edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hunt Jonathan: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4449] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I put the question to members I will make a ruling on the point that Mr Peters raised. This is a local bill promoted by the Rotorua District Council. It is open to other district councils to promote their own legislation to deal with trading in their locality if they wish. It is open to the House to suspend its Standing Orders so as to turn this bill into a member’s bill dealing with a general law. But before it does that the House should act very carefully. 
This bill was confined to Rotorua when it went through the select committee process which means that neither members nor the public have had an opportunity to consider the wider implications of Mr Peters’ suggestion. However if the member insists—and I know that he will—on asking for leave to suspend the Standing Orders to convert this bill to a member’s bill of general application that will be put to the House. As the member rightly points out the House is master of its own destiny. In any case Mr Peters’ proposal is not clear in its terms. The bill has not yet had its Committee stage when the drafting details would be settled but the member has asked for leave to do this. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hide Rodney: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Hide Rodney: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:4993] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on the matter. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: To be perfectly frank I was going to contribute to the point of order because the translation of the preamble has already been done. But it seems to me that we have another problem which is this: there will potentially be some dispute in court over the interpretation of the preamble. Judges may be required to determine which translation has precedence or whatever. When they do so they will look to what the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia has said about the translation. I suggest through you Madam Chair that the way to resolve this matter very quickly and very simply is for the Minister in the chair to say that the translation provided in English is a correct and accurate translation of the Maori preamble. With due respect what a translator may say in Parliament or indeed what an ordinary member of Parliament may say will not carry any weight with a judge but what the Minister says will carry weight. So although there can be arguments over translations if the Minister whose name the bill is in takes the opportunity to say that the English translation is accurate and correct then I think we could end the matter right there.
O'Connor Damien: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9558] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Health Committee on the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill. 
 This bill provides for the assessment and care of people with an intellectual disability who are charged with or convicted of an imprisonable offence. It bridges a legislative gap that has existed since 1992.  
People with an intellectual disability are included in the definition of mental disorder in the Mental Health Act which was later linked to the Criminal Justice Act in 1985. However the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act in 1992 deliberately excluded people with an intellectual disability unless they also had a mental disorder. 
This exclusion created a legislative gap between the two Acts for people with an intellectual disability who offended resulting in inappropriate placement in prison in forensic mental health services or in discharge into the community. As a result of this gap there are limited options available to the courts for dealing with people with an intellectual disability who are in need of compulsory care. For some this has resulted in inappropriate placement in prison in mental health services or as I said in discharge into the community. 
This bill links with the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill to enable the criminal court to impose appropriate orders for defendants with an intellectual disability. The purposes of the bill as reported back are: firstly to provide courts with appropriate compulsory care and rehabilitation options for people who have an intellectual disability and who are charged with or convicted of an imprisonable offence; secondly to recognise and safeguard the special rights of people subject to this bill; and thirdly to provide for the appropriate use of different levels of care. 
It is estimated that about 50 to 100 people will be affected by this bill. The bill was introduced into the House in 1999 and the main changes that were recommended by the process through the Health Committee were firstly to change the name to the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill as stated. This reflects the focus on rehabilitation as well as compulsory care. Secondly the committee recommended that the bill apply only to offenders with an intellectual disability because the bill as introduced applied also to non-offenders. Thirdly the committee changed the definition of “intellectual disability”. I commend the bill to the House.
Smith Lockwood: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17921] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance in respect of Part 7. You will note that the clauses go up to and include clause 236 “Amendments to other enactments”. The enactments referred to in clause 236 are set out in schedule 8. Schedule 8 amends a large number of Acts. The guidance I seek from you is whether it is intended that the debate on Part 7 will cover the contents of schedule 8 as well because the schedule contains a very large set of amendments to a very large number of Acts. I seek your advice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Indeed it absolutely does cover that schedule. I was just about to give that explanation. Part 7 clauses 217 to 236 includes debate on schedule 8.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5302] 
7.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What recent initiatives has the Government announced to support rural health? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Today I have announced just under $500000 to be allocated over the next 2 years to a further 11 primary health providers in rural areas. That money will help relieve doctors and nurses working onerous rosters in parts of New Zealand. It is part of a total of nearly $3.5 million to be allocated over the next 2 years to rural health services. 
