edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21557] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) the expression “25” and substitute the expression “10”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Rod Donald’s amendments to clause 6 to omit and substitute an expression in paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of subclause (4) are now out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the expression “25” and substitute the expression “10”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendments to clause 6 in the name of Rod Donald to omit and substitute an expression in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subclause (5) are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the expression “25” and substitute the expression “10”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendments to clause 7 in the name of Rod Donald to omit and substitute an expression where it occurs several times in subclause (2) are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 1 and the following amendment in his name to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the definition of  
computer register 
.
Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3812] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It was expressed as an alternative. I said he either deliberately misled or is incompetent. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes you did say “if” but still the implication could be there. I just mention it for everyone.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
[Volume:620;Page:16099] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Jim Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the problems that have emerged with the local body election results. These problems were apparent yesterday and if the member had wished to suggest an urgent debate he should have raised the matter then. In these circumstances there is no case of recent occurrence that would be grounds for an urgent debate today. The request is denied.
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13235] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for the Government. It is not a matter for me to adjudicate. The Government put it on the Order Paper and it is entitled to do so. Leave was sought and leave was granted. We cannot go back on that.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7707] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill be now read a third time. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14469] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I would like to read again what Mr Carter actually said: “… Dr Nick Smith has gone further being reported as implying that regional councils might be abolished.” 
XXX Carter actually said “will be abolished” 
That is exactly what Dr Smith just read and this is the answer that was actually given.
Brown Peter: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4745] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The honourable member gave the answer to my good colleague’s question but I did not understand it. Can I ask the interpreter to interpret? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member most certainly can. Can we have an interpretation please? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20522] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make a point that follows on from what Mr Brownlee said but it is a new point and it is on your role of upholding the rights and privileges of this Parliament. 
For some time in this Parliament we have been questioning the Minister of Police over the emergency 111 system. The answer first of all was that there was no problem and that resources were adequate. The answer then became that everything was awaiting the delivery of a report. I do not need to explain to you how important the 111 system is to the operation of the New Zealand Police and the confidence that New Zealanders have in the police. Finally after being delayed and suffering obfuscation for months the report has been released. We turn up to Parliament and what do we discover? The Minister of Police has done a runner because he does not care about his portfolio or about the people of New Zealand. The Prime Minister has done a runner. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just come to the point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I would expect you to be suggesting in a gentle way to the Government that when a report of some note comes out such as this one which is of some concern to the public of New Zealand Ministers actually front up to this Parliament and give this Parliament and the people of New Zealand the respect that they deserve by answering the questions that we have set down.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13722] 
11.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does New Zealand face a large problem of children internally trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No a claim made yesterday in a US State Department report that New Zealand faces a large problem of children being internally trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation appears entirely unsubstantiated. The report apparently draws on research done by the New Zealand child protection organisation ECPAT but that organisation has described the claims as “utterly misleading” and “a pretty wild statement”. ECPAT has said that it is not aware of such trafficking happening in New Zealand. 
Moana Mackey 
: What steps has the Government taken to deal with the problems of trafficking of persons and child prostitution? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand has taken extraordinary measures to deal with people-trafficking and child prostitution including a national plan of action against the commercial sexual exploitation of children and taking a leading role in the Bali process against people-smuggling and trafficking. The Government passed legislation in 2002 that subjects people-traffickers to jail sentences of up to 20 years and fines of up to half a million dollars. In 2001 we made being a client of a child prostitute—defined as one under 18 years of age—a criminal offence and the House currently has before it the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) which creates an offence punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment for inducing a young person under 18 years into any act for commercial sexual exploitation.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20945] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “restrict and guide” and substitute the words “prevent and prohibit”.
McCully Murray: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
McCully Murray: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8738] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Office of the Clerk returned four questions submitted by me for written answer with the notation that the questions were out of order because the matter was sub judice. Two of those questions were addressed to you as Speaker and two to the Minister of Police. The question as to whether matters are sub judice is under Standing Order 112 a matter for the Speaker. I want to raise two questions not to criticise a ruling you have made but to seek your further consideration on both counts. 
