edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Barker Rick: Visiting Forces Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Barker Rick: Visiting Forces Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12864] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Visiting Forces Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Locke Keith: Motions — Auckland Mosques—Attack 
Locke Keith: Motions — Auckland Mosques—Attack 
[Volume:627;Page:22029] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I first point out that there is a precedent. I mentioned in my introduction that we had a specific motion directed at the Jewish community over the desecration of their graves. It is true that there was objection at the Business Committee yesterday but I was phoned subsequent to the Business Committee meeting by a representative of the party that had objected the most who said that the party would not be objecting to this motion.
Pettis Jill: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9686] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
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:21015] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; 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 2 be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after the words “into force on” and substitute the words “1 July 2006”.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:626;Page:20925] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded 
. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15703] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12440] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For the purposes of clarity could I add the words “on average” to my question before the words “8.3”? I have just recognised that that would help to clarify it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not put leave. I will allow the member to do so.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18656] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I do not think that is necessary. I understand that this is a bill that most of the House wants to support. However as we have an interpreter in the Chamber I do not think it is at all unreasonable to ask for a translation of the recital (10A) Maori text in order to verify that it will be recital (12) in the English text. I think we are entitled to ask for that and I cannot see why the Chairperson would not want to grant it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is quite right. But the matter is still a debating issue not a point of order and I cannot direct that that course of action be taken; nor do I wish to be given the explanation from the Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is only about six lines. Just translate it.
Hartley Ann: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10113] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: New schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171 in the name of Rod Donald has been vetoed. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Taxation (GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2003-04) Bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 169. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4420] 
1.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
: Has a committee meeting been set to consider the petition of Kenneth Wang and others requesting a review of the new English Language immigration tests? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee): 
 No. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: When will the committee hear that petition and is it his intention to invite receive and hear submissions from new migrants most of whom have been outraged by the exclusive policies of this Government? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the first part of the question is in order; the second is not. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I cannot give the member a precise date on which the committee will hear the petition. We have a lot of work ahead of us at the moment. But I can assure him that at some appropriate time we will hear that petition. 
Pansy Wong 
: In the light of the Hon Peter Dunne’s previous answer on 20 February regarding the Prime Minister’s statement of 2001 that a tough English-language test has an adverse impact on immigration can he confirm that the Prime Minister will have the opportunity to give evidence on her statement to support those petitions in front of the committee; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is a matter for the committee. It is not a matter for this House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I was reading my question the Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel interjected on me and attempted to correct my pronunciation of “Kenneth Wong”. It may look like “Wang” but one pronounces it “Wong”. I suggest she does language test training. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK that is one all.
Chadwick Steve: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15079] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a short turn on this bill. I want to hearken back to my experience with Mr Tanczos the proposer of the bill when we were on the cannabis inquiry. We heard submissions from people in Opotiki a very deprived area who said that if we gave them a decent crop they would grow it. Those cannabis growers knew how to turn their hand to produce a horticultural crop that was against the law and they said that if we gave them a decent crop that would give them an economic return and that would survive in local conditions they would grow it. They said that they needed to make money out of their toil. And here that crop is: hemp. I find it very interesting that the Opposition still carries a little bit of weighted concern about hemp linking it with nothing but problems instead of seeing nothing but opportunities from that crop. 
I congratulate the Minister of Health on supporting the trials for the growth of hemp. I refer to an article in the  
Independent 
 in June this year on the enormous opportunities from hemp. Mr Tanczos mentioned them but the  
Independent 
 stated that the fibre in the bark of hemp is as strong as fibreglass and could be used for surfboards skateboards and all sorts of products. In fact Mercedes-Benz uses it for dashboards and door panels. It is much better than other plastic composites. Hemp is a product that we in New Zealand must look at in more depth Along with the trials that we agree to we do need to do more research. The only unfortunate thing is that hemp has to be grown to see its cannabinoid component and it then needs to be tested to see whether it exceeds 0.3 percent. That is our problem at the moment. 
