edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20208] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt Mr Franks at this point. I realise I am slightly beyond the time but I have taken the time and trouble to check the order of speaking. I said in my speech that New Zealand First had not taken a call in Part 2 on the principles of the treaty. I was accused in an unparliamentary term of not being correct. I have since checked the record and seen that in fact a call had not been taken in Part 2 at that time. I therefore ask Mr Jones to withdraw the comment he made about me.
Locke Keith: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading 
Locke Keith: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12833] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill to enable us to implement the International Convention against the Recruitment Use Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It is a historic problem in the world going back well into history. But more recently many countries—in Africa in particular—have suffered by the injection of highly paid mercenaries into civil conflicts. 
We go back to the Congo in 1960 and beyond. New Zealand has had a particular concern with the use of mercenaries in our Pacific region—most recently in Bougainville where the Sandline International mercenaries were coming in with a huge amount of equipment. They were going to smash the Bougainville Revolutionary Army in a way that would have continued the conflict in that country which was killing so many people for many years. Thankfully the Sandline International mercenaries were kicked out before they got into action and New Zealand was involved in a peace process that has led to peace and development in that country. It is a case study of how bad mercenaries can be. 
It is interesting that the question of mercenaries is raised today in relation to Iraq and I think the Minister raised that question as well. Some of the people serving there outside of any official armies are sometimes called soldiers of fortune. They are involved to one degree or another in the fighting in that country. Ron Mark is wrong. One does not need a rifle in one’s hand to qualify as a mercenary under this bill. 
Debate interrupted.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8664] 
5.  
MOANA MACKEY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What reports has he received on climate change and extreme weather events? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 New Zealand business leaders were briefed last week by leading Swiss insurance company Swiss Re which advised: “Today global warming is a fact. The climate has changed visibly tangibly and immeasurably.” Swiss Re further advised that global insurance losses from natural catastrophes have skyrocketed from around US$3 billion per annum until the mid-1980s to over US$17 billion per annum in the 1990s. Uninsured losses are even higher. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other advice has the Minister seen from the insurance industry about the future impact of climate change? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Lord Levene chairman of insurers Lloyd’s of London said earlier this year that whilst terrorism had resulted in massive payouts that was outweighed by natural catastrophes. He said that 12 of the world’s 13 worst storm losses have occurred in the last 10 years. 
Hon David Carter 
: What reports has the Minister received on the international carbon price which is significantly lower than the Government anticipated in its discussion documents; and how much are the Government’s nationalised forestry credits worth to New Zealand based on the current international carbon price? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There is as we speak no international carbon price. There is a range of international carbon prices. The Government’s policy has been to cap carbon credits at NZ$25 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent per annum. That is simply in case Russia determines that it will carry forward its very significant hot air.
Prebble Richard: General Debate 
Prebble Richard: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16336] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When he says: “I so seek leave.” I have no idea what he means because it could be ruled that he is asking for 5 minutes to speak about anything which I would say is trifling with the House. But if Mr Clayton Cosgrove gets up—and I will try to help him—and says that he seeks 5 minutes’ time in this House so that he can defend Mr John Tamihere from the charges he has had and if Mr Cosgrove gives members the undertaking that that is what he wants to do then members will of course accept that.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7223] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I have to say that members on this side of the House have spent a considerable amount of time becoming increasingly concerned about the rudeness of Mr Peters day after day when raising points of order. Today we have seen other members of the Opposition—Mr Prebble Mr Brownlee and Mr English I think but I cannot remember—raising points of order that even if they were ruled against were raised properly with you and in an appropriate manner. It is intolerable that you are subject day after day to yelling from Mr Peters to insults to refusals to obey your orders and to interjections whenever you are giving rulings. On that basis he cannot claim that answers were not given. As the Speaker has already ruled I gave direct answers to every question Mr Peters raised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow just one final comment on this point of order.
Peters Jim: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
Peters Jim: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Buchanan v Jennings—Question of Privilege 
[Volume:626;Page:20901] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who has just resumed her seat seems to be in some uncertainty. The first dawn raids were made under the Kirk Government in 1974. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order.
