bills to continue to apply to any local bill before a select committee on 10 February 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:613;Page:9837] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Absolutely; I always have. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You didn’t then!
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:616;Page:11775] 
Thursday 18 March 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill debate Government Notice of Motion No. 1 and the second readings of the Business Law Reform Bill and the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I have noticed on the Order Paper and in the other documents that we receive to get some lead on where the Government is going that there is no legislation that will put the seabed and foreshore into Crown ownership. I seek leave for a bill in the name of the honourable member Richard Worth that does exactly that to be placed on the Order Paper for first consideration next week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought is there any objection? There is.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Ranfurly Shield Win—Bay of Plenty 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Ranfurly Shield Win—Bay of Plenty 
[Volume:619;Page:14929] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a non-controversial motion to do with the rugby events in the Bay of Plenty last weekend. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8173] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to the definition of “authority” in clause 220(4) be agreed to.
Cunliffe David: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7318] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Field Taito Phillip: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8579] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am very pleased to contribute to this debate and to say in response to some of the comments made by the previous speaker that New Zealand does punch above its weight internationally and most countries know that. We are very proud of our antinuclear position and most New Zealanders continue to support it. 
I would like to speak about the relevance of the bill and I will keep it short. The reason for this bill is really to acknowledge what happened on 11 September 2001. Tomorrow is significant because it is the 2-year anniversary of that terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York. It will be a day for mourning those who lost their lives in that disaster in the United States. 
The world has changed since then and the world has to be conscious of the need for security. I believe that this bill indicates the need to comply with the convention that has been amended which is the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. I commend this Government for its management of legislation because we as a party are 10 months ahead of the date by which New Zealand has to comply with that convention which is 1 July 2004. That is an indication of an efficient Government which is well ahead of its obligation. I commend this bill to the House and commend its referral to the select committee.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13026] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 70 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(3)That physical exercise where possible be directed to employment related activities whereupon all monies as the result of such activities will be given up to defray their costs of upkeep.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17938] 
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. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that there is to be no comment at all during the taking of the vote. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 61/2.
Hughes Darren: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13088] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I want to join with other members of Parliament in welcoming the second reading of the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill which was promoted by the Hon Marian Hobbs in consultation with the Wellington City Council. The Hon Marian Hobbs does play an important role in coordinating the Wellington electorate members of Parliament and as a group we certainly welcome the opportunity this legislation will provide for this piece of land. It is of course a small bill with just four clauses. Mention has been made of Jack Ilott Green by other speakers. As my colleague the deputy leader of the House says this is a small but perfectly formed bill. 
Comment was made by the ACT list member who I understand lives in Wellington that not enough action is being taken on Wellington transport issues by Wellington electorate members of Parliament. The member clearly has not looked at the record of the effort and energy that Wellington members are putting into trying to address the transport needs of the region. Those needs are challenging but we are trying to meet them. There are already runs on the board. The member said that nothing has happened but of course if she is focused only on her small suburb—as I suspect she is—she would not know of the developments at Mackays Crossing that Winnie Laban Peter Dunne and I have worked very very hard on to try to make sure we help to make that part of State Highway 1 function as an entrance to the Wellington region. Unlike that member who wants to talk down Wellington’s chances as a region what we do as Wellington electorate members of Parliament is to stay positive about the transport and other issues confronting Wellington. 
Finally in closing I note a very important event that has happened this afternoon. The member for Rotorua Steve Chadwick has had a granddaughter born called Tiki. I am sure that members would like to join me in congratulating the extended Chadwick whanau. 
Bill read a second time.
Carter Chris: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Carter Chris: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21120] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill which to me is a very sensible bill. It is designed to alleviate the workload pressures facing the Court of Appeal and to increase access to the new Supreme Court in New Zealand. It aims to achieve that by increasing judicial resources by ensuring more efficient use of those resources and by removing a residual barrier to accessing the Supreme Court. I think it is a very sensible bill and I commend it to the House.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15873] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: I seek leave to table the programme for the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths national conference 2004 which shows Aoraki Polytechnic as a platinum sponsor. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3926] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the bill. I was pleased to hear at the beginning of the debate the Hon Dr Michael Cullen in his role as Minister in charge of this bill explain quite clearly the different rate that Maori organisations will be paying—namely 19.5 percent—the rationale behind it and why it is not a race-based policy as claimed by other Opposition parties but is actually quite sensible law. For that reason I am pleased to support the second reading of the bill.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22159] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Education be agreed to 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 18 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 5. 
Vote Education agreed to.
