edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Prebble Richard: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prebble Richard: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9185. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This request has been put down on a member’s day and I see you are telling us that this is not a matter that requires the attention of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It must be urgent. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Absolutely. I want you to reconsider that answer. This matter does not just concern my party. This is a report on about 200 questions asked by Rodney Hide. The report finds that many of the answers were wrong. But what is far more serious—and in the commission’s words has “serious consequences”—is that the report states that those circumstances are serious possibly indicating a lack of capability in the ministry to support the constitutional mechanisms by which Parliament holds Ministers and therefore the Government to account and a systemic impediment to the business of Government through the deterioration of the relationship between a Minister and his chief executive and senior officials. Why I suggest to you that this is urgent is that this report states that when members of Parliament put down a question tomorrow to Te Puni Kokiri there is no mechanism to ensure that the answer is accurate. In fact the report states that the systemic failures are such and the relationship between the Minister and his officials is so bad that the officials actually suspended the report and called in the State Services Commission. I just want to ask you this question: are you saying as Speaker that it is perfectly satisfactory that the Government can table a report stating that Ministers can no longer answer questions about Te Puni Kokiri? If members want to put down questions about that department tomorrow we have no idea—including the Minister—whether the answer that is being given to us is true or false. I cannot think of a matter that goes more to the issue of parliamentary accountability. I fail to see why the inability of the Government to answer questions accurately is regarded by you as a matter of no urgency.
Hutchison Paul: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hutchison Paul: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17533] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of this very important Civil Union Bill. Just recently we heard the Hon Paul Swain give a very sincere and thoughtful speech as a Roman Catholic supporting this bill. It is very difficult at times to balance the thoughtful speeches that are given by members on either side that relate to this bill. I think he ended up by saying in essence that he supports the civil union possibility of a loving and caring couple who wanted to go through some sort of public and legal recognition. I ask the Hon Paul Swain why one needs this formal Civil Union Bill put up by the Labour Government and the rights it bestows on people when we already have common law rights in New Zealand that allow that extra freedom of individuals to be able to design the sort of framework for the relationship that they would like. Surely that extra freedom is something that is enormously important and the whole democratic process is about working for those freedoms. 
Have we not in this case almost got an over-reaction of the civil and human rights gained over the last 40 to 60 years in the gender battle? When one thinks back to Oscar Wilde and the absolutely extraordinary persecution that he went through in that era one thinks of how he would be able to express himself today with considerable openness and hopefully little or no persecution and also enter into a relationship that would be recognised by common law if that were what he wanted. 
 Is the Labour Government not over-reacting in a historical sense and saying: “Here is a small group of New Zealanders who want to be recognised by special legislation over and above the common law so this is what we will provide for them. They are particularly shrill in the way they have caused this to come about so we will indeed give them this framework of civil union which they say is different from a marriage.” 
I heard the Hon Paul Swain say he could not support civil union being equivalent to marriage yet time and time again we have asked the Minister to explain to us what the difference is and he has failed to do so. 
In terms of the Labour Government’s concerns as to the myths relating to civil union it has put up 10 yet they do not seem to be able to stand very close scrutiny—for instance its third one: “Doesn’t this bill affect only a tiny minority of New Zealanders?”. Time and time again we have heard the rhetoric that there are in the order of 330000 New Zealanders in de facto relationships and a small number of same-sex couples who would be affected by this legislation. That indeed is true but what we do not hear is on the one hand the number who would be likely to take advantage of this bill and on the other hand how many would be quite satisfied to design their own common law contract. This is the point I am making. Surely in historical terms this is an over-reaction. Surely the greater freedom that we have in this country is the ability to be able to form a union under common law.
Carter Chris: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter Chris: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14021] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 It has been astonishing sitting in this Chamber since dinner time and seeing the crocodile tears coming from National Party members about this bill. Some of those National members were members of a Government that did nothing about Auckland transport. We heard that for 14 long years Aucklanders have been in queues. For how many of those 14 years was National the Government of this country? It was for at least 9 years. This Government has had the energy the commitment and the resources to commit to structures and funding that will start to address this complex and difficult question. 