Sowry Roger: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4040] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Just to pick up on Dr Cullen’s point Standing Order 281 states that the member in charge of the bill determines where the bill is to go. The member did not follow the correct procedures but acted by way of a point of order immediately following and stated his intention about the committee to which he intended the bill to go. I feel quite strongly that the member is bound by that. Dr Cullen is right in saying that another member can move an amendment but that must be done before the first reading. So that amendment needed to be put on the Table before the bill was read for the first time. I have to say that I myself have tried to do the same on several occasions and have had exactly the same ruling from the Clerk which was that if I had not lodged an amendment before the Clerk called the bill then the amendment could not be moved. I do not think that we should start a precedent now to the effect that during the whole process members may table motions to have things moved around. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for helping the House through that issue. It is arguable as to how we proceed given that it was not raised in Mr Peck’s first motion. But the member may seek leave and we will test the House. 
Mark Peck 
: I do not want to seek leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the member does not want to seek leave that is fine. There are other remedies and we will move on through the speakers. 
By way of addressing the issue that the Hon Roger Sowry raised I point out that notice may be given before the first reading of the bill—which does not mean before the matter is addressed. It means before the House decides that the first reading has taken place.
King Annette: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
King Annette: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19378] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration 
referred to Government Administration Committee 
 
 that the committee present its final report on or before 31 March 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12024] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I am very honoured to stand to support the second reading of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. I reiterate that the purpose of the bill is to provide for the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board to be appointed and to develop a water allocation framework for the Waitaki River. The bill will require a panel of commissioners to be appointed to consider the consent applications together within that framework. 
The suggestion that this legislation is empowering or fast-tracking Project Aqua is clearly not so because the Greens support this bill—notwithstanding their opposition to Project Aqua.
Newman Muriel: Tabling of Documents — Achieving Health for all People Wally of the Week" Poster 
Newman Muriel: Tabling of Documents — Achieving Health for all People "Wally of the Week" Poster 
[Volume:606;Page:3699] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my “Wally of the Week” poster. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
"
Hughes Darren: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6844] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17449] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for furthering that point of order. I do not believe that the word was used in that context at all. I will not ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that particular comment. Members need not take that as licence to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Well you have— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is what I am ruling. I have been trying to listen to the debate very carefully. I do not think the word was used in that context. I do not think the member was accusing members of being homophobic. I have made a ruling as to what I propose to do with the member. The Chamber has heard it. I have thanked the member who raised the matter for doing so.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:612;Page:9336] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the date by which the Local Government and Environment Committee reports the New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill to be extended to 30 April 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hobbs Marian: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13871] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is an important bill for the Wellington region. As the member of Parliament for Wellington Central and as the Minister for the Environment I fully support the initiatives of the Wellington Regional Council to provide for sustainable energy projects within the Wellington region. The council is conducting feasibility studies into a number of sites that may be suitable for wind generation and as far as the wind resource goes those sites show considerable promise—but not today; there is not a breath of wind out there. Some of the sites are on council land that is administered under the Wellington Regional Water Board Act of 1972—a legacy of local government prior to its reorganisation in 1989. The Act constrains the Wellington Regional Council in its desire to make multiple sustainable use of the water board land as it only allows for the granting of permits for temporary occupation of the land for purposes other than water supply or forestry. 
This bill allows the council to enter into any contract agreement or arrangement with any developer to produce renewable energy if the land is found to be suitable for electricity generation thereby providing some security of tenure for the developer’s very substantial investment. I see this council initiative as a proactive step towards achieving the policies in the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and certainly in line with the recent change to the Resource Management Act regarding the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. Further the bill specifically states that it does not override any of the requirements of the Resource Management Act. The bill is a measured response to the need to provide a framework that will allow for electricity generation on this council land. Joint use of the land for water collection from the valleys and for wind turbines on the ridges and upper slopes seems to me to be a very sustainable use of the land.