David Parker 
: What other programmes and initiatives has the Government undertaken to improve health services for people living in rural areas? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Today’s initiative continues this Government’s support for rural health services. The Government has also made funding available for rural locum support schemes a mobile surgical bus recruitment and retention to support the rural workforce and a health-line service which I will have much pleasure in visiting this evening. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: How many rural pharmacies will close when this Government changes monthly drug dispensing to 3-monthly and how will the closure of rural pharmacies possibly help rural health services? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of the proposals that Pharmac has out for consultation. People in rural areas have had the benefit of dispensing for some time. The proposals are to be spread across the whole of New Zealand and the views of both rural and urban pharmacies will be taken on board by Pharmac through that consultation process. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: If emergency helicopter services are to be considered an integral component of rural health services why is it that in places like Northland public fundraising has to be undertaken to pay for those machines which should be fully funded by the Government? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not aware of the details of policy around that. I commit to the member that I will look into that and get back to him with a response. 
Sue Kedgley 
: To supplement the useful but modest initiative announced today why will the Government not encourage medical practitioners into rural New Zealand by writing off a year of their student debt for every year they spend working in rural New Zealand especially after a recent survey revealed that nearly 65 percent of student doctors are considering going off overseas to pay their debt and may never return? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: That is one of a number of proposals that have been put up to assist rural general practitioners and encourage them into rural New Zealand. We have funded recruitment and retention policies to do that and we are prepared to look at the issue the member raises.
Cullen Michael: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9508] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a brief call in support of my colleague Jim Sutton on this bill. This is a bill that is being considered at a peculiarly appropriate time in the history of the New Zealand Parliament and New Zealand politics because at this very time the National Party is considering what wine it wants to choose to be drinking up to the time of the next election. Does it stick with that little Southland bottle “The English”? It was a wine that gave great promise of something when it was young. It seemed to show some promise at that time perhaps even some complexity. But the truth is that it just has not aged in the bottle at all. It has now gone extremely flat and every bottle that is opened turns out to be corked—and so he ought to be by the National Party caucus at the next available opportunity. So what does National have instead? It can go to “The Brownlee” a sort of mid-Canterbury wine—a very big full wine one could say but somehow lacking in substance and body despite the fact that it is a very big full wine. And there is a bit of a suspicion that although it claims to be a “white” there is something slightly pink about it from the perspective of the National Party. Finally of course there is the alternative “The Brash” an Auckland model now. It has certainly been aged in Reserve Bank oak for a very very long time. It is the only bottle of wine I know that has on it: “Do not drink more than two glasses or the price may go up.” That is “The Brash”. Its problem is that it is a very flinty wine that leaves a kind of sour aftertaste on every possible opportunity. So we will watch to see the wine tasting going on in the National Party in the near future. In the meantime this bill will pass and the wine industry will carry on.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6851] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16061] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Shirley Ken: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Shirley Ken: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:624;Page:19544] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a pattern developing here and I seek to know what remedy Opposition members may have recourse to. In the last half-hour two Ministers of the Crown have come down to an empty House and fessed up to having given incorrect answers in question time when we had a very robust packed House. This is becoming a pattern. It is almost too much of a coincidence and I seek some assurance that Ministers are not just escaping when they are under pressure then returning to an empty House to fess up.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8294] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 103 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 131 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to insert new clause 15A be agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20044] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I do apologise to the House; I meant to do this after the last question but I got carried away in the excitement. I seek the leave of the House to table a  
National Business Review 
 article dated 3 December 1993 by Dr Vernon Small in which Ms Clark is quoted as criticising Clayton Cosgrove for organising demonstrations— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? Yes there is objection.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith Member’s Notice of Motion No. 2—Wording Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith Member’s Notice of Motion No. 2—Wording Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:616;Page:12039] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I agree with you that the way it is expressed does give rise to two interpretations. In fact the grammar is completely wrong. It was submitted correctly. It can be put down as a notice of motion. That is a way it can be done; but then of course it is a matter for debate.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:609;Page:6625] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the intention will be to try to pass that in the next mini-session of Parliament.
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16854] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to put on the record that I have written to the Speaker in respect of addressing this in the Standing Orders Committee. As yet I have not had a response but I also want to advise the members of the House that although this might seem to be a petty argument as far as members are concerned we are denying the public the truth of knowing who voted here and who voted there.