But hemp is an opportunity waiting to happen. I am glad that the Minister leant her weight behind the trials. I think we will see a great economic opportunity for New Zealand in the future. I hope hemp turns round the prosperity of areas like Opotiki.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7308] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I guess what you are saying is as usual correct. But it was not a Labour Party question; it was Dianne Yates’ question. If she did not know about it and approve it before it went in then that shows that the Government whips are abusing the process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That might be the member’s spin on that particular thing and he has made that point. However nothing that I have said today is out of order with the rules of the House.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11505] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Prebble has covered the innuendo raised by Mr Mallard about my tabling of a document. I raise the additional point that Mr Mallard called me a liar certainly within your earshot as he sat in his chair. That further compounds the problem raised by Mr Prebble. It is not my intention to allow Trevor Mallard to bully me into submission or this side of the House. I am sure he will continue to use those tactics; however we will need your intervention as Speaker sometimes to ensure that he is required to comply with the conventions of this House. One convention is that if a member labels another member a liar that has to be withdrawn and there has to be an apology. He then also has to withdraw and apologise for the matter raised by Mr Prebble.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:606;Page:3257] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised in writing by the leader of ACT that Donna Awatere-Huata has been suspended from the ACT caucus. This is an internal disciplinary matter for the ACT party and what it entails in respect of ACT caucus activity is a matter for ACT to determine not for me as Speaker. As Speaker I am concerned with the House’s rules relating to parties. A suspension of a member from caucus effects no change in a party’s parliamentary membership. For parliamentary purposes Donna Awatere-Huata remains a member of ACT. She is to be seated within the area of seating allocated to ACT—though precisely which ACT seat she occupies is a matter for the leader of ACT to determine. She is also to be included in the party vote totals cast for ACT unless she votes contrary to ACT. In that case she may cast a separate vote—see Standing Order 145(1)(d). In sum as far as the Standing Orders are concerned a member’s suspension from a party caucus has no effect on the party’s standing in the House.
Peters Winston: Business of the House 
Peters Winston: Business of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:20495] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make this very clear by way of an explanation. There is a matter on the Order Paper today for example that appeared out of thin air and my party knew nothing as to why. The Privileges Committee report appeared on the Order Paper without being discussed with us. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The explanation is that the Standing Orders provides for that the Clerk has advised. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I thank my colleagues for that vote but I say that I had other things on tonight. I had people here this afternoon whom I needed in respect of this debate. I am sorry that members of the only party in this House to oppose my having leave when they were put to the test tonight did not bother even to open their mouths. They have wasted everybody’s time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order.
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Tabling of Document—Hon Phil Goff 
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Tabling of Document—Hon Phil Goff 
[Volume:627;Page:22262] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the conclusion of the last debate the Hon Phil Goff was waving around an official document and quoting from it. I request that he table that document.
Worth Richard: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
Worth Richard: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16816] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the issues that will be of interest to National and I invite the Minister in his comments to refer to it is whether there should be some form of direction that if leave is granted and this Supplementary Order Paper goes to the relevant select committee then there will be from that select committee a call for public submissions—a call that submissions will be received and submissions will be heard. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a question for debate.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17104] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 67 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a).
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18738] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I note that I brought these matters up at the time when the Leader of the House gave the business statement to the House. I suggested that the issue needed to be the subject of quite an important decision by the House Business Committee. Subsequent to that I have realised that we are in a very interesting position because the next meeting of that committee will be the last that you attend as Speaker. Also the Business Committee does not meet until 4.30 on the Tuesday when the House will be expected according to the business statement to have begun consideration of that bill. This is not a minor matter. What a bill should do is clearly state the Government’s intention. This bill does not clearly signal in all cases on all matters what the Government wants. That is the point Mr Prebble makes. I wonder whether it may be possible for the Leader of the House to give us an undertaking that the bill will not come back to the House until the Business Committee has met and has been able to consider further the matters that have been raised through various points of order since last Tuesday evening.
Fairbrother Russell: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7317] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5990] 
6.  
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What progress has been made towards determining the content of the 2006 census? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Decisions on census content are made by the Government Statistician. His autonomy is jealously guarded; so is his integrity. Recently Statistics New Zealand released its report  
Preliminary Views on Content  
for the 2006 census. This document is the basis for further consultation and public submissions. Submissions on census content close on 27 June this year. A final decision on the proposed content will be released in October. 
Dianne Yates 
: Does Statistics New Zealand’s release of its preliminary views on the census content mean that decisions on the content have been predetermined? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No the contents will be determined only after the submission process is completed and the views arising from that process are analysed. It is important to note that the content of the 2001 census did change from that proposed in Statistics New Zealand’s preliminary views. I encourage those interested in the census content to make a submission.
Tisch Lindsay: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22085] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the National Party to cast a split vote in this debate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose.