Tizard Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6502] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the relevant page containing section 75A in Part 6 “Duties” from the copy of the Act—Brooker's Statutes of New Zealand Customs and Excise Act 1996—provided to me by the officials which they had from brookers.co.nz. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 47 
Abstentions 8 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Green Party 8.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12049] 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Is she satisfied that all of Accident Compensation Corporation practices are ethical and within the law? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The Accident Compensation Corporation is reviewing all programmes where provider discretion is permitted in the implementation of its programmes because it is imperative that any such discretion is appropriately exercised. If the member has specific instances where he believes this may not be the case I would be happy to look into it. Subject to that yes I am satisfied that the corporation’s practices are ethical and within the law. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that the LTD and the car she has are because she is a Minister and it is not my job to do her job for her and that being the case why is Mr James Sowman a pseudonym writing to an accident victim and why is her department denying that victim the Official Information Act request for the true identity of the so-called Mr James Sowman and claiming that there is no public interest involved when plainly they are involved in deceit? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I understand that that particular employee of Catalyst Injury Management Ltd used that pseudonym because he was afraid for his own safety. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What improvements has the Minister made to ensure the corporation’s practices are responsive and appropriate to claimants? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The development of the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights which took effect on 1 February last year is one such measure. The code enshrines in law the requirement for the corporation to have high standards of service and fairness when dealing with claimants. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister thinks her statement in response to my supplementary question is correct why was that not said in the Seymour letter to the victim concerned and are we to look forward to dealing with “Mrs Get Well” from the Ministry of Health and “Constable Stay Safe” from the police force because there are no public interest factors supporting their revealed identity as the Accident Compensation Corporation explained? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: We do have a responsibility to ensure the ongoing safety of all public servants and I support what would otherwise seem to be quite unusual measures to back that protection up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a document relating to a James Sowman dated 5 March 2004 where no such claim is made with respect to— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9073] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 be agreed to.  
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Part 5 agreed to.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16921] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4759] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Coddington Deborah: Standing Orders 
Coddington Deborah: Standing Orders 
[Volume:627;Page:22356] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I will miss Peter Brown who always stands up and says: “I’m just going to take a short call on this.”—and 10 minutes later he is still going. I will just take just a short call on this motion to say that we support the amendments to the Standing Orders regarding the reinstatement of business and also Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. I do appreciate the constitutional importance of one Parliament not being able to bind the next Parliament. Of course one could argue that having the old Parliament prescribe what the business would be of the next Parliament does not actually bind it but a lot of time is wasted surely in having to pick up something and run with it when one knows that that is just in order to keep to the Standing Orders. So we do endorse that measure. I do also support Simon Power’s comments though about how easy it is to dismiss this sort of thing as being just housekeeping when it is not. 
The Supplementary Order Paper is the matter that I find most interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that the issue of split voting came up with regard to the smoke-free legislation especially when a number of parties had split votes. We were written to by a number of constituents who wanted to know who had voted against it and who had voted for it—for both sides of the argument. Of course we found out from the Parliamentary Library that one could not actually give details of the names in split party votes. This provision will cause problems for members because once one can give out that one voted against a bill say the smoke-free legislation one will have constituents writing to and emailing members and demanding a reply. Second Peter Brown said that some parties allow their members to split their votes. It is interesting if one looks at the case that ACT took all the way to the Supreme Court to have Donna Awatere Huata evicted to see that that finally almost rested on the fact that we had allowed split voting. Her argument that she still voted with the ACT party did not carry any weight in the court case in the end because of course we have always allowed a split vote. 
So we will be supporting this motion but we will have more to say on the motion that is coming up next.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Urgent Question 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Urgent Question 
[Volume:612;Page:8951] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I declined it under the Standing Orders.