Mr Williamson who is a former Minister of Transport asked why Transit should not be part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Mr Williamson knows although some members may not that Transit is responsible for roading issues all over the country. It could not possibly be an integral part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. However it is required to submit its plans to the authority and the authority is required to submit its plans to Transit to comment on each other’s planning. This is the first time they have been required to consult each other and this synergy—this working together—is the only way we will solve this problem. 
We were told that there are now two extra structures to fix up Auckland transport issues. I remind members that each of the eight territorial authorities had its own roading programmes. Now that has been integrated into the Auckland Regional Transport Authority whereby each of them has a representative sitting on the board. Now instead of eight authorities we have one—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. That is the progress that this bill seeks to arrive at. This Government has committed $1.6 billion to Auckland transport over 10 years. The Labour-led Government has delivered not just this new governance structure designed to make a more effective and efficient delivery of transport outcomes but also it has delivered the money. We have walked the walk; we have not talked the talk.
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17025] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn members again about speaking during points of order. Mr Brownlee was warned several times to sit down. He never raised a point of order. He was being brought to order by the Chair. It was nothing to do with a point of order; that is why he was sent from the Chamber.  
I will also rule on Mr Jones’ contribution. I warn all members about interrupting members’ speeches with points of order that are not points of order. That was a debatable point. I warn members again about that. Dail Jones is quite correct in his point of order—that has happened throughout this debate.
Yates Dianne: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20545] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I was extremely disappointed in the Opposition member’s speech on this bill. It showed that she has not read Part 7A of the Medicines Act and that she has not read the screeds of submission papers made when this moratorium was implemented or any of the papers that came out of a conference of international experts held in Boston on the subject of xenotransplantation. It also showed that she is not listening to the people of New Zealand. 
This legislation extends the moratorium on the controls—I point out to the member Katherine Rich that this legislation does not ban them—on xenotransplantation of animal to human organs. She is obviously not aware of the fact that since the moratorium has been in place there have not been applications by people asking to do this. So we are not holding back science because there have not been any applications. Had the member listened during the select committee deliberations when this information was presented she would have noted that the committee was told that. 
This bill is about a moratorium. There is extensive public dialogue about bioethics. There has been a good deal of publicity. I have attended public meetings in my city that were attended by a large number of scientists involved both in medicine and in agricultural research. They know a great deal about the subject. I look forward to the report of the Bioethics Council on this matter and to more public discussion on the chance of retrovirus infection. We are still not sure from the research that has been done whether the pigs that are being used are absolutely clear and cannot transmit a retrovirus. On a day when we are anxious about foot-and-mouth disease in New Zealand I think that when talking about animal to human organ transplantation we must apply the precautionary principle as is being done in Australia and Britain.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:616;Page:12515] 
Thursday 8 April 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will begin a 3-week recess. When the House resumes on Tuesday 4 May priority will be given to the Corrections Bill the Border Security Bill the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill the Forests Amendment Bill and specifically on Thursday 6 May the first reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day in the first week. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 As I foreshadowed yesterday I seek leave for the Government’s foreshore and seabed legislation to become Government order of the day No. 1 so that we can hold the debate and the vote today. I think it is desirable for the country to know whether the Government does command a majority. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13368] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 4; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19791] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 I rise very briefly to support this Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) in the context of being the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control. In this bill there is some responsibility around the export of small arms. Those members who have served in the Solomons and in Bougainville will be very much aware of the question that has troubled people in the Pacific including the Pacific Islands Forum about where they get those arms from. 
It just so happens—[ 
Interruption 
] I wonder whether that member would listen. It just so happens that a representative of the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners came to visit me at my electorate office concerned about the proposed legislation. I raised with him the issue of small arms control particularly as it related to the Pacific. He then took up the offer from the disarmament mission inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to go to a meeting of Pacific nations—I think it was in Fiji. As a result of that he realised that there was a severe and serious problem around the control of small arms in the Pacific and he has offered the help and expertise of the New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners to the Pacific nations to help them with that issue. 