Ryall Tony: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Ryall Tony: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9391] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It may be appropriate for you to take advice from the Clerk about the motion that has just been moved because I think it is incorrect. I point out that the Opposition has been denied an opportunity to participate in the second reading debate. If you recall—and Minister Tizard had just indicated this—that after she spoke last week in the second reading I stood and had about a minute and a bit of a response as the senior Opposition member on this bill. The House then adjourned during my contribution. 
Brent Catchpole 
: That’s correct. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is correct as Mr Catchpole confirms. The appropriate order would have been for the Speaker to say: “Interrupted debate on the second reading and the Hon Tony Ryall has 3 or 4 minutes to complete his speech.” The Speaker did not say that. In my discussion with the Clerk as the Speaker was leaving the Chamber he indicated there was no record of my having taken that call last week. The Opposition wants to participate in a report-back debate on this bill and I ask you to take the advice of the House because I believe we have moved into the Committee stage inappropriately.
Alexander Marc: Financial Review Debate 
Alexander Marc: Financial Review Debate 
[Volume:607;Page:4184] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I wish to address the Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill in connection with the police. But first of all I would like to respond to an extraordinary comment made by the Hon Jim Anderton earlier today. I still cannot believe that I heard it right that he thought tax cuts were a subsidy. How on earth can tax cuts be a subsidy? Tax cuts are about allowing people to keep more of what they have earned. This is not a subsidy from anybody. In fact the reverse is true. Increased taxation either through inflation creep or any other mechanism is nothing more than legitimised theft and this is something we have to get across. 
In connection with prisons there is an ideological shift on the part of the Government to decide that there should not be any private prisons. Why? Private prisons overseas both in America and in Australia have returned a much better result. There are greater efficiencies they are cheaper and they provide better services. United Future is backing a balance between Government involvement and private enterprise—the one to keep the other honest. I cannot believe that the prison system will be held ransom to an ideology that is outdated and outmoded and that comes from the very kind of thinking that suggests tax cuts are a subsidy. They are not a subsidy. Tax cuts ought to be returned to the people who create the wealth of this country and as I said a little earlier an extension of taxation through inflation creep is actually legitimised theft. 
I will have a look at prisons which is really the primary purpose of my being here. In December 2000 the police published  
People in Policing: a Five Year HR Strategy to 2006 
. The aims were policing capability deployment leadership and management development. But we have staff shortages most particularly in Auckland. Between $600000 and $800000 was spent on recruitment—that is police training programmes to attract 17 to 21-year-olds. But what about the wealth of experience of the police who are leaving? We are losing police with experience. We are trying to get police from the United Kingdom. Against this backdrop the police annual report recorded that violence has grown by 2 percent following an 8.6 percent increase in the previous year. The Centre for International Crime Prevention found New Zealand to have the worst rate for total recorded crimes of 82 countries surveyed. We had 11152 offences committed for every 100000 people and that was in the year 2000. Our greatest increase in rates of violent crime is in the Auckland region and guess what? That is where the police shortages are. 
But not all is doom and gloom. Christchurch has recently turned round some of these statistics. Violent attacks have gone down 13 percent dwelling burglary is down 14 percent and non-dwelling burglary is down 17 percent. We can do it but we need more resources.
Peck Mark: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peck Mark: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11455] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15194] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to.
Ririnui Mita: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20543] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced to the House on 5 April 2005 and referred to the Health Committee with a report due by 28 May 2005. The shortened period for select committee consideration was due to the need for the bill to be enacted before the current controls on xenotransplantation end with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act on 30 June 2005. The Health Committee presented its report on the bill on Wednesday 4 May 2005 and I thank that committee for its prompt consideration of the bill. 
Xenotransplantation is the transplantation of living biological material from one species to another. Recent advances in technology have increased the possibility of successful xenotransplantation and stimulated research in that area. Current controls were introduced in response to potential safety concerns around xenotransplantation. The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill extends the period of controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006 with the ability for that date to be extended by Order in Council if necessary. I commend the bill to the House.
Hughes Darren: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17078] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson you decide on who gets the call at the conclusion of a speech by a member standing up and seeking the call and by you recognising that person. You do not determine who gets the call by way of points of orders from members who give an opinion on who they think you should call next. Members should now seek the call and you should decide on who gets it in that way not by points of order.
Turei Metiria: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10684] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill to the select committee. We are taking a position consistent with our original support for the first bill which enabled a levy on private providers and the export education industry. We consider it appropriate that there be such a levy. 