Ririnui Mita: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9738] 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16358] 
20:00:20The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) put the question that schedule 2 be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17386] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In this debate I will be doing two things. First as this is an important conscience debate I will not allow interjections. I think the speeches must be heard in silence. We must allow people who have differing points of view to put their case and to put their case as they wish to put it. Secondly I will be calling members from parties in the usual order for Government bills. I know there are more members who wish to participate in the debate than there are speaking slots available. I therefore remind members that a 10-minute call can be shared with another member of the same party—see Standing Order 117(2). Members may wish to share their call and have two 5-minute calls instead of one 10-minute call. I would appreciate knowing at the start of the particular speech if they wish to do that.
Duncan Helen: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Duncan Helen: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16038] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12835] 
1. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What progress is the Government making towards its target of 6500 Modern Apprenticeships by June 2004? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that we have met—and in fact exceeded—this target reaching 6580 Modern Apprenticeships by 31 March 2004. This is as members can see pleasing as Modern Apprenticeships are a vital part of achieving our goal that by 2007 all 15 to 19-year-olds will be engaged in appropriate education training or work so that they can make a contribution to resolving the skills shortage caused by the National Government’s repeal of the Apprenticeship Act in 1992. Tomorrow I will announce further funding for this fantastic policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have had a little bit too much noise on both sides. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has been the public response to the Modern Apprenticeships scheme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is a very good question. Modern Apprenticeships has been warmly greeted by almost all quarters: industry training organisations business leaders schools mayors parents and the learners themselves. I say almost all quarters however because one organisation said: “The sooner we get rid of it the better.” It called it a hoax and a sham and predicted that it would get no one into work. That was the National Party who if it were in power would repeal the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act of 2000 by lunchtime. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know what has come over members on a Wednesday but they seem a bit noisier.
Carter John: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Carter John: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3883] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the member’s speech but there are two points with regard to the point of order exchanges that have occurred that I want to remind the Committee of.  
Firstly Mr Copeland raised a point of order with regard to relevance. I think it is appropriate at this stage to remind the Committee that when members raise points of order of that nature they must be seen not to challenge the Chair. It is your prerogative alone as Chair to decide whether the member is relevant and it is your prerogative alone to draw that to the attention of the member and the Committee. The second point I want to make is with regard to the issue that was raised by the senior Government whip and that is the matter of exchange between whips particularly. Although it is true that we must take care to ensure we do not interfere with other speeches as we are carrying out our duties as whips in the Parliament there is a longstanding convention that whips acting in that capacity are unseen. So it is important that that convention remains because we do have duties that are peculiar and particular to the Parliament and the running of it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. I think those points have been covered. The member raised a correct point of order.
Vote: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Vote: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18907] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
Brownlee Gerry: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
[Volume:617;Page:12540] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I noticed during the taking of that vote that you took some advice from the Clerk and then required the Labour Party to change its vote from 51 to 52. Are we to take it that for parliamentary purposes—a mechanism used in the past in a previous term of Parliament—Tariana Turia remains a member of the Labour Party at this point?
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20391] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 On the basis of that objection to clause 67 I object to clause 68 as clause 68 cannot stand without clause 67. 
Clauses 67 and 68 objected to and struck out of the bill and Part 12 as amended agreed to.
Barker Rick: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13151] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22221] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is ludicrous. Labour will be looking to the Greens to form a coalition Government after the election yet it turns the Greens down and treats them like some sort of doormat— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. The Government has made its objection quite clear.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18573] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:621;Page:16593] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House give us some indication of when he would expect the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to receive its second reading in the House and at what pace will it progress through its Committee stage towards a third reading?
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6887] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
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 the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 4(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b)(vi) of section 2(1) from the definition of  
goods 
.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7800] 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except Tim Barnett”.
Mackey Moana: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9454] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill which forms part of an important strategy by this Government to combat burglary. This Government recognises that criminals start off with burglary and often escalate on to far more serious crimes including sexual and violent crimes as my colleague from United Future Marc Alexander pointed out. Therefore extending the ability of police to take DNA samples from burglary suspects is a vital component of attacking burglary. If those criminals are dealt with at that stage in their criminal careers or if they do go on to later offend they are more likely to be picked up further down the track. 