Firstly I want to raise the question of whether Standing Order 112 should have been applied in the case of those four questions. The Standing Order as you know refers to matters awaiting judicial decision. I lodged four questions that related to details of communications between yourself and your office the Minister of Police and his office and officers of the New Zealand police force. Those communications I submit to you are not matters before the court. The matter before the court relates to some allegations about the member for Taranaki - King Country in relation to disorderly behaviour not whether the Speaker or the Minister of Police have discharged their obligations to the House in an appropriate manner. So I first ask whether in fact that was a matter in respect of which you should properly have considered the exercise of a discretion under Standing Order 112. 
Secondly I ask that you give consideration to whether such discretion was exercised appropriately even if there were grounds to exercise it. The Standing Order makes it clear that the purpose of that discretion is to enable the Speaker to rule out of order a matter where in his judgment that course is necessary to avoid—and I quote from the Standing Order—“a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” In this case the purpose of the Standing Order is to ensure that Mr Ardern gets a fair hearing. But that with respect is not the effect of your ruling. The effect of your ruling is to shield the Minister of Police and Mr Speaker from questions that I suggest members are perfectly entitled to ask of you. That is not the purpose for which I understand the discretion to exist in the Standing Orders. 
Accordingly I ask you to reconsider firstly whether Standing Order 112 should have been applied here and secondly whether the discretion was exercised appropriately. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will do that.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5570] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
.
Gosche Mark: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9687] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16930] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Secondly I seek leave to table a document that shows the effects that the amendments proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 302 would have on the text of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill as introduced. The document of course has no official status. It is provided solely for the convenience of members of Parliament. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Goff Phil: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Goff Phil: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20065] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Frankly I do not know whether the member’s questions merit a reply because they are so far wide of the mark. They are such a fantasy and so out of touch with reality as any other member of this Chamber would see it that perhaps I should not take them seriously but I will. 
These provisions are the provisions set out under the United Nations’ Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children child prostitution and child pornography. Those provisions have been passed by the United States Congress the Canadian Parliament the Australian Parliament and the Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom. For the member to suggest what he is suggesting is sadly an absolute fantasy and a nonsense. 
Stephen Franks 
: Where is the “forced labour” definition? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The definition of “forced labour” that is applied by courts across the world is obviously labour used as a sanction or as a penalty. There is not a court in this country that would interpret it in the manner that the member is suggesting. He knows that. Frankly he is wasting my time and the time of this Committee.
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11281] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 42 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 184 in the name of the Hon Annette King to insert new sections 112OA to 112OE in clause 4 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert in clause 4 new section 112T be agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16441] 
7.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did she question Hon John Tamihere about rumours of tax issues involving the Waipareira Trust and what questions did she ask him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I advised Mr Tamihere that there were rumours emanating from the Waipareira Trust that he owed tax. He advised me he did not believe he had outstanding tax liabilities. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did she press the Hon John Tamihere about any tax that might be outstanding and did she press him about what payment that tax was owed on or did she prefer to turn a blind eye? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The issue was whether he owed tax. He advised me that he did not consider he had any tax liabilities. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm the statement made by Mr John Tamihere in his book that he gave her written authorisation to access his financial records and can she tell the House why she did not use that authorisation to make further inquiries when she heard rumours several months ago of a tax problem “oozing out of the Waipareira Trust”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Back in the year 2000 there were a range of allegations around about contractual arrangements between different Government agencies and the Waipareira Trust arrangements which had been in place for some time including under the previous Government. An inquiry was set up to look at those arrangements. It may well be that Mr Tamihere gave me such an undertaking at that time—I cannot recall. I would be happy to go back and search the record to see whether that was so. 
Rodney Hide 
: In the light of the inquiry—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Please start again. That is the one warning today—not to Mr Hide but to that member who well knows who he is. 
