edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19682] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The first point I make is that I made reference to this issue at the dinner last night for the Indonesian President largely to point out in a fairly sarcastic way that there were very few members of Parliament at the dinner. Furthermore there were even fewer Ministers at the dinner. So the question is: where were those Ministers? If they were in their offices working why could they not have been in Parliament working? Given that the business of the House would have been the select committee reports and the National Party had produced a speaking list that went well into that list of select committee reports the actual disruption to the dinner would have been minimal. 
The real point of Dr Nick Smith’s point of order was that there are numerous rights within the Standing Orders for members to exercise. If they were recklessly applied by all members of the House then there would be no business of the House. It is the conventions that apply to the way in which the Standing Orders are used that allow the House to do the business that members are elected to do. Dr Cullen has taken hold of a Standing Order which has never been used in this way before and grabbed powers for the Government that mean that Dr Cullen or Helen Clark or whoever might be running the country at the time would be the person who determines whether Parliament sits. That is unacceptable. It also cuts right across the rights of elected members which you particularly are charged with protecting. 
When we were told yesterday that there was a likelihood the Government would collapse the debate we assumed that meant what it usually means—that the Government would pull its speakers so that the time that is taken over any bill or discussion is reduced. At no point did we think it would mean that the Government would fail to provide a Minister to the House and effectively shut the place down. It is the use of Standing Order 38 to shut down Parliament for the convenience of the Government that causes the most concern for Opposition parties. The suggestion is that Dr Cullen should apologise for using this Standing Order in such a reckless manner. The problem is that if he refuses the opportunity arises for other members to use the Standing Orders in an equally reckless manner. There can be no winners out of the development of that sort of circumstance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will hear two more contributions and then I will rule.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8231] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Schedules as amended agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9689] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question 
that the question be now put 
.
Donnelly Brian: Motions — New Zealand Black Sox  
Donnelly Brian: Motions — New Zealand Black Sox  
[Volume:615;Page:10781] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First also endorses the motions. It was thrilling to see the Black Sox win their third world championship especially after being three runs down in the first innings. It was a wonderful performance by the whole team and we endorse the motions put by the Minister.
Copeland Gordon: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15994] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I wish to respond to a couple of points that have been made. First of all in relation to Shell the fact is that the chief executive officer and the chairman of that company resigned and that actually says it all. The company will now continue with its proud tradition of actually trying to avoid employing people like that again. As I mentioned it has hitherto been a paragon of virtue in the industrial world. It is a great company and I have always enjoyed my association with Shell. Anything construed otherwise is wrong. 
The contributions made by both the National Party and the ACT party made it sound as though they never expect to be in Government. If they are in Government in 2005—and I am open to that possibility by the way—then I think they will be very pleased that these provisions are here. The difference is that right now the Labour Party is in Government and in 2005 we intend to be in Government so therefore we think this will be a very useful thing for the Government of the day to have. Members should bear this in mind: it will be for the Government of the day to decide how it uses this information and some of the draconian sorts of scenarios that have been put up by the two parties of the right I find quite surprising because I rather hope that if they are in Government in 2005 they will apply these provisions very sensibly. I am sure they will.
Benson-Pope David: Third Readings 
Benson-Pope David: Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6926] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: I am pleased to rise to take a short call on this legislation—eminently sensible legislation I must say—and I compliment the Minister and her officials on progressing it to this point. Just in brief response to some of the comments that have been raised by the Opposition I am somewhat astonished by the crocodile tears I see from the National Party in particular about this wonderful new relationship it has just rediscovered with local government. I was a member of the Dunedin City Council when the then National Government tried to sell the nation’s roads. I was a member of the Dunedin City Council when that council was forced to privatise its electricity generation facility. For people from the National Party to stand up in this House shed crocodile tears and trumpet their new-found relationship with local government leads me to say: “Well yeah right!” because I know what members of local government throughout this country think of that party and its discredited policies. 