DNA technology has moved on significantly since 1995 and this bill reflects that. At that time it was thought that only blood would give accurate enough results in order to put someone in prison for a crime. The reality now is that buccal samples which are far less expensive and far less invasive are able to do that. This bill will provide police with an excellent resource for combating burglary and serious crime and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16146] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 4(1C)(c) in clause 6 be agreed to.
Fairbrother Russell: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19769] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill being referred to the Health Committee.
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6572] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We now have a really interesting situation. There was no objection taken during the speech to the comments which were well supported by Mr Edwin Perry from New Zealand First who knows the case that I am talking about. There was no objection at that time. I submit to you that your ruling has been totally in breach of the Standing Orders and the requirement to raise matters at the time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the matter has been dealt with. Offence was taken. The member has withdrawn and apologised. The matter has been dealt with.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12998] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Swain Paul: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 11 May 
Swain Paul: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 11 May 
[Volume:617;Page:12957] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer I gave concerning relationships between inmates and female corrections officers. On 11 May in answer to an oral question from Ron Mark MP I indicated that since December 1999 five female staff have been investigated for inappropriate romantic or sexual relationships with male inmates. I have since been advised that the figure is 17. Of the 17 one was dismissed eight resigned seven of the relationships were not proven while the staff members were employed and one is still under investigation. I apologise to the House for this error.
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19682] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 My point follows closely on the theme adopted by the member who has just resumed his seat. Madam Speaker I draw your attention to the definition of “leave” in Standing Order 3 which states that it “means permission to do something that is granted without a dissentient voice”. The Leader of the House suggested that his misuse of Standing Order 38 was OK because as he said all the other parties wanted to see that action happen. 
First I am not sure that that is true. As I understand it other parties were told: “If you don’t go along we’ll collapse it anyway.” So the consent or approval that he secured might have been against the background of a threat just to wield power. But that right to deny leave is in fact the right of any member who wants the House to continue; it is not the right of the parties. I think that until the Standing Orders decide that this Parliament is simply a congress of parties the Leader of the House should not use the argument that other party representatives were happy with his actions—and I am not sure that they were—to justify something. 
I urge you to invite him to consider this and suggest that he create a convention out of this incident that the House cannot be collapsed unilaterally and adhere to it.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees 
[Volume:625;Page:20573] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee last week I seek leave for the Fiscal Strategy Report 2005 and the Economic and Fiscal Update 2005 to stand referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee once they have been tabled on Thursday.
Benson-Pope David: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11020] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am delighted to have a further opportunity to rise in support of this legislation.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13024] 
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 Judith Collins to clause 55 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)As soon as the manager informs the prisoner a copy should be sent to the prisoner’s victim(s) if those victim(s) have expressed an interest to be so informed.
Alexander Marc: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12676] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to address this member’s bill the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill. On reading this bill one cannot help agreeing—particularly having come from the Law and Order Committee today and having listened to some of the testimony from the Drug Rape Trust—that we desperately need to address this issue. We will not be supporting this bill however but only because the Government’s bill supersedes and expands on it. There is no point in supporting this bill which will only sit alongside the Government bill and occupy time that it need not. But that does not diminish for one iota the intent of this bill and the fact that we support there being a rational debate on and exploration into what can be done about something as reprehensible as the drugging and stupefying of people with the intent of committing rape or sexual connection. 
 When we consider just how disgusting and deplorable a crime like rape is on a person I do not see that there is much difference between drugging people stupefying them or holding a knife to their throat. The end result is pretty much the same. But this is the ability to drug people to the point that they can have loss of memory and loss of physical control so that in many cases they cannot even remember that they were a victim until quite some time later. Some of the effects show— 
Stephen Franks 
: What’s the difference? Alcohol does this. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Alcohol can do that. That has equally to be looked at as well. There is a combination of drugs and alcohol that can be used and have been used. The testimony that we listened to today for example pointedly showed the diabolical depths to which some people will go to stupefy an individual for their own sexual pleasure and in a sense to cover up the trail of their crime—often by disabling the victim from being able to recognise that a crime has been committed until quite a long time afterwards. We heard testimony from a person that the commission of another event actually drew back her memory of the first event. There were traces of drugs in her system to prove the point. 