Rodney Hide 
: I am on my best behaviour today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You have done well. 
Rodney Hide 
: Thank you. In the light of the inquiry now under way into John Tamihere’s payments and tax issues around that is it the Prime Minister’s expectation that John Tamihere will stay away from Parliament until that inquiry is completed and therefore will not be able to participate in such matters as the Maori legislation that will come before the House today and indeed the Foreshore and Seabed Bill; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is a matter for further discussion with Mr Tamihere but as I have indicated earlier he is participating fully in discussions within the Government on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she stand by her statement to this House on 26 July 2000: “John Tamihere discloses absolutely and I commend him for that.” and would she not have expected John Tamihere to disclose at least to her his golden handshake and the lack of any tax being paid on it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said in reply to earlier questions prima facie this matter raises concerns. I am going through due process and establishing what the facts are.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 9(1)(a) be agreed to: 
to add the following new subparagraph: 
(v)ensure systems set up to support the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s role will not affect the financial assistance rate for funding received by Franklin District Council or that received by any other territorial authority from Transfund.
Vote: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13896] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12185] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 200 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 5 as amended be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12478] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Gosche Mark: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19425] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 That was an amazing speech—absolutely amazing! That speech was from the National Party spokesperson on transport who from memory was the Minister of Transport two or three times during the 1990s but who could not find a motorway in Auckland that he opened in his time as Minister. Could any member find a plaque anywhere in Auckland with Maurice Williamson’s name on it—or Jenny Shipley’s name on it? They were only in Government for 9 years so we should give them a break! There is not one piece of motorway in Auckland with Maurice Williamson’s name unless he might have scribbled his name with chalk under a motorway bridge—not a thing. 
And did that party support the Government’s legislation that allowed the private sector to build roads? Did that party over there support the Government legislation that allowed tolling? Let us go and look at the  
Hansard 
 to see who voted for that legislation. I think the Greens did. I think the Labour Party did. But I know damn well that the National Party opposed it. What a bizarre speech! It opposed it. He is now lamenting the fact that he opposed it. He was over there somewhere at the time. He was out of the party in some sort of netherworld. He has now come back to be No. 27 or something. That is how highly rated the National Party spokesperson is. But in poor old Maurice Williamson’s time in the Minister’s chair not one bit of motorway was built in the Auckland region. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Not true. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: There was a bit—there was half a bit. But I opened that. Poor old Maurice Williamson! It slumped in the middle when they were building it because it took so long to build. And it was to get people out of Auckland not around Auckland. It took a Labour Minister to get it fixed and opened. That party is just absolutely without ideas and without policies. 
On the TV tonight I saw motorway construction all through Auckland. Public transport infrastructure is going flat out as fast as it can to catch up on years of neglect. There were more people riding on public transport in 1955 when I was born than there are right now thanks to Maurice Williamson’s party. It absolutely wrecked public transport; we are having to put it back together again. We are working with the private sector and the public sector to make sure that we have a balanced approach to transport in Auckland. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9663] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Okeroa Mahara: Overseas Investment Bill — First Reading 
Okeroa Mahara: Overseas Investment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18037] 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I compliment the previous speaker on his well-presented well-researched and knowledgable contribution which started from Kupe. 
It singularly impressed me. I support this bill on the basis of the arguments that have been presented.
