edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson H V Ross: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9916] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. Can I just say that the only person calling at that time was the honourable member Katherine Rich. Therefore she got the call. The Speaker can only give the call to a member who calls at that time. There the matter rests.
Robertson H V Ross: Urgent Debates — Solomon Islands—Deployment of Police and Military Forces  
Robertson H V Ross: Urgent Debates — Solomon Islands—Deployment of Police and Military Forces  
[Volume:609;Page:6711] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?
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:17026] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Mr Speaker you have been recalled on the motion of Dr Nick Smith. With respect to the Rt Hon Winston Peters I do not think that the Chair took the action because it was Mr Peters speaking. All through the Committee stage on this bill Mr Brownlee has raised points of order—at least half a dozen that I can think of—that were not points of order; they were points of debate. They were not terse points of order either. The Chair had warned Mr Brownlee about that. Mr Brownlee saw that the Chair was on her feet calling for order. He turned his back on the Chair and started addressing New Zealand First members in a way that was clearly going to incite their response.  
The senior Opposition whip accepted the decision of the Chair to eject Mr Brownlee. The senior Opposition whip did say though that New Zealand First members should not have been interjecting on a point of order. That is probably correct. With no explanation to the Committee Dr Smith then took it upon himself to move that you be recalled. The Government supported that as is parliamentary convention but I am at a loss to know exactly what the National Party is opposing given that Mr Brownlee was warned several times. The Chair acted on that and I think the action she took was entirely appropriate. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I rise to add further to the explanation offered by the junior Government whip in respect of the incident currently before us. Mr Brownlee’s reaction to the comments made by New Zealand First interjectors came about from a series of interjections that were from my recollection directed towards Mr Brownlee prior to the Chair ruling on whether he had correctly raised a point of order in the terms laid out in the Standing Orders. It was those interjections that then created an unruly atmosphere in which Mr Brownlee strongly responded.  
Mr Speaker if you are ruling on conduct in the Chamber I would also urge you to make clear to the Committee what is expected when a point of order is initially taken and prior to the point where the Chair has ruled on whether it is a point of order that interjections are not allowed at that point as well.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18852] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 6 agreed to.
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:6888] 
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.
Tizard Judith: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: 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 JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8558] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill this afternoon because early childhood education is one of the most critical areas of education. As I have said for many years it is the foundation upon which the rest of a child’s education is built. From my personal experience the day our son started kindergarten I was co-opted on to a kindergarten committee and I was still on a school committee when he was at university so I served a good apprenticeship and I gained a great deal from it. As a consequence I have always had an interest in early childhood education. 
Phil Heatley 
: Did you do any painting? 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes I did occasionally do painting and I love play dough. I have to say after listening to Mr Heatley that he had to struggle to find something to say against in this bill. It was arduous and it was torturous for us to listen to him. I suspect that his heart really was not in his speech. 
This bill is a good bill. It is forward-looking and as the Minister of Education said in his introductory comments it will ensure that the Government and the early childhood development unit work closely together and that is basically about improving young people’s educational chances. The integration of the agency staff into the ministry will enable everyone who works in the area to work closely alongside each other and that is incredibly important. We are talking about collaboration we are talking about cooperation and we are talking about having a strong early childhood education unit. 
As I said at the beginning of my speech early childhood education is the foundation upon which young people’s education is based. This Government has contributed an extra $55 million over the next 4 years to early childhood education because we recognise the importance of that part of the sector. This bill will ensure that there is a cohesive integrated and streamlined approach to the early childhood education strategy with all the relevant education experts in the public service under one roof. And there are many experts in the early childhood sector. I just wish that more people in greater education circles were fully aware of the expertise that does exist within the early childhood area. I extend my appreciation to those experts.
Benson-Pope David: Third Readings 
Benson-Pope David: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17963] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am pleased to support the legislation.
Cullen Michael: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
Cullen Michael: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
[Volume:619;Page:14717] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a message from a range of prominent New Zealanders representing a very large range of organisations that expresses support for the move taken by Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ensure that that message is also included in the letter to the Speaker of the Knesset. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11715] 
7.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: What were the key findings of the Department of Labour’s evaluation of the paid parental leave scheme and what actions is she taking following those findings? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The evaluation of the current 12 weeks’ paid leave shows positive feedback from both employers and employees. The scheme has increased employees’ well-being and their feelings of being appreciated while employers have benefited from better staff retention. Following this I was delighted to announce with the Prime Minister recently that the eligibility and duration of paid parental leave is to be extended. 
