edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22331] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 2 be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Cullen Michael: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10353] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Sex Offenders Registry Bill to be transferred from the Law and Order Committee to the Justice and Electoral Committee and for the committee to report this bill by 18 May 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.
Carter John: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Carter John: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8997] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is by way of clarification because it is well known as you say that we cannot individually name somebody other than to call him or her by his or her proper title. How do we get on in the case where it is a general reference over several members? I do not know whether we have a specific ruling and that is the issue that has come up—to describe a collective if one likes in a way that is a bit humorous and a bit of fun. One of the things that we try to encourage in this House is to have a smile every now and again because it is a rare event. It would be unfortunate indeed if we got to the stage where we had a ruling that actually curbed our ability rare as it is to inject a little bit of humour from time to time. That is really the issue that concerns me. I wonder whether you might give us a little guidance on that aspect.
Parker David: New Zealand Day Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: New Zealand Day Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19664] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of Labour to support this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I agree with some of the comments made by the previous speaker that changing the name of the day is less important than some of the underlying debates so Labour will not necessarily support the legislation once it has been considered by the select committee. 
We are forced to consider this bill as part of the wider debate going on in New Zealand now concerning the place of the Treaty of Waitangi. One way the Government is addressing that debate is through the Constitutional Arrangements Committee which is currently sitting and cataloguing present constitutional arrangements. It will make recommendations to Parliament not about how the constitution ought to change—if it ought to change at all—but if change were to be contemplated about what processes have been followed in overseas countries. 
Changing the name of the day will not fix the underlying treaty issues this country needs to address and is addressing. I like to quote Dr Michael Cullen who earlier this year commented that the treaty is a document that: “… provides an orderly framework for the settlement of historical grievances and the resolution of ongoing debates about the rights of the original inhabitants and owners of the land.” We ought not to forget that and we ought also to take some solace and pride from the fact that many of those historical grievances have already been settled in a way that I think reflects well on both Maori and non-Maori. 
If I take my own part of the world the South Island I can say that the Ngai Tahu settlement some years ago settled forever the historic grievances behind that dispute between Ngai Tahu and the Crown in a way that has already stood the test of a reasonable period of time. Following that settlement we have seen considerable success on the part of Ngai Tahu in improving their own institutions financial position and the position of their people particularly as they direct so much money towards the education of their young people and the care and welfare of their older people. 
Although Labour is prepared to support this bill going to the select committee we make the point that changing the name of Waitangi Day to New Zealand Day will not resolve underlying treaty issues and ought not to be a way to brush over them.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5577] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Noes 105 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Green Party 9. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 41 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Donald Rod: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Donald Rod: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17926] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Spurred on by David Carter I would like to offer the Committee another amendment. I found David Carter’s words of encouragement—and his enthusiasm for my $10 deposit in the Southland Building Society in particular—after I had put forward my last amendment in relation to building societies so gratifying that I checked with officials to see whether there was anywhere else I could insert building societies into this legislation. I was delighted to find that there is an opportunity in schedule 8 which is covered by clause 236 in Part 8 which members are currently debating. 
The reason we need to insert an item relating to building societies into schedule 8 is that the Government has graciously agreed with its Supplementary Order Paper 315 to remove from schedule 6B the item section 199 relating to bank accounts from the requirements put on tertiary educational institutions. The unintended consequence of that is that the addition just made in the last part which enables Crown entities to have a bank account with a building society does not apply to tertiary educational institutions. I am not requiring tertiary educational institutions to have a bank account with a building society but they should have the opportunity to open one if they so wish. I know in particular that the Southern Institute of Technology would love to have an account with the Southland Building Society. I see the local member Mark Peck is nodding vigorously. I know that he is a strong advocate of both the building society in Southland and the institute of technology; they are two superb local institutions that I am sure every member in this Chamber supports. 
So I am pleased to advise the Committee that the Government has generously agreed to my further amendment to insert in clause 201(1) after the words “registered bank” the words “ or any registered building society with which a Crown entity may establish maintain or operate a bank account under section 199 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Act 2004.” That would give all tertiary educational institutions in New Zealand both universities and polytechnics the opportunity to open a bank account with their local building societies. I am sure there will be crowds in the streets applauding that initiative. I know that it will become a widely known initiative once David Carter takes a call to congratulate me yet again on providing a major step forward for the building society movement in New Zealand. I am sure that the building societies’ $2.7 billion in deposits will grow rapidly as a result of this change.