I am the Minister responsible for disarmament in terms of nuclear weapons. What I know is that in the Pacific more people die from small arms injuries than do because of nuclear arms and nuclear weapons. [ 
Interruption 
] This is a really important issue and unlike that member the council when it got to the Pacific really saw the issue and wanted to engage in work with us. We have not been working away from the firearms people. 
Bill read a first time.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:621;Page:16865] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I have just one question to the Leader of the House. Is it the intention of the Government to include the Electoral Matters Bill in the urgency motion?
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19712] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider the content of that leave request. The member did not merely relitigate a ruling that you gave but stated it was wrong. The member stated that the Government had breached Standing Order 38. That of course— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I didn’t. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member should very carefully look at his own  
Hansard 
 because that is what he said. He said that the Government breached Standing Order 38. You Madam Speaker have already ruled that the Government was not in breach of the Standing Orders on that matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. Leave was denied. [ 
Interruption 
] Is there another point of order?
Carter Chris: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
Carter Chris: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7029] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: I rise to support the legislation.
Shirley Ken: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5732] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A number of very serious questions have been raised and we should give the Government an opportunity for a response. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Well no response! 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10543] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to Part 2 be agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16394] 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Are Ministers required to make accurate disclosures of property payments and gifts over $500 in the Government’s  
Register of Ministers’ Interests and Assets 
 and does Mr Tamihere’s “nil return” in the register as at 31 December 2003 mean that he had no property and had received no payments or gifts that year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Ministers are required to make accurate disclosures of the categories of interests and assets that are laid out in the  
Cabinet Manual 
. Mr Tamihere’s return means that he declared a nil return in terms of those categories of interests and assets. 
Rodney Hide 
: If a Minister does not disclose significant assets and gifts such as property and shares is that grounds for dismissal from Cabinet; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that would depend upon the nature of the circumstances. Obviously if there was a wilful failure to declare then that would be a very serious matter indeed as I hope it will be when the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill is passed and the member does what he says he will do and not declare his interests and assets. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister clarify the position of what penalty a Minister faces for not making an accurate disclosure who does the checking and which court or committee administers the hearing process? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the last point is the crucial one. The court as I understand it is a one-person court. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it the standard of this Government for Ministers not to declare assets and gifts and then to say: “Oh well John Tamihere has a good explanation for this.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member wants to make a specific accusation I invite him to do so then I can respond. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Prime Minister or any other person acting on her behalf asked for any advice or reports from the Secretary of the Cabinet on matters relating to Mr Tamihere’s declaration of assets and interests; if so what specific advice was received? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have sought advice from the Cabinet Office this morning about certain declarations of interest to satisfy myself and what I can indicate is that in 1 year Mr Tamihere made a return of assets that he did not need to make which is why they did not appear in the return the following year. 
Peter Brown 
: Are any spot checks ever taken on Ministers’ disclosure statements; if not does the Prime Minister believe it would be worthwhile in order to give the public an assessment of a Minister’s integrity or is that a risk that Ministers would not be prepared to take? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can speak only on my own behalf in that respect. I am perfectly happy for anybody to check my return which is a half share in property. My other two major assets a Kiwibank savings account and a BNZ managed fund are not required to be returned and that is specific in terms of the advice of the Cabinet Office.