Helen Duncan 
: Will the Minister outline to the House how the paid parental leave scheme is being extended? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The leave period will extend from 12 to 14 weeks phased in over 2 years. Parents will also be able to take paid parental leave if they have been in the same job for at least 6 months rather than 1 year as at present. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why is it considered too difficult to extend paid parental leave to self-employed mothers when the Government already extends accident compensation cover to self-employed mothers? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The principles of paid parental leave are to assist parents to bond with their new baby and to offer financial support and job security to those parents. The delivery of those principles to the self-employed is my No. 1 priority piece of work in this area. 
Helen Duncan 
: Who will benefit most from the extension to the scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: This will be equally beneficial for families and for businesses. Because businesses have to compete internationally for skilled employees it is important that New Zealand employees’ quality of life matches that of other developed countries; so the scheme will also be of benefit to our country as a whole.
Donnelly Brian: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22100] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave on behalf of the New Zealand First members to split our vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That is the way we will proceed.
Benson-Pope David: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9286] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill.
Simich Clem: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17286] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I go to the next part I note that there seemed to be some surprise that I took the closure on Part 1. I gave it a lot of consideration actually. I did think that that particular part was constraining members because they were wandering fairly widely in a way that I thought would be more appropriate to Part 2. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. While you are making that point of clarification in respect of the closure motion I wonder if you could advise the House whether in fact that was the first closure that was sought. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes it was. That is why I commented on it. To save members continually repeating themselves I thought we would move to Part 2. I thought that was appropriate.
Shirley Ken: Motions — Crop and Food Research—Air Accident 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shirley Ken: Motions — Crop and Food Research—Air Accident 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6038. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand also endorses this motion as our expression of sorrow and condolences to the friends colleagues loved ones and families of those who have been lost—the seven executives of the Crown research institute Crop and Food Research and also the pilot Michael Bannerman. We also have feelings for the two survivors Richard Barton and Tim Lindley. Those two survivors will need to live with their loss and their sorrow as they mourn their colleagues. In particular I would like to comment on Michael Bannerman. His mother is well known to my wife and me. She lived in Tauranga up until very recently and moved to Christchurch just a few months back to be with her family. I know that she will take this loss very hard.
Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13368] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report on the bill by 9 August 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any 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).
Wong Pansy: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3834] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 This bill passed unanimously in the select committee. With that I think the title itself probably to a certain extent did not quite inform the public as to what is in the bill. All the parties in the select committee agree to this amendment. It is to correct a situation to properly reflect the changing of time in terms of recognising that people who subscribed to the Government Superannuation Fund in the past should not have been disadvantaged when there was a change in the marital status of the surviving spouse. The fact that the amendment is in the year 2002 is quite appropriate because time has moved on. The social conditions and the public expectation of an individual’s arrangement of his or her private life should not have been disadvantaged.  
We are glad to say that the National Party also supports the passage of this bill. The only question we want to raise and we want to raise it quite a bit concerns the lack of consultation on this particular bill particularly when we consider that the title is only the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill was distributed to a few relevant organisations. One of those organisations the National Council of Women wrote back and complained quite bitterly about the lack of consultation that was accorded this bill. The council said in its submissions to the select committee that it regretted it was not given that time and also that there was no invitation to the parties who are party to the consultation to make oral representations to the select committee. 
So I guess the point I raise is that if we are passing a bill through the Parliament that has the word “amendment” in its title it is quite a significant change in a positive way. Maybe in future the Parliament should consider allowing submissioners a much longer time frame and the opportunity for them to appear in person before the select committee to make their views known. In future maybe a title such as the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) might have a subtitle to let potential submissioners know a little bit more with regard to what the bill is about. It could be helpful in terms of indicating whether submissioners want to make substantial submissions to the bill or otherwise.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10018] 
3.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What action has been taken to strengthen the capacity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to promote New Zealand’s economic and security interests? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Following a recent capability review of the ministry’s needs and resources Cabinet has agreed to inject significant additional resources into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This will result in further funding this year of $6.22 million rising to an extra $22.77 million a year within 4 years. This will allow the ministry among other things to further promote New Zealand’s trading opportunities to strengthen cooperation with regional partners on security issues and to improve consular services to New Zealanders. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What sorts of things will this additional funding allow the ministry to do that would not otherwise have been possible? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The problem the ministry had is that while more and more was being asked of it funding cuts and economic constraints in the 1990s had run down its capacity to effectively promote New Zealand’s interests internationally. That is well documented in annual reports in almost every year under the last Government. The new funding will help with things like better meeting staffing needs helping skill-training capacity particularly in language training delivering information technology requirements helping exporters in traditional and emerging markets and helping ordinary New Zealanders requiring consular assistance. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with former New Zealand Ambassador to the US Denis McLean when he said recently: “We need to think about our shared strategic interests with Australia much more than we do”; if so how is this Government strengthening New Zealand’s capacity on security interests specifically with Australia? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government has done an enormous amount to improve its strategic relationship with Australia. 