In terms of the extraordinary comments made by the Opposition last night about the difference between the intellectual property involved in computer software and the good itself I say to Opposition members that they should pick up a book and think about the fact that it is a good and there is intellectual property involved in the creation of the author concerned. It is no different. There is no great new precedent here and it is only the actual dearth of intellectual capacity in that party that causes it to go down such a tortuous and pathetic route.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5469] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think your short intolerance for the shadow Leader of the House is well known but I thought you ought to be clear just what it is you are warning him about. As he is the shadow Leader of the House we would expect with a number of questions to go and the Government’s usual level of performance that there would likely be points of order and some of those may be expressed in terms that you do not regard as exactly the right way or may dislike in some way. I do not think the shadow Leader of the House should be in the position where he feels constrained from carrying out his function on behalf of the Opposition so I would like your clarification on just what it is you are warning him about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am warning him to stay within the Standing Orders. Everyone in this House will know that I am remarkably tolerant of Mr Brownlee and I think even he himself will concede that point.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Bali Bombing—Second Anniversary 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Bali Bombing—Second Anniversary 
[Volume:620;Page:15998] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Two years ago today events in Bali shook our part of the world in a way that few others have in recent times. That day 202 people were slaughtered three of whom were New Zealanders. Yet I suspect that in the intervening 2 years many of us will have let our memories slip a little and will be thinking: “Is it really as long ago as 2 years?”. In that time we have had the outrages at Madrid Beslan and more recently Jakarta; almost weekly we have had the parade of suicide bombers on the West Bank and elsewhere; and now in the last few weeks we have seen a new explosion of terror that reached its nadir with the decapitation of Kenneth Bigley last week. Terrorism unfortunately has become a way of life for far too many and its impacts now extend to all of us wherever we are whatever our occupation our walk of life or our particular reason for being in a place at the time an attack occurs. 
To that extent the awful tragedy is that the terrorists have already won the first part of their battle: they have destabilised all of us; they have placed all of us at risk and on notice. Although I strongly support the sentiment that we must regroup and do all we can as civilised people to stop the scourge of terrorism we have to do so in a way that restores a sense of confidence to our own people and all people around the world that we are in fact capable of doing so. The awful tragedy of the last few years has been that despite the rhetoric despite the concerted international action and despite the specific actions in particular places the terrorists still peddle their awful trade. While today we should commemorate those who suffered and those who suffered loss we should also remind ourselves of the fact that as yet we have not found a way to stop this scourge and we do need to redouble our international efforts to do so otherwise this debate this afternoon will be one of many we will have sadly in the future.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:615;Page:11426] 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Is he happy with the Government’s policy for local body management of assets on behalf of ratepayers? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes. We have 86 local authorities in New Zealand. Most are doing a very good job. Some could do better. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister believe that the Christchurch City Council acted prudently with Christchurch City ratepayers’ money in the purchase of the Coachman hotel from our fellow MP and philanthropist David Carter for in excess of $1.025 million to further sell it for its true value of $475000? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Councils are making financial decisions on a daily basis. I could not really comment on a particular decision of the Christchurch City Council. The council will of course be accountable to its ratepayers at the next election. 
David Parker 
: How has the Government made local authorities more accountable to their ratepayers? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Government has put in place better accountability processes through the Local Government Act 2002. Councils now have a greater obligation to consult and listen seriously to their communities. The Act explicitly requires local authorities to manage their assets prudently. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree that resistance from property owners to ever-increasing rates burdens negatively affects local government’s ability to resource and manage assets on behalf of ratepayers and what is his response to the recent endorsement by the Mayor of Tauranga Jan Beange of United Future’s policy to remove GST from rates as reported in the Monday edition of the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I remind that member that rates cannot be increased arbitrarily. Any increase must be well justified and the ultimate test for councils is the reaction of their ratepayers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister prepared to investigate the fact that the well-known philanthropist and MP David Carter sold a property to the council for $1.025 million and that the council then obtained its full and true value achieving a price almost $600000 less; and what would be the circumstances behind that in respect of the historic places legislation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would be happy to discuss the matter further with the member although I would remind him—and I am sure he does not need to be reminded—that the Auditor-General does examine fiscal mismanagement by local authorities if there are any allegations of that. 
Larry Baldock 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
 article that describes the call as sensible. Ms Beange stated that the removal of GST— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17550] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu  
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit and substitute clause 11 be agreed to.