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17807. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 We have at last discovered the National Party’s taxation policy after some five attempts. It is to adopt the proposal by my good friend Gordon Copeland to index the rates on an annual basis. Let me say first of all that United Future—I can speak on its behalf on this occasion—has put up amendments which will be vetoed. Then given that United Future has a binding agreement with the Government it will be voting for the bill because United Future unlike National keeps its word on matters. It does not sign a document and then break its word because it is convenient to do so in a political context. Let me say to Ms Wong what indexation would actually mean in an average year. For the vast majority of taxpayers in relation to the great National Party tax cuts the alternative is 22c a week. On average for most taxpayers 22c a week is what would occur as a result of indexation. For the great majority of the rest the princely reduction in the demands of the Government—the lifting of the great yoke of the State which the National Party wants to see—would be $1.77 a week. That will not win an election.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8395] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask for a particular Prime Minister’s question time as ludicrous as it should become given her past record of performance and appearance here. I am asking that she not be allowed to transfer those questions on a matter like this particularly when it goes to the core of her own performance as Prime Minister. That is why I have raised the matter—not so we can have half an hour or an hour like in the UK but so that she might like other Prime Ministers have done turn up here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 20/4 (Supplement) which I will read again: “Speaker’s ruling 116/1 recognises a longstop protection against abuse in transferring a question where only one Minister could be expected to have personal knowledge of the subject. In none of the rulings cited did the Speakers concerned actually refuse to allow the Government to transfer the particular question. The Speakers merely acknowledged that ultimately they could prevent that happening.” In this case I rule that the Minister can answer the question.
Pillay Lynne: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19901] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise and take a call on this bill because I agree with Maurice Williamson that it is a very important bill. I also agree with him that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee worked really hard on it. I think that the outcome is very very good. I also have to commend the industry for its submissions and the union and the employers who worked together and put very much time and energy into making sure that all the t’s were crossed and all the i’s were dotted and that we ended up with the best bill we could get. After all this Government believes that a well-developed safe and sustainable transport system is absolutely essential to growth and innovation. 
Let us not forget what this bill was a result of. Last year we rescued the rail network from its disastrous privatisation and we pledged to invest $200 million in it. Crown ownership of the national rail network will help to ensure that the rail system is maintained and developed as a vital part of our transport infrastructure. The bill seeks to build on that. It aims to and certainly will improve rail safety. That is very very important. The bill will transfer rail safety legislation into a comprehensive piece of legislation—namely this bill—so that what we see is what we get. 
The bill will also ensure public safety and the protection of those who are not covered by the Health and Safety in Employment Act. It will ensure health and safety on the job which this Government is really committed to as are the workers and their representatives out there. The bill will also gain assurance from the rail industry that it is managing its safety risks. 
There has been much work and much commitment as I said before from both the union and the employers within this industry to ensure that all bases are covered. I have no hesitation in standing here as a member of the select committee and commending this bill to the House.
Peck Mark: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17006] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20990] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Tabling of Documents — Question No. 12 
Tabling of Documents — Question No. 12 
[Volume:623;Page:18759] 
Tabling of Documents 
Question No. 12 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have done that before I called the next item. I will have to take the leave of the House that we return to it. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might help my education on how the House works. It is my understanding that a member can raise a point of order and seek leave to table documents at any time. The leave of the House is not constrained at any time. If Mr Franks wants to come to the House during the next session and seek leave to table papers surely he is able to do so. But for you to ask the House to grant leave for the member even to be able to ask for leave because question time has finished is an absolute nonsense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must agree with the member; I made a mistake. I would just like to urge members to remember that question time is the time to table documents relating to questions. Of course the member can seek leave to table the documents. He can seek leave now. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table a letter dated 3 November 2004 from Mr Peter Kippenberger a regional manager for the Land Transport Safety Authority as it then was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is. 
Stephen Franks 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question received yesterday from the Minister of Police concerning drivers’ identities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that written answer. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12313] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3756] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
New clause 7 agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:622;Page:18131] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the second reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill be postponed. 
Motion agreed to.