Carter Chris: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter Chris: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14116] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The member Nick Smith asked a fair enough question as to how with the very limited rating base the Chathams will survive with the regional functions it has to carry out such as biosecurity dealing with waste and the provision of fresh water. The Government recognises very much the challenges that small region of only some 700 people faces so the Government has provided a one-off payment of $2.5 million to provide for a new fresh water and sewerage system on the Chathams and will also pay for the development of a new tip on the island. In addition the Chatham Islands Council has sought an expression of interest from other regional councils such as the Wellington Regional Council the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Environment Canterbury to tender for a collaborative role where the facilities of those larger regional councils will contract out to provide the services to the Chatham Islands that are required from that regional role. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Minister of Finance Republic of Chile Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia Minister of Agriculture Australia 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Minister of Finance Republic of Chile Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia Minister of Agriculture Australia 
[Volume:614;Page:10569] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Trish Worth Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8517] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8297] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is indeed a strange amendment by the Government. It is almost as if the Government has a fetish for giving new names to things. We have come across new names for Crown land which is to be called “public domain” and now we have the Residence Review Board taking over from the Residence Appeal Authority. 
As the Law Society said on page 9 of its submission no reason has been given for the renaming of the Residence Appeal Authority. In a way it makes it very hard to attack the provision if there is no reason for it though it is perhaps consistent with the unilateral way in which a Government—and this Government—could apply the bill and the various discretions contained in it. If the Government can change the name of the Residence Appeal Authority—which has a certain ring about it given that it concerns an appeal and is an authority but with the main word being “Appeal”—to the Residence Review Board is it trying to indicate that the body is a totally different one as the Hon Richard Prebble suggested? To some extent it obviously is different. 
This Government by the way it is acting under this legislation has opened itself up to all the criticisms mentioned in relation to Part 2. One has to scratch one’s head in absolute wonderment as to why we should waste the time of Parliament the parliamentary draftsmen the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and all those people who made submissions with about three and a bit pages of amendments just so the Government can get a kick out of changing the name of the Residence Appeal Authority to the Residence Review Board. It is extraordinarily strange. It is an utter waste of money and a waste of time. To prove my point I will leave it at that.
Okeroa Mahara: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Okeroa Mahara: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5069] 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hartley Ann: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
Hartley Ann: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:18980] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I cannot make that presumption. I call members as I see it but I certainly cannot presume the way they will be speaking or voting. I call it in the way that I see it.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7984] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a newspaper article so that the Minister who replied to question No. 1 will know what I was referring to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10294] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that. Maybe I did the wrong thing there but I did terminate one member’s speech. The member had not spoken very long but he did not address the title. I felt that it would be only fair if a member of that party were given the opportunity to debate the title.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19716] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave quite specifically for Sue Kedgley’s bill which was not able to proceed last evening to now be considered by this House at this very moment it having been interrupted by the Government using the tactic and the abuse of Standing Order 38 by not requiring any Minister to be in the House at that time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14065] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Corrections to Answers 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Corrections to Answers 
[Volume:618;Page:13961] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to give us a bit of a stronger lead on what we are supposed to do if we know in fact that a Minister is dodging the effect of a question by choosing to give information to the House that is patently incorrect. We understand that the only recourse we have is to seek a privilege hearing. But if matters of privilege are going to be thrown away on the basis that they have been brought on a debating point then effectively question time is not worth having. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say to the member that I inspect every breach of privilege allegation very carefully and take very careful advice from experts on the subject. I determined that there was no breach. That is where the matter ends.
Hunt Jonathan: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — First Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7495] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct and from now on until the end of the evening there will be absolutely no interjection.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8656] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will give this matter consideration and I will report back to the House. I want to think about it. I can recall the point that the member made. I certainly can recall that point. It was some months ago and the member did make some very helpful comments to me about it at the time. I will however give this matter consideration and report back.
Stewart Barbara: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
Stewart Barbara: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval 
[Volume:627;Page:22268] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the motion that this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply—Amphetamine) Order 2005 made under section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. In New Zealand First we recognise the extraordinary harm caused to New Zealanders by drugs and more recently amphetamines. It is an extremely serious problem out on the streets. Despite the number of prosecutions and the very best efforts of the police this drug industry appears to be thriving with no signs of any abatement. We know that the escalation of usage is dramatic. We urgently need a strategy to try to turn round the harm caused by the usage of these drugs in our country. They are dangerous and they are exceedingly harmful. 
The onus in this legislation is on the person found with the drug to prove that he or she was not supplying the drug and that it was intended for personal use. How that can be proved appears to be a challenge to me. Hopefully it is very clear in other legislation. We do need to get very tough on the peddlers of these drugs—in fact all drugs—and reducing the amount at which amphetamine is presumed to be for supply from 56 grams to 5 grams is just one of those measures. From the evidence that we received at the Health Committee this is a much-needed change. 