Brown Peter: Voting — Point of Order—Maritime Security Bill 
Brown Peter: Voting — Point of Order—Maritime Security Bill 
[Volume:611;Page:8620] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that last night New Zealand First’s vote—and I think National’s and ACT’s—was recorded incorrectly as being against sending the Maritime Security Bill to the select committee. We are most certainly in favour of that and I seek leave to have our vote reversed.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20132] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 352. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Robertson H V Ross: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12282] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member it has been brought to my attention that we may have heard a cellphone ringing in the Chamber. Can I just say to members that they should give their full attention to the proceedings of the Committee. We should eliminate all unnecessary distractions from our duty. Cellphones should be switched off within hearing of the debating chamber. All members can be alerted to urgent messages by messengers or via the party whips. Any cellphone emitting sounds from the public gallery will be confiscated and the owner ejected from Parliament. I also refer members to Speaker’s ruling 16/2: cellphones are not permitted in this Chamber when switched on.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8972] 
12.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Is he satisfied that the Transit New Zealand Board’s failure to act on the recommendation of its staff that Tauranga’s Takitimu Drive and the Takitimu Drive/Tasman Quay link be designated as a State highway is transparent democratic and non-partisan? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am advised that Transit New Zealand in deferring its decision to designate the roads mentioned by the member as a State highway acted according to its statutory mandate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister prepared to push for the designation of that road as a State highway so as to avoid the possibility of a major transport route becoming a toll road which is a policy his party opposed during 1998-99; or is it the case that this was a decision not transparent not democratic not non-partisan and un-minuted which is the extraordinary thing about it and that it included the Labour Party President Mike Williams who made the decision—having been put there for a “jobs for the boys” operation from Labour? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is not my job to push for the designation of any particular road as a State highway; that is Transit’s job. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What level of land transport funding is Tauranga – Bay of Plenty projected to receive including State highways in 2003-04 and how does this compare with last year? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am advised that the Tauranga – Bay of Plenty region has been allocated $56.78 million over 2003-04 which is an increase of 5.3 percent from last year. Most of these projects are in the Tauranga area. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the designation of Tauranga’s Takitumu Drive and Takitumu Drive - Tasman Quay link as a State highway by Transit remain a possibility in the future regardless of any alternative funding mechanisms established by the Land Transport Management Bill? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. For a start the decision has simply been deferred as more information is sought and as more discussion takes place with local authorities. As I understand it these decisions are reviewed every 5 years.
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:7638] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want Mr Peters to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I apologise to Mr Hide. I am very sorry for doing that.
Cunliffe David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Cunliffe David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12021] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 We have had a couple of interesting contributions from members opposite and I would like to turn first to that of Ken Shirley. His clarion call for tradable property rights seemed at the very least to be swimming upstream in the Waitaki if not flying in the face of the wind as well. When we reflect on it what is wrong with the idea of tradable rights that guarantee the highest social value by virtue of the highest bidder? I say to Mr Shirley that the first thing we get is an upstream/downstream problem and that is typified by the Murray-Darling River system in Australia. If the water is used upstream—say for irrigation—and not returned then those downstream might not have access to it no matter how much they were prepared to bid. There are externalities for the community and the environment that are not priced in a tradable property rights regime. And there are all of those other problems of the “commons” all of which add up to a big fat market failure. 
That is why we have a Resource Management Act and in this case is why we have needed to work within its principles to adopt processes that are appropriate to the particular needs of the Waitaki Valley. Labour commends the work put in by the select committee which made a number of quite extensive amendments to the legislation in line with the principles that have been expressed. 
Finally let us turn to the contribution made a little earlier by Mr Connell for the National Party. As my point of order reflected I was disturbed that he alleged that Meridian Energy was getting special treatment from the Government because it was a State-owned enterprise. Were that true it would indeed impugn the office of shareholding Ministers and would amount to a breach of privilege claim. I suspect that Mr Connell should either put up or shut up. That is a completely inappropriate thing for him to allege. It demeans the excellent management team at Meridian Energy and it certainly demeans this Parliament. 
Let us be clear: this bill provides a non-discriminatory fair framework for all parties that have an interest in the water of the Waitaki system—for recreation fishing irrigation and electricity generation. It is because those interests are being appropriately balanced that Meridian Energy itself has concerns about the viability of its future rights. The National Party cannot have its cake and eat it too. It is either a sweetheart deal or it is an excessively punitive deal for Meridian Energy—it cannot be both. 
This is an excellent bill. It strikes a fair balance and it protects the waters of the Waitaki for both current and future generations. The Labour Party urges its passage forthwith.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to insert the following new clause 13A be agreed to: 
13AReport by Minister required 
(1)The Minister is required to prepare and table in Parliament as soon as practicable after 30 June each year a report on all income the Government has received from gambling sources in the previous financial year. 