We are interested in hearing from submitters the various issues that are raised around the activities of the industry and the attempts that industry is making to ensure that it protects the students for whom it charges fees and things. We are also interested in finding out whether the levy is performing the functions—and providing the protections—for the students that it was originally intended to do. 
We do not consider it unscrupulous behaviour on the part of those companies that have failed but rather an unfortunate consequence of being involved in an industry such as this. We look forward to hearing from those companies and from those who remain successful about the nature of the export education levy and its effects on them. We will be supporting this bill.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
[Volume:620;Page:15867] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you to confirm one of your own rulings which you might find easy to do. Speaker’s ruling 148/2 states: “Anyone giving inaccurate information in a written reply should clear up the error as soon as he or she realises it has occurred.” I say to you that if the situation is that—and I am sure it is as that is how it has been given by my leader—an answer has been given by the Minister of Health saying that information is publicly available but in fact the Ministry of Health says that yes the information does exist but it is not publicly available then the answer was an error. That would be a matter that can be cleared up only by the Minister of Health rising in this House and apologising for having given such an answer. It is my understanding that a series of answers to written questions have been given by Ministers saying that information is readily available in annual reports. Many of those annual reports have not even been presented. Those answers are an error and those Ministers should all rise and apologise under your own ruling.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8811] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I concur with the point that was raised earlier. This bill is highly confusing in its drafting. We have had a title debate and a Part 1 debate and we now have a Part 2 debate beginning. However if you look at the way in which the bill is physically laid out you will see that “Part 1 Preliminary” and “Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act” are in bold type signalling that they are separating the bill out. “Part 1 Smoke-free workplaces and public areas” is equally in bold type and then we go to “Part 3 Other amendments”. On page 2 of the contents page “Part 2A Powers of enforcement officers” is in bold type. 
Either this is the most extraordinarily inept drafting that we have seen in a long time or it is a case of trying to stifle debate on what is not a particularly lengthy bill. As I look at the totality of the bill I see that if we were to take it clause by clause there are still only something like 12 clauses in the bill. We could be looking at 12 separate debates. According to the way in which the bill is crafted at the moment there will be something like four debates but then there are at least one or two other parts within parts. The issue that needs to be resolved—I think in the interests of good order as much as anything else given that this is a controversial and complex matter—is whether you will allow a separate debate as Mr Prebble has suggested on Part 2 on the new Part 1 and then on Part 3 and so on or whether you will rule that given the way in which the bill is drafted we should allow for the widest possible debate on whatever parts of the bill we are debating and that there will not be an early acceptance of closures. A range of views needs to be expressed. The bill is confusing in its drafting in just its physical layout for a start. Members have a right to debate these contentious issues thoroughly.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9887] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
[Volume:616;Page:12366] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am obliged to you for pointing out your Speaker’s ruling to me. I have now had a chance to read it. You are correct that that is not yet a convention in New Zealand but I point out that the ruling refers to a policy and in this case the Government is taking it another stage—this is actually legislation that the Government will table on Thursday. I note that the Leader of the House is shaking his head; no doubt he will be careful not to give the draft legislation to the media. It would be helpful Mr Speaker if you were to make a suggestion to the Government that the parliamentary thing for it to do if it has decided the policy on Wednesday is at least to make a ministerial statement on Wednesday so that the House can also know. It really is treating members of Parliament with contempt to inform the media then to advise the House that it will not let parliamentarians know what is in the bill until Thursday just before a 3-week adjournment. Perhaps the Leader of the House who is thinking of taking a call would give an indication that he was prepared at least to make a ministerial statement on Wednesday.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10530] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
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 174 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 2(1) be agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Income Tax Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Income Tax Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11793] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 There is nothing quite like following a National Party spokesperson talking about battling New Zealand families. The National Party uses every opportunity in this House to whinge and whine about the top tax rate because it hates paying more tax. Poor old John Key is down to his last three Jaguars because he has had to put up with the personal top tax rate. The only battlers National members care about are themselves. When the “deputy spokesperson on voodoo economics” over there on the Opposition benches criticises the tax legislation introduced by this Government it is a little bit rich. 