While the committee discussed the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee about the need for the affirmative action procedure to be used very carefully because we all know that the basis of any democracy is for submitters to have their views heard by a select committee New Zealand First believes that for situations like drugs where rapid action is required in the interests of the public this course of action is definitely appropriate. 
The officials said to the select committee that they needed the ability to amend the supply levels rapidly if there was clear evidence that the supply level was set too low. The lagging of the required legislation in this drugs field has meant that our law enforcement agencies—the Customs Service and the police—have often been totally hamstrung under the present law. We all know that importation levels have increased dramatically. Parliament has a duty to support both the police and the Customs Service in a timely manner in their fight against the illicit use of drugs and the importation of those drugs into this country. Enforcement officers need these powers. New Zealand First supports this motion. We believe that these changes are necessary and desirable in our fight against the use of illicit drugs.
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17543] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to the headings of Part 2 and subpart 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:617;Page:12946] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 3) the Coroners Amendment Bill (No 2) the Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill (No 2) the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 3) the Employment Relations Amendment Bill the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 2) the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3) the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bills read a third time.
Visitors — Parliamentarians for Global Action—26th Annual Forum 
Visitors — Parliamentarians for Global Action—26th Annual Forum 
[Volume:622;Page:17421] 
Tuesday 7 December 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Parliamentarians for Global Action—26th Annual Forum 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that participants in the Parliamentarians for Global Action’s 26th Annual Forum and Consultative Assembly on the International Criminal Court and the Rule of Law are within the precincts of this Chamber. There are over 130 members of Parliament from 60 countries attending and I am sure that members would wish they be welcomed.
Duynhoven Harry: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21779] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Courts 
: I move  
That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be considered by the Government Administration Committee 
referred to Government Administration Committee.
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7171] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Revenue be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Vote agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14666] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for this question to be held over until the Minister of Maori Affairs would be in a better position to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Gudgeon Bill: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Gudgeon Bill: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12699] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I compliment Sue Bradford on the compassionate service she wishes to render to those less fortunate families. New Zealand First supports the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill to the select committee. We support the vision that each child born requires nurturing the best of parenting skills and assistance to achieve an adequate standard of living. 
The explanatory note indicates that children must be ordinary residents of New Zealand to qualify. Another provision specifies the way in which the benefit commences and terminates in respect of all children in New Zealand. The emphasis is on New Zealand citizenship. New Zealand First stands to ensure that taxpayers’ revenue will not be subject to abuse but will be accounted for to its rightful recipients as citizens of this nation. That means that children must ordinarily be resident in New Zealand to qualify. 
According to the bill each child will be entitled to a specified amount paid to a principal caregiver. As was related by the speaker from the National Party there needs to be control in that area also. As recommended by our caucus New Zealand First will discuss those and other issues in the select committee. A question that needs to be asked is how the chief executive will identify and be satisfied that each child is ordinarily a citizen of New Zealand. New Zealand First will query that method. 
It is obvious that there is a need for assistance to some of our families whether it is through education health or employment. If this bill will assist families to get on their feet New Zealand First supports it to the select committee.
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11760] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I called a point of order before. 
Jill Pettis 
: No the member did not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have called the vote—[ 
Interruption 
] The member will withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was trying to clarify in my point of order the discussion that occurred between the senior Government whip who has just moved the closure motion and the Chair and the Minister for the Environment. When questions were raised quite legitimately by the chair of the Education and Science Committee the Hon Brian Donnelly which the Minister refused to respond to I saw the three members discussing that they wanted closure. I think that is an inappropriate intervention. If you can clarify that for me I will be happy to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member does not have the right to ask that question of the Chair. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am concerned that I and the chair of the select committee have both raised quite legitimate questions about that point. We saw the Minister who was somewhat uncomfortable about those questions talking with you and with the senior Government whip and next minute a closure motion was moved by the senior Government whip and accepted by the Chair. I think the Committee deserves an explanation of that. We need to be satisfied that the Chair of the Committee is behaving in a neutral way and is not being influenced by the Government to stop answers being given to very legitimate questions.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21421] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4597] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
Ayes 60 
Ayes 54 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hon Paul Swain to the schedule be agreed to: 
to insert after the expression “36A(1)(a)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the expression “and (2)”; 
to add after the expression “22A(1)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the words “ and by that act or omission causing an injury to or the death of another person”; 
to insert after the expression “36A(1)(c)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the expression “and (2)”; 
to add after the expression “22A(3)” in the paragraph relating to the Summary Proceedings Act in Part 1 the words “ and by that act or omission causing an injury to or the death of another person”; 
to insert before Part 2 relating to the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999 the following item: 
insert in Part 1 of the form after the words “ADVICE TO DRIVER” the words “OR OPERATOR”; 
to insert after paragraph (b) in Part 2 relating to the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999 the following item: 
insert in Part 1 of the form after the words “THE VEHICLE DRIVEN” the words “OR OPERATED”;  
to insert before Part 3 relating to the Land Transport (Ordering a Vehicle off the Road) Notice 1999 the following item: 
insert in clause 12 in Part 2 of the form on page 17 after the words “against the person who drove the vehicle” the words “or operated the vehicle”.