(2)This report shall include but not be limited to—company tax collected on all gambling providers: 
(a)Company tax collected on all gambling providers: 
(b)GST collected from all gambling providers and gambling transactions: 
(c)Any specific gambling taxes. 
(3)This report shall appear on the Parliamentary Order Paper next sitting day immediately after questions of the day and set down for one hour’s debate.
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11516] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are twelve 10-minute speeches. I still have one issue to resolve about one call. There will be one split speech between New Zealand First and National towards the end of the debate. I have ruled that that is in order. I will give a bell at the end of 5 minutes.
Visitors — Malaysia—Prime Minister 
Visitors — Malaysia—Prime Minister 
[Volume:624;Page:19509] 
Thursday 31 March 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2.56 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Malaysia—Prime Minister 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Prime Minister of Malaysia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. We also wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
The Hon Dato’ Seri Abdullah accompanied by the Prime Minister entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Speaker’s Statements — Donna Awatere Huata 
Speaker’s Statements — Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:613;Page:9621] 
Tuesday 4 November 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Donna Awatere Huata 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received the following letter from the Director of the Serious Fraud Office: “Dear Mr Speaker In accordance with the conventions applied to the application of the criminal justice system to members of Parliament I must advise you that I have laid a number of charges under the Crimes Act 1961 against Donna Awatere Huata a list member of Parliament with the ACT party. Ms Huata was arrested this morning and appeared in the District Court at Napier where she was remanded on bail. The court did not make any orders suppressing any of the details of the court appearance. Twelve charges have been brought against Donna Awatere Huata. Eleven of these allege the use of a document to defraud—namely the use of cheques to defraud the Pipi Foundation. The remaining charge alleges that Donna Awatere Huata perverted the course of justice in relation to investigations being undertaken into the affairs of the Pipi Foundation. D J Bradshaw Director.”
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5538] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak briefly to introduce the two amendments I have tabled for voting at the end of the session. The first one amends clauses 34 41 and 42. The amendment to remove clauses 41 and 42 actually removes limited notification from the bill and restores the status quo of the Act as it stands at the moment. I outlined in my second reading speech why the Greens believe that is necessary and I think that can stand on its merits. 
The addition we have made to clause 34 remedies a major failing in the Act itself which is that one currently does not have to consider whether the effects of a controlled activity are minor one simply does not have to notify it at all no matter how great the effects on the environment or on people might be. There is an assumption which has been underlying this for a while that if it is a controlled activity that the council cannot refuse but can only put conditions on the effects must be minor. There are a number of cases where this has not been true and in fact there is no reason that it should be. It simply relates to the way the plan is written and we believe it should be subject to the same test of minor effects as other activities. If I am wrong and if controlled activities do always have minor effects this amendment does no harm whatsoever because they still will not be notified. If on the other hand I am right and some controlled activities have more than minor effects it would be a good idea and it would be consistent with the rest of the Act for them to have to be notified when they do have more than minor effects. So that is the first page. 
The other page of amendments inserts new clause 82A which is exactly the wording of the Simon Upton bill that has been removed by this Government. I am looking forward to the support of National members in restoring this provision of their colleague in the bill as it was first introduced. This is the provision that allows a review of notification decisions at the Environment Court instead of the High Court which I spoke about in my second reading speech. That bill was introduced by Simon Upton because he saw it balancing limited notification. In fact if National members wish to vote for this and not vote for the removal of limited notification they will be voting in accordance with the bill that their party introduced. The select committee agreed with Simon Upton’s proposal and reported it back the Government at the time agreed with it as well the Government then changed its mind and in the No. 2 bill removed those clauses. This simply gives Parliament an opportunity to decide that Simon Upton was right all along. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Well come and talk to us about it. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I have and I will.
Simich Clem: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7711] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank both members for raising that issue. They are not wrong but a certain order is followed to maintain order. I have called the Hon Peter Dunne. If he wishes to cede to the member whose party is obviously the third largest I would accept that but I have called the Hon Peter Dunne.