Franks Stephen: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12417] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 As this debate has been converted to a wide-ranging debate I have three areas on which I believe it would be helpful to have some comment from the Minister in the chair. In Part 9 “Personal Property Securities Act 1999” clause 59 states: “(c) a government department knows or has knowledge of” a matter when it “has been brought to the attention of a senior employee …”. I am concerned that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are on Part 1 Mr Franks. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry. I had not realised that the wide-ranging debate has not commenced. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is not until after the next vote. Then we have that debate. We are on Part 1. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I will not waste the time of the Committee. Part 1 is not something that troubles me. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Assistant Speaker Simich—Ruling Questioned by Member Ahmed Zaoui—Birthday 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Assistant Speaker Simich—Ruling Questioned by Member Ahmed Zaoui—Birthday 
[Volume:622;Page:17422] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] Those balloons will now be removed. The point has been made and the balloons will be removed or the member will be too.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17437] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Duncan Helen: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Duncan Helen: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14823] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21608] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Overseas Investment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 7; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16496] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2 be agreed to.
Cunliffe David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21984] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It is not my intention to entertain all of that rather spurious contribution in detail but I do want to mention several important indicators. Firstly Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP has fallen during the life of this Government from 35 percent to 31.7 percent as outlined in the Budget documents themselves. What is more tax as a share of GDP has remained stable and will remain stable at around 30 percent. More important still our commitment to the fiscal anchor that is debt reduction has been honoured. Gross sovereign issue debt has fallen from 35 percent of GDP when we were elected in 1999 to—wait for it—23 percent in June 2005. It has fallen from 35 percent to 23 percent and it is going down further to 20.2 percent by 2008. 
If that is not good enough net Crown debt has fallen to zero. By 2006-07 New Zealand rather like Singapore will be a creditor nation for the first time since Sir Julius Vogel borrowed to build the railways. If that is not good enough for the National Party what is? It is not interested in the facts; it is interested in cheap scaremongering that it can put on a red-blue billboard—because it is the season! But I do not underestimate the New Zealand public like National members do. I think that members of the New Zealand public know we are in for the long haul. And yes they have a few issues and not everything is perfect; and they are a bit grumpy about a few things but the reality is that they know that when we have the kind of expansion we have had in the last 5 years it ain’t good luck! If it were good luck then by God we have been the luckiest Government in history every year for the last 5 years! Luck just does not get as good as that. If Dr Cullen were as lucky as that he should buy a lot of Lotto tickets and become a very very wealthy man. 
Again this is a good prudent Government. It is a Government that has restored a deficit in public service capability quite proudly since we were elected. That was the right thing to do. That crowd opposite ran it down. It left us with a public service that could not discharge its responsibilities to New Zealand families. We fixed it and we make no apologies for doing that. 
Occasionally we get somebody who does something wrong and when we find that we nail it. We do not beat around the bush and pretend it did not happen. We nail it. Ministers take responsibility. We do our job. That is what the public expects which is why we will be back here on the Treasury benches in 8 weeks’ time and why Mr Key’s political career will flatline rather like net debt.
Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21261] 
Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Pettis Jill: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pettis Jill: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17820. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12542] 
2.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: When is the formal review of the Immigration Act 1987 and the Deportation Review Tribunal to begin and will he be seeking cross-party input into the terms of the review? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I have asked officials to begin identifying issues that will be part of a review of the Immigration Act. One of the issues involves the appeal process and the associated appeal agencies. I will be advising the process for the review including opportunities for input in due course. 
Dail Jones 
: While taking this review into consideration what action is the Minister taking for a judicial review of the decisions of the Deportation Review Tribunal in the cases of Lin Gao and Le ManhToan involving a Chinese forgery offender and a Vietnamese charged with violent offending who have been allowed by the tribunal to stay in New Zealand despite the Minister’s deportation order? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In the first instance the conditions of an appeal are very very limited on fact or in law. Secondly I have indicated that it does seem silly for one arm of Government to be taking another arm of Government to court. The only losers in that process are the taxpayers. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Will the Minister support a zero tolerance approach for immigrants who commit serious crimes so that they are automatically deported if they commit a serious crime during their first 5 years in New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Certainly the objective of the review is to toughen up the rules. Of course the definition will be around what the word “serious” means. I am sure the member will be having an interest in that. But certainly the objective is to make sure people get the message that if they come to New Zealand and are resident here they obey New Zealand laws. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is there not a risk that if the decision of the Deportation Review Tribunal is recommendatory only the fate of new migrants becomes determined by the political fashions of the day and not the humanitarian merits of each individual case? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That clearly is an issue and that is why we need to conduct this review very carefully and look at what options we have as we go forward. 