Richard Worth 
: What? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member is so ignorant that he asks “What?” I wonder where he was when the war was happening in East Timor in the Solomon Islands and in Bougainville. Clearly there has been close cooperation between the two countries. Of course as Richard Worth knows—because he pointed out how the defence forces had been so run down under his own party in power—we have done a lot more to put funds into the defence forces.
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8810] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am trying to work out what Part 2 is. What do you believe it to be? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Part 2 is clauses 3 to 7A. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I suggest to you that I have not seen a bill put out in the way that this one is. It appears to me— 
Peter Brown 
: If you haven’t we haven’t. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I have not either. It appears that it is an attempt by the Government to limit debate. If I understand it correctly a part by part motion has been moved. If that is the case when we look at the bill we see we have Part 2 clause 3 and then a Part 1 with clauses 4 to 7A. We then have a Part 3 and a Part 2A. I put it to you that the instruction to the Committee was to take the bill part by part and therefore what we should do is to have a debate now on Part 2 which is clause 3. Then we should go back to something that is headed Part 1. Although the fact is that Part 1 follows Part 2 nothing in the Standing Orders states that there should not be a separate debate on it. We have said we would consider the bill part by part and those are separate parts. The Government cannot just renumber parts and then limit debate. From your point of view Madam Chair you should adopt whatever ruling enables the Committee to debate the bill to the greatest possible extent. So I suggest to you that the proper debate that we should now have is on Part 2 which is clause 3.
Ward Mike: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ward Mike: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9872] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 We support the bill. It is good legislation by and large but we are still concerned about clause 8 which inserts a new section 20(1)(ga) into the Dog Control Act requiring dogs to be implanted with a microchip transponder for the purposes of permanent identification. The other day the Minister said that the cost of the registration would fall on too few dog owners and in fact the cost of requiring every dog to be implanted will fall on all dog owners. The cost of the registration would have been on all dogs anyway and the national register would have been on all dogs and it will be I presume from the commencement of this bill. I am not quite sure when the national register comes into force but I imagine that it will come into force from the date the bill is enacted. It is an issue that some people feel particularly sensitive about and I hasten to add that I am aware it is a very small device— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That will be more appropriately discussed under Part 4. We are on Part 2 at the moment which has four clauses. 
MIKE WARD 
: Section 20(1)(ga)—clause 8? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Clauses 5 to 8. 
MIKE WARD 
: We believe that dog control is quite possible under existing rules. I said the other day the offences that occur are more frequently about law badly applied not bad law. In fact the new law tweaks the old law and puts some important new pieces in. However dog control can be quite well carried out under the present law without microchipping. Our concern remains. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Burton Mark: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12416] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am just explaining to the Committee what the intention is once the House is resumed.
Beyer Georgina: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3539] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill. It is worth reiterating some of the key objectives of this bill. We have to maintain law enforcement and national security capabilities in an environment of rapid changes in technology. Thus we need to require telecommunications companies to provide interception capability for e-communications. We are doing this in a highly targeted way eroding neither privacy nor basic individual rights and in a way that is in tune with the Government’s aim of an innovative society. I commend this bill going through to the select committee. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Law and Order Committee. referred to the Law and Order Committee
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5994] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a study by Ross Garnaut Professor of Economics at the Australian National University titled  
Australian Security and Free Trade with America 
 which concludes the claimed gains from a US-Australian free-trade agreement— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Responses — Mr T R Harrison BEM JP 
Responses — Mr T R Harrison BEM JP 
[Volume:615;Page:10861] 
Responses 
Mr T R Harrison BEM JP 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 161 to 163 on the application of Mr T R Harrison BEM JP relating to statements made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP on 26 August 2003. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16190] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cosgrove Clayton: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3807] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Dail: General Debates 
Jones Dail: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6157] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member but he seemed to be speaking about a Family Court conference. I would like you to consider whether hearings at a Family Court conference are privileged and confidential. Normally it would be a breach of privilege to comment on something that has taken place in that way in front of a court especially with names being mentioned. Perhaps you could look at the  
Hansard  
and give some consideration to whether we are now entitled to make speeches about what happens at a Family Court conference— 
Marc Alexander 
: It wasn’t the Family Court. 