Peters Jim: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Jim: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5290] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not going to advert to the Standing Orders but I wish to remind you that when the call was taken by New Zealand First that member attempted to take the call. In the natural order of things in this House the normal practice would be that the Speaker reverts having noted the intention and turns to that speaker at the next call.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19103] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
Adams(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Franks  
Peters J 
Woolerton(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Brown  
Jones(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Mark(P) 
Roy(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
McNair(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Sowry  
Smith M 
Noes 83 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich  
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Locke(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Barker  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher  
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp (P) 
Tisch(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick  
Heatley(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs  
Pillay(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia  
Rich(P) 
Yates 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald  
Hutchison(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Key(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Scott(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 13 be agreed to.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8999] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12993] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (h) from the definition of  
official agency 
.
Mark Ron: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Mark Ron: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10006] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You know that I have been seeking a point of order so deliberately to pretend you did not see me is totally unacceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please get to his point of order. 
RON MARK 
: I seek that you make this a personal vote because given the time now—17 minutes past 10—and the propensity for certain members to leave the Chamber dead on the dot of 10 o’clock I do not believe in any way shape or form that the Government whip would have any idea about how many votes he has got right now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is not a conscience issue; it is not a personal vote. The question will be put.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7285] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The time allocated to the consideration of the estimates referred to in the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill has expired. I am now required to put as one question the remaining votes and provisions of the bill as per Standing Order 325. 
The question was put that Vote ACC Vote Child Youth and Family Services Vote Commerce Vote Communications Vote Community and Voluntary Sector Vote Conservation Vote Consumer Affairs Vote Corrections Vote Courts Vote Customs Vote Defence Vote Defence Force Vote Emergency Management Vote Environment Vote Immigration Vote Internal Affairs Vote Lands Vote Local Government Vote Maori Affairs Vote National Archives Vote National Library Vote Official Development Assistance Vote Police Vote Racing Vote Senior Citizens Vote State-Owned Enterprises; Vote Statistics Vote Tourism Vote Transport Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Defence) Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Social Development) Vote Women’s Affairs Vote Youth Affairs the preamble clauses 1 to 13 and schedule 6 be agreed to.
Duynhoven Harry: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19909] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I thank members for their support of this bill. It is a very sensible bill. In answer to Mr Peter Brown the purpose of clause 48 is to line the bill up better with the new land transport legislation—simply to reflect better the wording of the two pieces of legislation and to make them work better together. I think we should proceed with the voting. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Parts 2 to 4 and the schedules be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Parts 2 to 4 and schedules as amended agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Shirley Ken: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:622;Page:17332] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that the majority of Parliament has passed the motion can we ask the Minister who is in the House where the bill is? Is he prepared to table it? If not when will it be available? We have reluctantly signed a blank cheque against the wishes of those parties that opposed it but as I understand it there is still no bill available. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order.
Sutton Jim: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Sutton Jim: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14085] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Meat Board Bill be now read a third time 
. The meat industry makes an enormous contribution to the New Zealand economy in terms of contributions to New Zealand’s gross domestic product employment and export earnings. In the year ended June 2003 $4.2 billion worth of meat products were exported which accounted for about 15 percent of the total value of merchandise exports from New Zealand. This bill was sought by the meat industry. The concepts it puts into practice were overwhelmingly endorsed by a referendum of producers in August 2003. It makes the provision of the raising of funds and the provision of industry-good services more accountable and more efficient. It retains a wide public overview of the administration of the valuable meat quota. I wish to compliment those in the industry who have fronted on this bill—both to the participants in their own industries and to members of Parliament—notably Jeff Grant and Mike Petersen because their energy and leadership have served the industry well. 
I wish the new Meat Board well in its reduced but more focused role of managing the meat export quota markets and the board’s reserves. I also wish the new combined meat and wool industry-good organisation—Meat and Wool New Zealand Ltd—well in its role of funding and managing industry-good activities under the provisions of the Commodity Levies Act of 1990. Most of all I wish New Zealand’s livestock farmers and the wider industry well under their new industry structures. I commend the bill to the House.
Sowry Roger: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16192] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have already ruled on this. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I know that you have. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a new point of order and I raise it from this point. The Standing Orders were changed and this might be the second session under the new Standing Orders whereby by agreement now we do not debate the schedules and we do this part at the end of the debate. Some of us and I am sure you find it a bit unusual Mr Chairperson but it has made for a better debate because we do not have those narrow debates on title or date of commencement. However my point is that when that was changed the Standing Orders Committee did so with an understanding that whilst the debate would be wider whoever was the Opposition of the time would not be disadvantaged. It is not a strict rule but in this case instead of having a debate on the title the commencement clause and the schedules which would have been 3 hours or something like that or probably 2¼ hours because the schedules would have been a lesser debate we have one debate. I ask you to bear that in mind as part of the overall process. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am well aware of the situation. If the member would like to look at page 63—[ 
Interruption 
] He did. Well he knows exactly what the situation is.