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:626;Page:21052] 
10.  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Did the Rt Hon Helen Clark announce a policy regarding taxpayer-subsidised tertiary study for Chinese nationals last week; if so what is the total estimated annual cost to the taxpayer of such a scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the partners of foreign students using the taxpayer-funded package announced by the Minister in India and repeated by the Prime Minister in China automatically be able to work in New Zealand will their children be able to have fully subsidised education within our schooling system and what is the total estimated annual cost to the taxpayer of this scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have the breakdown of figures for China. The member is aware that this scheme is to allow doctoral students to work with leading researchers in New Zealand in order to boost our science and other research—something that is for the good of New Zealand. It is not restricted to China; even the member’s friends from the United States England Europe and other white countries can come. The total cost to the taxpayer over 4 years will be slightly under $15 million. That is a very cheap price for a lot of very good research. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why should New Zealand taxpayers fund tertiary courses for students from other nations including oil-rich nations such as Saudi Arabia when our own students are having to put themselves into considerable debt in order to receive a tertiary education and does he not realise that New Zealand’s education system is for New Zealanders first? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I reject the member’s xenophobic approach to life. I want to make it clear that firstly these are not courses. They are research programmes; they are doctorates. Secondly I want to make it clear to the member that they are not free to the people who are coming. All we are saying is that in order to get these wonderful people to come to New Zealand to study with our leading researchers we will charge them the same as Kiwis. Many countries around the world pay people a fortune to come.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19379] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9836] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I find myself in the somewhat strange situation of agreeing with the House. The ACT party will be supporting this bill. There do appear to be some pretty sensible changes here especially the changes relating to those who seek deliberately to destroy the fishing stocks of this country through poaching. I can only agree entirely with those who have been promoting the quota management system and I believe that my colleague Rodney Hide was one of those who was instrumental in the early days in getting the quota management system in place. We must absolutely ensure the sustainability of this most valuable asset we have of our coastal shores and deep water. 
I have to say that I am searching in vain in the explanatory note for a comment where the Government says: “Sorry fishing industry. We got it wrong. We overcharged you by $24.6 million.” No such apology is forthcoming but it is pleasing to see that the industry is prepared to get together with the Government and iron out this anomaly. I have no idea what the opportunity-cost might have been to the industry of being overcharged by $24.6 million. I cannot help but reflect also that many people in this country would see a surplus of $24.6 million in the ministry’s coffers as somewhat similar to the $5.6 billion in the Government’s coffers. Many would regard that as the taxpayer being overcharged by the Government. Maybe we should return that as well. I think that would be a rather nice Christmas present by way of tax cuts. 
However it is good to see that the ministry has done something right by returning that money to its rightful owners. Again I reiterate the importance of adequate penalties being imposed upon those who break the law—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister is interrupting. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Sit down so we can get it passed. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: He wants to go home. Well I think it is important that political parties in this land actually have their say—not just the Government which is getting a bit arrogant about this whole business. But I see the time is almost upon us so I will finish by saying that yes ACT will support the Government on this particular issue but with the cautionary note that the Government does have to be a bit more careful about how it levies and charges the public of this country. 
Bill read a first time.
Hunt Jonathan: Business Statement 
Hunt Jonathan: Business Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18738] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Chairperson gave rulings last night and I do not review the rulings of other presiding officers. But I was briefed on this matter and if the member would like to approach me or send me something in writing I will be happy to consider it. I do not want to have any further comment on this matter. We have the proceedings of the House to get on with. That is not a matter for a point of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Speaker I say that it is a point of order. It is an important point for this House to have an authoritative assurance that the two texts are the same. Whether that is a debating matter or whether it is something that requires as was indicated a decision of the Business Committee and the Standing Orders Committee we need a Speaker’s ruling. Having consulted Mr McGee we are in a position whereby the question of whether the two texts are the same appears to be treated as a debating matter. This country has suffered enough from having texts purporting to be one law that have two very different meanings. I ask that you consider the effect of the ruling that was given last night against the ruling that could not be given last night on the matter of the role of the interpreter.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15289] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10007] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made his point. There is a wide margin. The vote is 61 to 56. It has been that way and we have had votes like that before. There was no need for a personal vote and I have ruled against it. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new clause 7C be agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
[Volume:620;Page:15381] 
12.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What support has the Government given to Bay of Plenty ratepayers and councils affected by recent floods and earthquakes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Local Government 