DAIL JONES 
: It was a victims-type conference or whatever the member’s exact wording was. I am just a little concerned about that.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a valid concern. I will have it checked out but it seemed all right to me. It was not a Family Court conference.
Pettis Jill: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Pettis Jill: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13494] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliamentary Accountability—Ministerial Statements 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliamentary Accountability—Ministerial Statements 
[Volume:627;Page:21917] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: May I invite the member to write to me on this matter so that I can consider it then.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7635] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members will have a chance to debate that. The Solicitor-General however eminent does not rule Parliament; the Speaker does.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19199] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Interpretation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time.
Hartley Ann: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15996] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand and withdraw that remark. 
Jill Pettis 
: I am sorry. I apologise. I withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just make this absolutely clear again to Mr Sowry. He is quite wrong in his assertion about consecutive calls and how I have called them in the past. If he goes back to check  
Hansard 
 he will see that he is absolutely wrong. 
Progress reported.
King Annette: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8141] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I totally agree with the member who has just resumed her seat that no one should practise outside his or her scope of practice. The member said that it happens every day now and she wondered what would happen in the future. Although this part does not deal with scopes of practice it is important that the Medical Council the Nursing Council and the councils that govern most of our health professionals have worked out and have been working out what those scopes of practice are so there can be no confusion as to what a person is being asked to do. No council should allow health practitioners whether they are doctors or nurses to work outside their scope of practice. But how does one know what his or her scope of practice is unless that council has a very clear idea? That was one of the issues that was debated earlier. The Medical Council and the Nursing Council have a very clear idea of what those scopes of practice are. They have worked very hard on scopes of practice. Many of the other professions that come under this bill have also worked hard on those. 
However this part is about appeals and the member raised the issue that courts of law would be used to make decisions. I am sure that the Medical Council told the member that when it met me it said that often it is before the courts right now. The council goes before the court when there is a disagreement by a health practitioner who believes that it has not made the right decision. In fact at this very moment there is an overseas doctor—a surgeon I believe—before the courts. It is common practice. What the courts do—and what the Medical Council believes will continue to happen—is listen to the practice of the Medical Council and what is the practice of the council that is responsible for the registration and competency of its health practitioners. They listen to the Medical Council and that has been the case for many years. Members of the Medical Council told me they have no doubt that that is what will continue in the future.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Japan—Parliamentary Delegation from the House of Councillors 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Japan—Parliamentary Delegation from the House of Councillors 
[Volume:620;Page:15653] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the House of Councillors Japan led by Mr Hirofumi Nakasone is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Burton Mark: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8405] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Matters Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any 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 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c) 
. referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee
Cullen Michael: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7928] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave that notwithstanding Standing Order 145(1)(b) the votes cast for each party on any vote on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill may include votes cast for the Ayes Noes and Abstentions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. It will be so followed.
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:20974] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10329] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to thank the previous speaker for her voice of reason that was incredibly important to have around the table when the Health Committee listened to expert advice and ministry advice and also all the submissions on this bill. I would also like to thank Judy Turner and Heather Roy who put a different perspective into this bill. All of us had one shared concern and that is to develop very robust cervical-screening legislation. I think we have run into a few problems since— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. It has just been drawn to my attention that the member has already spoken on this piece of legislation and is therefore unable to do so on this occasion.
Peck Mark: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12138] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:623;Page:18881] 
1.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Sevices Committee 
: Was the committee granted a 3-month extension of the report-back date for the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill following calls for wider consultation with families and workers associated with sheltered workshops? 
GEORGINA BEYER (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee that the House by leave agreed on 18 November 2004 that the time by which the committee must finally report the bill be extended from 25 November 2004 to 31 March 2005. The reasons for the committee requesting the Leader of the House to seek that leave remain strictly confidential to the committee. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Was a newspaper advertisement the only form of consultation with the families of people who attend sheltered workshops; if not what other process was used for consultation with individuals and their families? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: Newspapers were one method of communicating with the public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no further supplementary questions. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member did not answer the question fully. She answered only the first part in saying that the newspaper advertisement was one process that was used. She did not stipulate what other process was used for consultation which was the question I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: She addressed the question.
Swain Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16151] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 In comparison with Part 1 which was quite a substantive part this is a very very small part. In fact it is all of about nine lines. This part brings itself into line with clause 32 which has just been passed by the Committee. I can recall having sat here for the entire time that no one spoke on clause 32 and there are no amendments to clause 32. 