[Volume:620;Page:15997] 
It is with heavy hearts that today we commemorate this second anniversary of the horrific bombings in Bali in October 2002. Just over a year after the shocking terrorist attacks of September 11 innocent people were again cruelly targeted in a disgusting terrorist attack the likes of which are sadly becoming more commonplace. It is only 5 weeks ago that we stood here to mourn the despicable targeting of children by terrorists in Beslan. Only 2 days after that a bomb exploded outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Such shocking and despicable attacks were once unthinkable. Today’s sad commemoration reminds us that the tentacles of terrorism now reach everywhere and we must stand resolute with the rest of the civilised world to stamp out this abomination of our times.
King Annette: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
King Annette: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10293] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Swain Paul: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7045] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: I am very pleased to speak on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill under the name of my esteemed colleague the Hon Jim Sutton who is a hard-working and conscientious member. 
I see in the commentary that the Act is the principal authority for actions to keep harmful organisms out of New Zealand. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Would that apply to ACT? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That would be the only amendment I would be tempted to move—that it apply to the ACT party. There is no doubt that the ACT party is certainly a harmful organism for New Zealand. 
When we look over the report of the Primary Production Committee we see it is a very good one. It states: “Surveillance forms an important part of New Zealand’s biosecurity system. We are aware of New Zealand’s heavy reliance on passive surveillance and agree more needs to be done to assist those who are in a position to provide early detection of an organism not normally seen in New Zealand.” Of course the good thing about the ACT party is that at 3.2 percent in the polls it is now starting to become a very endangered species and more surveillance is needed because it is an organism that might no longer normally be seen in New Zealand. So we need to keep up the surveillance. Of course as the report states surveillance is important for “our front line defence against unwanted incursions”. Certainly the ACT party has been an unwanted incursion. The report also states there needs to be more support for people who are carrying out surveillance and: “The duty to inform must be backed up by a comprehensive education campaign.” I am certain that the Government will be continuing our high-profile education campaign on how we might keep biosecurity incursions like the ACT party out of New Zealand. 
This is very good legislation from a very good Minister in an extremely hard-working and progressive Government. I am very proud to support the bill.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17143] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
List Member Vacancy 
List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:624;Page:19547] 
List Member Vacancy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Lesley Frances Soper has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Jonathan Lucas Hunt. I understand that Lesley Soper is present and wishes to be sworn. Would she please come forward to the Chair on my right.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — Third Reading 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22262] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Speaker’s Rulings — Responses to Oral Questions 
Speaker’s Rulings — Responses to Oral Questions 
[Volume:609;Page:6544] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Responses to Oral Questions 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call questions for oral answer I undertook on Thursday to give consideration to the situation where a Minister promises to get back to a member with information in response to an oral question. In these circumstances the Minister has made a promise that should be honoured as soon as possible. This is the same as following up on a written reply—see Speaker’s ruling 130/2. I am not going to try to define what is a reasonable time in terms of providing the following information as each case will vary. 
 Members who do not get a follow-up reply should approach the Minister first. They can raise the matter with me if they feel the Minister has not responded within a reasonable time but I want to warn members that I will not entertain complaints about whether the answer is satisfactory. Whether members are happy with a reply or unhappy with it is not a matter of concern to me. I will regard as a very serious waste of my time and the time of the House any attempt to raise the adequacy of a follow-up reply.
Vote: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
Vote: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
[Volume:626;Page:20910] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege referred on 21 July 1998 concerning Buchanan v Jennings. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Motion agreed to.
Anderton Jim: Obituaries — Pope John Paul II 
Anderton Jim: Obituaries — Pope John Paul II 
[Volume:624;Page:19550] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 As a Roman Catholic the values of the universal Church have guided me since being a Catholic youth movement worker in the 1960s to being a Cabinet Minister today. While many people in this country and in other nations will debate aspects of the Church’s approach to issues such as the role of women in society the overwhelming impression left in my mind and in the minds of many I am sure is the role that Pope John Paul II has played to promote and secure peace throughout the world. 
The second impression is the value that the late Pope placed on the recognition of different faiths and on the need to work to eliminate conflict between those faiths in the pursuit of peace. Finally New Zealanders will recall the role that Pope John Paul II played in achieving the peaceful transformation of Eastern Europe from totalitarian to democratic rule. May he rest in peace.
Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 15 October 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 With regard to the discussion yesterday in the Business Committee and subsequent information I seek leave for the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill to be set down for their remaining stages tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Burton Mark: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Burton Mark: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:616;Page:12429] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I am pleased to commend to members of the House Government notice of motion No. 2 in the name of my colleague the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. I move  
That a respectful address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2003-04 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations for the 2004-05 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 
.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20941] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20954] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) after the word “committing” the word “the” and substituting the word “an”.
Chadwick Steve: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6964] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10715] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of the minutes of a meeting on 4 December 2003 between Government Ministers and Te Ope Mana a Tai in which the Government’s position is clearly stated with regard to the seabed and foreshore issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those. Is there any objection? There is.
Simich Clem: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10699] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Muriel Newman.
Vote: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7035] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Retirement Villages Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 105 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a second time.