I have to confess that I have not read this bill. Members will see it sitting on the Table of the House. It is a huge two-volume document running to 3000 pages. However I do know that it rewrites tax legislation in the biggest way since 1916 into plain English. I know that only a few members of the House have read it—those who serve on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and I congratulate them on that. They have made some good recommendations to the House. It makes our tax law easier to follow. This is a great Government doing great things for ordinary people and I support the bill.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15299] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to Part 2 be agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5573] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You called “The Ayes have it.” then moved on. Your words were “The Ayes have it.” I am saying to you that either you seek the leave of the Committee to re-put the vote on the basis that as you have explained you got it wrong or we will have to get a Speaker’s ruling on whether that vote can be changed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say based on advice that if we have not moved on to the next question we can have a party vote to clarify the matter. So I am now seeking the leave of the Committee to carry out the party vote. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry; I do not need the leave of the Committee because I have not proceeded to the next question.
Wilson Margaret: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8985] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Supreme Court Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15240] 
9.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What recent reports has he received on proposed changes to the minimum wage? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I saw a report last week that opposes increasing the minimum wage because of its negative effect on employment. This report which is at odds with the fact that unemployment has plummeted while the minimum wage has increased comes from the leader of the National Party Don Brash. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has he seen about the correlation between changes in the minimum wage and changes in unemployment? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen a report from Treasury that found that following increases to the youth minimum wage by this Government the number of hours worked by young people has increased by 10 to 15 percent. I encourage Dr Brash to read the report before he announces any more silly policies. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree that low wages are a cost to the Government and that the Government is actually subsidising employers by providing additional income to low-income families through the family support package so that they can make ends meet? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. Low wages are not good for anyone but it is a fact that in our family support package there is some assistance in particular for low-income families so they can make ends meet. That is good for the families and good for the community.
Tisch Lindsay: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20976] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have ruled on this Mr Tisch. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I think this is a serious matter. Mr Alexander has brought up the issue and I reiterate the point we made before about the senior Government whip. She was pre-empting what the party votes would be and you have ruled on that. There is actually nothing different from what has now been happening where the senior Government whip has been pre-empting what the Clerk might call out when we are going for the votes. I find that unacceptable and I think that the ruling you made earlier that the whip cannot pre-empt what the Clerk may be calling out is the proper course of action to follow. If that was your ruling then we can move to a process of decorum in this Chamber which has been lacking this morning since we started at 9 o’clock. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Tisch. The matter has already been dealt with. The situation is that I had put the question on the amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14 to omit and substitute words in subclause (1).
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:616;Page:12365] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the answer to the question is that at the critical time when you would have been required by law to make a decision there was no need to make a decision and that was pointed out by me and others in this House before you made the decision. But the other question I want to ask is whether it is usual for a quasi-judicial decision to be made namely by yourself today and have people applaud it or are we going down the track of American behaviour in the courts?
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9389] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15653] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We notice that this question has survived today to go to the Prime Minister but we know in fact that it is to be answered by the Deputy Prime Minister—and he has just acknowledged that. We are wondering what the rules are for the transfer of questions. You will appreciate Mr Speaker that yesterday we set down pretty much the same question to the Prime Minister. She transferred it to the Acting Minister of Justice. We notice that the Acting Minister of Justice although he clearly did not answer yesterday and did not appear to know what was going on is in the House today yet the question has been left on the Order Paper in the name of the Prime Minister and is to be answered by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can we assume that if the Prime Minister cannot answer it and the Acting Minister to whom it is transferred makes a hash of it sooner or later it will end up with the Deputy Prime Minister and maybe we should just send the question there in the first place? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows the Standing Orders. He is just trifling with the House. It is at the discretion of the Government.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8487] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 109 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to clause 101(4) to (6) be agreed to.
O'Connor Damien: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10543] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17054] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 33 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(c)any other orders or findings as it considers appropriate under its inherent jurisdiction.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14468] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I would request that Dr Smith read out the very last paragraph of the article. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked—
Hide Rodney: Tabling of Documents — David Henderson—Letter Refuting Allegations 
Hide Rodney: Tabling of Documents — David Henderson—Letter Refuting Allegations 
[Volume:621;Page:16381] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a letter to Michael Cullen from Mr David Henderson and copied to me which clearly refutes the allegations Michael Cullen made against Mr Henderson on Tuesday and again yesterday. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5420] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Noes 46 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9358] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 164 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15614] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 257 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to Part 3 be agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17355] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Mackey Janet: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mackey Janet: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6297] 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15411] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Donald Rod: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Donald Rod: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17545] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to correct the previous vote. I have failed to cast a vote for Tariana Turia. She has confirmed with me that she wanted to vote against that previous amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It is altered accordingly. On that particular vote the Noes are now 74. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to the heading of clause 8A be agreed to.