Carter John: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12348] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I should have asked this before but I seek leave that the National Party cast a split vote.
Turia Tariana: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Turia Tariana: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 156(4)(d) regarding proxy votes which states that “illness or other family cause of a personal nature” is also part of that particular issue.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9884] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13030] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 106 be agreed to 
to omit clause 106.
Robertson H V Ross: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13041] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 194 is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment in the name of Marc Alexander. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 194 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 194.
Hughes Darren: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10245] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 After the interminable 10 minutes that the deputy leader of New Zealand First just subjected us to it is clear that a Families Commission is OK provided New Zealand First dreamt it up. If anybody else brings a bill to Parliament then that must be a bad thing—it must be terrible. New Zealand First must lace the bill with personal abuse against a party that has come into Parliament with a very clear mission—a party that has come into a governing relationship with the Labour Party and Progressive and is getting something done. 
There was once a time when New Zealand First was in Government. Did it promote the Families Commission then? Oh no. Its members came into Opposition when they walked out of Government because they could not take the pace and they sit over there giving gentleman’s-hour speeches like the one we just heard from Mr Brown. I support the speeches given by Mr Dunne and Mr Maharey. This is a great bill and I will vote for its second reading.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20065] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 89 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 351 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 2 be agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19738] 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister.”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. I no longer have time to wonder. Nor is it something that the member personally will ever have to contemplate. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has she seen the reports that in allowing John Tamihere to trample all over her she has gone from being “popular and competent” to being “spineless and impotent”; and what is her response to her appearing to prove exactly what John Tamihere claimed—that she emotionally folds when there is conflict? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The only such reports I have seen come from the National Party and ACT and I am treating them with the usual derision they deserve. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the decision to give John Tamihere 2 weeks’ paid holiday and a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket demonstrate that today the Prime Minister is simply a victim of Mr Tamihere’s success? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I advised the member earlier there are other forms of leadership apart from taking bits of four-by-two to people. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does she stand by her statement: “I have a lot of faith in John. I went out on a limb to get him into Parliament.”; and just how far out on this limb is she prepared to go to keep John Tamihere in Parliament this being election year? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I stand by that statement and as I have advised the media today John is seen by me and his colleagues as being someone who has an enormous amount of potential but who is also known to stumble very badly. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has she seen any media comments or heard any public statements by John Tamihere that he retracts all that he said in the  
Investigate 
 magazine; if so are there any bits that he has not retracted? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can advise that the member told the Labour Party caucus today that there were no excuses he could offer for what he had said. He humbled himself to our caucus and on that basis we have decided to give him space to reflect. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister earlier said that John Tamihere had retracted the statements. My advice is that he has not. He certainly has not retracted them publicly. My direct question was whether in fact she had heard or seen any media reports that John Tamihere had retracted his statements. That is very much different from an apology. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed the question.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8090] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to.
Shirley Ken: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Shirley Ken: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6322] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not want to deny the member leave as I thought that would be inappropriate. However it is my observation that New Zealand First has had to change its voting three times in the last hour. Although the Standing Orders do not preclude that I would have thought it was a rather peculiar practice. At one stage we had a member calling the vote then the New Zealand First whip coming in and contradicting it. Here we have had the numbers changed and I think it reflects badly on that party. We need some comment from the Chair as to what the expectation is in calling the vote. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is not a point of order. I thank the member for his contribution; I am sure it has been noted.
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9243. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw to your attention that four people have spoken twice in this debate—Lynda Scott Peter Dunne Heather Roy and Katherine Rich—and there are a number of areas in Part 2 that have not yet been covered. The look on your face indicates that you are wavering on whether we should stop. Many people want a second call and some of them have not even had a first call including my colleague.