Dail Jones 
: Why has the Minister taken such a soft approach to these two criminals when for example and by comparison in the Zaoui case there was no hesitation in appeals being lodged and paid for at great expense to the taxpayer and why does not the taxpayer as evidenced by the Minister take the appeal to try to get the message clear to people that if they commit crimes out they go? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I said the conditions of an appeal are very very narrow and very very limited indeed. My understanding is that an appeal has not been taken and obviously one has not been successful. The issue of the review however is to look at all the issues that the member raises.
Turner Judy: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8096] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on the area of quality assurance because during the process of the Health Committee’s deliberations if there was one area that I felt was given extremely close scrutiny and where there was a genuine openness to listen to health practitioners it was the area of quality assurance. The balance that we are striking all the time is between the rights of consumers who have a complaint and feel that health practitioners would block information they felt was essential to their inquiry being available and the needs of true quality assurance which is that health practitioners have the freedom to discuss their concerns in an environment that is free from shame and blame. We need to balance those two factors. 
What was eventually arrived at which I thought was more than fair was the fact that nobody would ever be caught out. That means that if one’s quality assurance activity would possibly need to be used in an inquiry one would know that in advance before one participated in the activity. So a person will not suddenly discover retrospectively that something he or she shared as part of a quality assurance activity can then be used against him or her or against a colleague in way that was not intended at the time that the information was shared. What has been put in place is a provision whereby people will now know in advance before they make any contribution that their contribution may be required for use in an inquiry. 
Nobody will get caught out in that process and the ongoing need for good quality assurance will be protected by the fact that people will always know in advance whether their contribution may be used. 
I think that beyond that even the Minister’s own Supplementary Order Paper 118 has strengthened the provisions in the direction that health practitioners were asking for. If I have a concern now it is more about whether consumers are as confident about what has now been set down regarding quality assurance than it is about what health practitioners have asked for.
Peters Jim: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5144] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the commencement date as set out in the amendment. Briefly I say with regard to some of the comment that I have heard this evening that I wonder where some people have been for the last decade—particularly those people involved in the agricultural industry. There seems to be a misconception that workers out there in the dairy-farming industry in particular are being exploited. In actual fact the situation is by far the opposite of that. Anybody who is prepared to get out there and handle a cup or jump on a tractor is readily wanted and I assure the Committee is paid far above any minimum wage in order to be able to fill the intense demands of the dairy industry at the present time. It is the same for the meat industry and the wool industry. 
Again I come back to the fact that a balance is required which relates to the opportunity provided by the employer and the educational opportunities and further training that the young person—whether male or female—gets and the end result is a fair and equitable opportunity for those involved. Although I would hesitate to look at perhaps just one industry the land use industry one could also look at the hospitality industry or the supermarkets—that whole area of food servicing—where there is a history in earlier years of the exploitation of young people. Today that has been remedied slightly but in the same way a training opportunity needs to go with a fair job and a consistent and reasonable salary or wage. On behalf of New Zealand First and my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly who is our party spokesperson on those matters I support the amendment.
Benson-Pope David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10539] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brash Don: Motions — Black Caps—Test Win Over South Africa 
Brash Don: Motions — Black Caps—Test Win Over South Africa 
[Volume:616;Page:11825] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I would like to add the congratulations of the National Party to both the Black Caps and Chris Cairns. I think Chris Cairns is only the sixth cricketer in test history to achieve 3000 runs and 200 wickets in test cricket. I cannot resist pointing out to the Minister of Finance that the two New Zealanders who make up the six both came from the same very good Christchurch school.