I think it is utterly despicable that people can get away with this and that we have not addressed it properly in the past. We have the Government’s bill to look at but we need to be very wary of how it is phrased because there are a lot of fishhooks in it at this stage. We hope that with some amendments and with a possible Supplementary Order Paper down the track it will be good workable legislation. 
United Future is not saying it will not support the intent of the bill; simply that in light of the fact that the Government’s own bill supersedes it there is absolutely no point in pursuing this particular legislative vehicle.
Ogilvy Bernie: Motions — Michael Campbell—2005 US Open 
Ogilvy Bernie: Motions — Michael Campbell—2005 US Open 
[Volume:627;Page:21738] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to pass on our pleasure in being able to congratulate Michael Campbell on winning the US Open and in so doing we support the motion moved by the Hon Trevor Mallard today. I have been told that golf is probably the biggest sport in New Zealand; if it is I am sure that many more people will play it whether very casually or even professionally in the future. That is always a great sign. I think it is correct for all of us to say today that Michael’s win is one of New Zealand’s greatest sporting achievements on top of it being of course as has been mentioned his personal triumph over many setbacks. So we thank Michael today for inspiring all of us here in New Zealand.
Mark Ron: Tabling of Documents — Question No 7 to Minister 22 July 
Mark Ron: Tabling of Documents — Question No 7 to Minister 22 July 
[Volume:610;Page:7211] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Yesterday in question time during question No 7 in reply to a supplementary question that I asked the Minister of Police said: “The police do not have quotas for traffic offences.” I seek the leave of the House to table a report in which Inspector Derek Erasmus from Canterbury discusses the new police policy of issuing one ticket per hour. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Pettis Jill: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8859] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I want to speak to Standing Order 139 “Acceptance of closure motion” because that is what the member is alluding to at the end point. I point out that standing up and telling the Chair how to do the job is quite unparliamentary and is relitigating a Standing Order that has been in place for as long as this Parliament has been around. There is no debate around a closure motion. Members should not direct the Chair how to execute the business but leave it to the Chair to decide.
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14263] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11753] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11372] 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to improve the quality of early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Government is investing an additional $2 million in three new early childhood centres of innovation. The new centres which will be in addition to the six begun last year will strengthen the quality of early childhood education by encouraging provider collaboration facilitating networks of learning support building research capability sharing information and developing leadership. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is the Government focused on improving the quality of and increasing access to early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Early childhood education provides a foundation for future learning and makes a significant difference to the way children develop and achieve later in their lives. Research shows that access to quality early childhood education has the greatest benefit for children who are least likely to participate including those from low socio-economic rural Maori or Pasifika communities. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister confirm that kohanga reo funding is significantly less per student hour than kindergarten funding; and has the Minister heard from Dr Brash or Gerry Brownlee whether National would take immediate steps to increase kohanga reo funding to eradicate this race-based funding differential? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order. The second is not. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member is right—the hourly rate is lower. But the daily rate is higher so the member is only partially right. I would not hold my breath waiting for Dr Brash to go into bat for Maori. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee has just about reached the edge of the tolerance level as far as I am concerned. I have been pretty generous this week. 
Rod Donald 
: How is the quality of early childhood education being improved at those centres that currently adjoin or are based in classrooms of schools that he is planning to close? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not think there are any early childhood education centres on the sites of schools due for closure if one wants to be absolutely technically correct about it. I think it is probably a hypothetical question that we do not need to go into. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Would the Minister tell the House what the hourly student rate for kindergartens is and what the hourly student rate for kohanga reo is? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have those figures to hand but I can confirm that the hourly rate for kindergartens is higher than that for kohanga reo and I confirm that the average daily rate is higher for kohanga reo than that for kindergartens.