: The Government has allocated $3 million to help councils in the Bay of Plenty remit rates of businesses trying to recover from the floods and earthquakes. The funding will enable the councils to remit rates on affected businesses and income-generating properties. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What other assistance has the Government given to the Bay of Plenty to help it recover from the flooding? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The initiative is part of a comprehensive package of Government assistance for the Bay of Plenty of up to $30 million. This package has included assistance with agriculture recovery school and road repairs and direct assistance to low-income earners and people evacuated from their homes. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Since the Government has generously provided support to cover the costs of transporting stock out of the region will the Government consider providing that support for the cost of returning stock to the region as it did in the Manawatu-Rangitikei? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: While we continue to keep all matters under advice I am given advice by the Minister of Agriculture I think that in this case it was quite legitimate for the farmers to bear the cost of return. In the case of removal of course in a number of instances the removal of stock occurred without the farmers’ knowledge or permission because of the circumstances. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister explain why the Government has been so unwilling to include the one or two fund-raising projects that had been planned and advertised for literally weeks in the dollar-for-dollar donation scheme when without warning it set a cut-off date which meant that those events were excluded? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We had to set some kind of cut-off date as I think we did in the case of the Manawatu-Rangitikei situation. However if the member wants to make further representations to the Minister I am sure he would be willing to consider them.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:627;Page:22117] 
Thursday 28 July 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House the valedictory statements will be the first item taken after questions for oral answer on Tuesday 2 August. Following the valedictory statements the Government intends to take urgency to complete the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill including the Imprest Supply Bill (Second for 2005/06) Bill; Government notice of motion No. 1 on the Misuse of Drugs Act; the remaining stages of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill; Government notice of motion No. 2 in relation to the Standing Orders; and Government notice of motion No. 3 in relation to the register of members’ pecuniary interests. At the conclusion of urgency the adjournment motion will be put to the House.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19971] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13157] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am not going to entertain any more discussion on this matter. I will rule on the point of order. The member will please be seated. I just remind members that there should be silence while I am ruling and also while a member is speaking on a point of order. I note the points made by Mr Carter. It is a question that is raised from time to time. However I refer the member to the Review of Standing Orders. Certainly it contains quite a lot about the title debate. I suggest that members have a look at that again. I will put the question on the closure motion. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have made my decision. There will be no further debate on the closure motion. 
Ron Mark 
: We seem to get into the habit of having clairvoyance guiding us on occasion— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: If it is a new point of order it is acceptable.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Agent Orange—Health Committee Report Doha Declaration—Motion 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Agent Orange—Health Committee Report Doha Declaration—Motion 
[Volume:622;Page:17667] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Hawkins George: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Hawkins George: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16145] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Beyer Georgina: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5411] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5083] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Education—How do effective schools manage their finances? 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Education—How do effective schools manage their finances? 
[Volume:620;Page:15671] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Bernie Ogilvy seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the release of a report into how schools manage their finances. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not consider that it requires the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. There will be many parliamentary opportunities to examine the report’s significance. The application is therefore declined.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17871. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; 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 10 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 27 (2) the following new paragraphs: 
(c)include statements that show the impact of Government activities on the environment. This will include but is not limited to a statement of: 
(i)water use 
(ii)energy use 
(iii)waste 
(iv)emissions and discharge 
(v)use of hazardous substances 
(d)include statements that show the impact of Government activities on people and communities. This will include but is not limited to a statement of: 
(i)life expectancy 
(ii)physical well being 
(iii)social connectedness 
(iv)employment and unemployment 
(v)income inequality 
(vi)housing affordability
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20121] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) the following new paragraph: 
(c)became so entitled on or after 1 July 2005 and is a long term business visa holder who was present in New Zealand as at 30 June 2005.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9890] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Carter John: Points of Order — Speaking Slots—Allocation 
Carter John: Points of Order — Speaking Slots—Allocation 
[Volume:617;Page:12701] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I could have the House’s indulgence because the House will not know of some of the circumstances on which I need a ruling. 
As a consequence of the outcome of the last election you ruled that for every third first reading New Zealand First was entitled to a second speaking slot and it would come off the National Party’s allocation. However it was agreed that rather than have that as a regular thing there would be a discussion between the whips of New Zealand First and myself to decide the allocation of those speaking slots. Up until now that has worked very well; by mutual agreement we have given some and taken some and it has worked out well. 