Vote: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Vote: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:620;Page:15466] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rt Hon Winston Peters be suspended from the service of the House. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Question agreed to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Terrorism—Madrid Bombings 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Terrorism—Madrid Bombings 
[Volume:616;Page:11628] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I want to endorse the comments made by others and also the sentiments of the motion moved by the Prime Minister and express our sympathy to the people of Spain at their sad loss in this horrific tragedy. 
Two points that have arisen from these events need to be made. Firstly as others have mentioned the spirit of freedom around the world in democratic countries like ours can never be quenched by acts of this type. We must stand as firmly as we ever have done to ensure that the democratic tradition lives. Second we must at the same time squash any immediate notion that terrorism has triumphed in this instance because it brought about a change of Government. 
I think there are those amongst us in this wider world who may have that perverse logic and that message has to be debunked as quickly as possible. This is a tragedy for freedom for democracy and for the people of Spain and we certainly stand alongside other parties in this Parliament in upholding the resolution the Prime Minister has moved. 
Motion agreed to.
Ririnui Mita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18917] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Maybe I can satisfy the member’s concerns. It does not apply to private property but to the area where Ngati Awa have an ancestral connection or their customary lands.
Points of Order — Visual Aids 
Points of Order — Visual Aids 
[Volume:606;Page:3354] 
Points of Order 
Visual Aids 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been reflecting on Gerry Eckhoff’s use of visual aids during question No. 8. While many members of this House found it humorous at the time I would ask you and other members of the House to consider whether it is acceptable for Mr Eckhoff to encourage and indeed incite people to shoot a member of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The illustration used by the member could not be said to have inconvenienced members. That relates to physically obstructing members in their seats so it was not out of order under Standing Order 109. Whether it was appropriate to use the illustration is really a question of taste and not one that the Speaker can rule on.
Franks Stephen: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6177] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise that this is a leave request but I would ask whether it is possible for this Committee to consider first a variation or whether it is necessary to reject that and have it re-put. If I may explain it appears to me from canvassing people who are seeking guidance on the voting here that the prospect of running through that list will be extremely confusing and that it was a mistake when we first decided that all the voting would be collected at the end. I would certainly like to see an opportunity for at least the movers of each motion to address for 5 minutes between each vote the purpose of their motions. I have been present for almost the entire part of this debate and I have heard almost nothing addressed on the wording of these motions. There has been almost no discussion whatsoever of the technical effect of these amendments. Nearly every speech has been in effect a title speech and some of these motions would be quite incompatible with others. There is every prospect that this bill might end up being quite unworkable for want of the extra few minutes that would be involved in giving say one or two speeches between each vote.  
I realise that that is by way of a change to what was intended and to what the whips had agreed to but it seems to me in talking to people whom I regard as careful and diligent MPs that they are very very confused indeed about the interrelationship of the various amendments in this bill.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I suggest to the member that he could seek leave to have that done because these amendments have actually been on the Table for some considerable time and members would have had ample opportunity to read them. So the member is free to seek leave if he wishes for his course of action to be followed.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Choudhary Ashraf: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15638] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mahuta Nanaia: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10105] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7307] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it is. If a member does not want to ask the question the member does not have to do so but no other member can ask it on that member’s behalf if the member is sitting in the Chamber. That was the difficulty we got into and that is why I had to call Dianne Yates—because she was in the Chamber. If she did not want to ask the question at all—and perhaps I was a bit too quick in insisting that she ask it—certainly no one else could ask it on her behalf.
Tisch Lindsay: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11260] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just a little unclear about when the decision is made that an amendment that has been lodged can be spoken to or is ruled out of order. The point is that Dr Mapp started to talk to the amendment. He would have probably given 2 minutes’ worth of discussion on that before the Chairperson at the time said he had to stop speaking about the amendment or she would terminate his speech.
Visitors — Delegation from Australia 
Visitors — Delegation from Australia 
[Volume:607;Page:4887] 
Tuesday 8 April 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Delegation from Australia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Defence Subcommittee of the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade from the Commonwealth of Australia led by the Hon Bruce Scott MP are present in the gallery.