 This part is a small amendment to the Health and Safety in Employment Act. It simply states that the Minister may approve occupational health and safety training which I am sure every member of the House supports— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well most sensible members of the House would support that. Clause 97 simply provides that the Minister may approve occupational health and safety training and that it does not have to be done by notice in the  
Gazette 
. It could be notified in the  
Gazette 
 or over the radio or in newspapers or on the Internet. This brings the provision in line with clause 32 which we have already passed. This is a very very small part and notwithstanding some initiative within the Opposition debating team I expect there will be relatively limited discussion on it.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7148] 
12.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s initiatives to support conservation on private land? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I have received a communication from the Yellow-eyed Penguin Trust in Dunedin conveying its delight at the success of its recent application to the Government’s biodiversity condition and biodiversity advice funds. The trust has been granted $220000 to actively promote colonies of this threatened species and to work with volunteers and landowners committed to penguin protection. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister also detail the interest that has been shown in the biodiversity condition and biodiversity advice funds? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: There has been an outstanding interest with 148 applications in the latest funding round. Fifty-eight groups were successful and $3 million has now been allocated. Notable projects were the fencing of Lake Omapere in Northland goat control in Banks Peninsula and a major river restoration initiative led by the Tuhoe iwi. 
Shane Ardern 
: In the light of excellent reports that the Minister has received about farmers and their work in conservation when will he instruct the Department of Conservation to rise to the standard that farmers have set and when will he fund it to do so? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am pleased to report that under this Government a $187 million biodiversity fund has been set up. Department of Conservation funding has increased by over 30 percent. Naturally of course we would like more resources but we are very grateful for those that we have received. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does any funding to support conservation on private land address the issue of providing funding support for the mandatory establishment of riparian strips on private lands around water bodies the conservation values of which are being severely affected by the activities on those lands as in the cases of Lake Rotoiti and Lake Rotoehu; if not does the Minister believe funding should be able to be allocated for such purposes? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can report that landowners adjacent to Lake Rotoiti or indeed any other waterway in the country can apply for funding to help fence their lands.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Floods Lower North Island—Government Response Minister of Immigration — Resignation 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Floods Lower North Island—Government Response Minister of Immigration — Resignation 
[Volume:615;Page:11224] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The other two subjects both relate to particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Not all ministerial resignations lead to an urgent debate but I accept that in the circumstances of this one there are grounds for a debate today. The announcement from the Minister of Education on the school review programme is also of sufficient importance to justify a debate today. Thus I have two subjects that would justify a debate today. In those circumstances I have to choose under Standing Order 375 which subject should be given priority as the most urgent and important. It seems to me that a change in educational policy of this nature is in substance the more important of the two issues. With regard to the resignation two inquiries are in train. These may give rise to further information that the House can address in the future. I therefore give priority to the applications relating to the school review programme from the Hon Bill English Rod Donald and the Hon Brian Donnelly. As the first such application was from the Hon Bill English I call upon him to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
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:7801] 
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 the Hon Taito Phillip Field”.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:612;Page:9336] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the Counter-Terrorism Bill the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill the Retirement Villages Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Wine Bill the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) and of any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
Urgency is being moved in order to gain extra sitting hours so as to enable a range of Government business to be dealt with by the House before rising for a short adjournment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Jones Dail: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15204] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is a separate issue altogether. I think the point of order is very clear. We all knew what was happening. We all knew that Mrs Pettis was going to stand up to put the motion. Before you started to put the question Mr Peters was on his feet to raise a point of order. I think that it was your responsibility to deal with the point of order before you put the question otherwise it creates a certain impression for some members of this House. I believe that that is your obligation and perhaps the Speaker might cast a view on it as well. Surely your obligation in this House is to listen to what is happening in the Committee. If a member raises a point of order you must deal with that first otherwise a question of partisanship may crop up. 
Clearly that is what happened in this case. Mr Peters was well and truly on his feet. I suspect that other members of this Committee were on their feet as well. I kept my eye on Mr Peters knowing his experience—knowing that he knew what was going on and would take the appropriate action. Mr Chairperson I am afraid that you have fallen by the wayside on this one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I point out to the member Standing Order 138 which states: “If the Speaker accepts a closure motion a question is put on the closure and decided without amendment or debate.” That is where we are now. I have accepted a closure motion and that stands and I have made the ruling. I also refer members to Speaker’s ruling 58/3.
Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Procedure 
Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:611;Page:8740] 
Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee must finally report the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill to be extended to 13 October 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.