Yesterday I received a call from the senior New Zealand First whip Peter Brown asking whether we would consider giving that party a second speaking slot on the foreshore and seabed legislation. I told him I would give it consideration and get back to him this morning. In the meantime a discussion ensued from Jill Pettis who had put a proposal to all the whips in the House suggesting that we extend the debate by half an hour so that all parties could get an extra speaking slot of 5 minutes. I understand that generally that had been agreed to except for one party which I understand indicated to Jill Pettis that it would not agree to it. Jill Pettis emailed me and rang me back about midday to tell me that unfortunately the proposal had not been agreed to. 
In the meantime rather than the discussions that normally take place occurring between myself and Peter Brown the senior whip—who is now in Dunedin—unfortunately the acting senior whip for New Zealand First Dail Jones went directly to you Mr Speaker to ask whether you would give the third speaking slot in the debate to New Zealand First. The fact is that under the understanding we have the discussions should take place between the whips and if we cannot agree then obviously it is up to you to make a decision. Unfortunately that did not happen. Mr Jones went directly to you and broke the agreement. 
I just want to make two points. In whatever decision you make firstly you might consider that this will be the 95th first reading and as a consequence if a speaking slot is to be allocated to New Zealand First on every third bill then on this bill the slot would go to National; and secondly in this particular issue given that the discussion that should have taken place did not take place it would be fair for you to consider that the allocation of the slot to National would be appropriate. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8814] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to refer to the last point the member made. I agree with him that there must be the widest possible debate on this particular area. The Speaker cannot control the way in which a bill is drafted—Speaker’s ruling 77/1. An instruction to take a bill part by part relates to the parts of the bill that are before the committee. The parts of this bill contain within them parts to be inserted in the principal Act. These new parts are not considered to be parts of this bill. It is not uncommon for parts of bills to insert new parts in the principal Act. That can look confusing I agree. I did rule earlier this year that the insertion of new parts in a principal Act is a factor for the Chair to take into account before accepting the closure and the Chair should do that here. Mr Prebble’s principle that the Chair should prefer more debate if given the choice may be correct but here the Chair has no choice. Further to Mr Prebble’s remarks there is a rule that provisions are taken in sequence—Standing Order 296—unless the committee decides otherwise. I come back with my last point and say to the Hon Peter Dunne that there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate.
Vote: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9544] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8174] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of Dr Lynda Scott to clause 231 be agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8270] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Swain Paul: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9739] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 In recommending the schedules to the Committee I point out that like most schedules they are pretty technical in nature. They apply to some tidied-up consultation provisions and to provisions relating to the safety administration programme—“SAP”—Transfund and Transit. Other matters relate to the performance agreement between the Minister and various entities and the last part concerns consequential amendments to other Acts. I recommend the schedules to the Committee.
Brownlee Gerry: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to argue the issue as I spoke before of your prowess in the Chair but you will find that New Zealand First has had at least one call on this part so far and in the order of things we would expect the call to return to the National Party so that we might rotate through the parties one more time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and say that I have looked at the proportionality. The National Party has had four speeches and New Zealand First has had one. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Do not get carried away by the polls Mr Chairman! The fact is the National Party is four times as big as that party. I am serious about this. We are not going to have presiding officers start to make rulings on the basis of polling information because it is spurious. I am a senior member of the National Party—a front-bench member. I have a contribution to make and I do expect to be recognised very soon. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9975] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If I heard you correctly you talked about an individual a statutory company or one other public institution—I forget the precise terminology. None of those organisations come into that category so I would be grateful if you could indicate to the Committee what the source of your ruling is by reference to a Standing Order or a Speaker’s ruling or some other authoritative text. It appears that the amendments you are ruling out are being ruled out because they seek to exempt particular premises yet the categories of premise you outlined do not cover those types of organisation.
Vote: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9404] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Catchpole Brent: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11985] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The bill came back to the House only a few days ago. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Time does fly but it was some time ago.
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Hartley Ann: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7675] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: In ruling on the point of order I can only go by the Standing Orders. I know that the Business Committee did discuss the matter and I know that there was an agreement between parties. However the Standing Orders do stand.
Okeroa Mahara: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Okeroa Mahara: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5454] 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I stand to support this bill.