Clark Helen: Election of Speaker 
Clark Helen: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18946] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Madam Speaker-Elect I rise on behalf of the Labour Party in the House to congratulate you on your election today and to wish you well for your term of office as Speaker. Later this afternoon you will as you said go to visit the Governor-General at Government House and you will make three requests of her. The first is to be confirmed by her in your new office as Speaker the second is to ask for the right of all members for free speech in Parliament and the third is to ask for a favourable construction to be put on the proceedings of the House. These are very important elements of our constitutional framework. 
In the House of Commons from which we derive so many of our parliamentary traditions members fought for the right to free speech with the Speaker often at the forefront of those struggles and Speakers did on occasion encounter difficulties when they conveyed the views of Parliament to the monarch—such difficulties that history records that seven serving Speakers were actually beheaded and another was murdered. Eventually Cromwell backed by Parliament ordered the execution of the King himself. No such blood has been spilt since. Nor do we expect any here although the occasional eviction from the Chamber is expected. In respect of the request for a favourable construction being placed on the proceedings of the House this too lies at the heart of the convention and practice of parliamentary sovereignty in New Zealand. 
Madam Speaker-Elect your career has taken you from the law schools of Auckland and Waikato universities to the Law Commission to the office of chief of staff in the office of the Prime Minister to the board of the Reserve Bank to association with many other organisations prior to your appointment as Attorney-General Minister of Labour Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and many other portfolio responsibilities and now to your election as Speaker today. 
You are this country’s first woman Speaker in a nation where there are not many more firsts for women to achieve. You have been a pioneer for women in the law in education and in Government office and you have achieved every position you have ever held on merit and because of your tenacity and determination to succeed in whatever you undertake to do. I have no doubt that those same characteristics will serve you well in this job as you rule in a way that is firm but fair uphold the privileges and freedoms of Parliament and protect the rights of minorities in the House. 
I suspect also that many members are about to find out that you have a particularly strong and keen sense of humour. 
No doubt there will be a settling in period as members test both your limits and your patience. It has been ever thus—and not only in settling-in periods for Speakers. But I have no doubt of your capacity to deal with these challenges as you have with every other challenge that has presented itself in your life. I wish you all the best in your term as Speaker.
Visitors — Australia—Treasurer of the Commonwealth 
Visitors — Australia—Treasurer of the Commonwealth 
[Volume:623;Page:18737] 
Thursday 17 February 2005 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Treasurer of the Commonwealth 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Peter Costello Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair.
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. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 52 be agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Wilson Margaret: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:607;Page:4933] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
. 
Motion agreed to.
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:20946] 
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 “in order to help ensure that the remedy of compensation is reserved for exceptional cases and used only if and only to the extent that it is necessary to provide effective redress”.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8964] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I sought leave for the Prime Minister to table the privacy waiver that because of the way she released to the House personal medical information about an elderly woman I presume she has. That leave has not been put.
Vote: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Vote: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21779] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be considered by the Government Administration Committee 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17821. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Burton Mark: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
Burton Mark: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
[Volume:620;Page:15866] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member raises a matter that can and should be dealt with in a more appropriate manner. If he has a specific complaint he should write to the Minister concerned or to you Mr Speaker in terms of the process of written questions through the House. This is simply not the right place or time to bring this up.
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Broadcasting—Sound System 
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Broadcasting—Sound System 
[Volume:615;Page:11314] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem occurred only during the last two speeches. It was OK earlier on but when Dr Smith and Russell Fairbrother spoke it was really bad.
Hobbs Marian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8939] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am taking this call not because I have been invited to by the honourable member over there but because there are three issues that I want to deal with. First of all there is the issue to do with call-in powers. I can hear members commenting and there are obviously amendments saying please remove the words “spiritual cultural and ethical”. I think it is fair to say that this Government has spent a lot of time listening and it has obviously expended money as Mr Ardern pointed out in setting up the royal commission. The Government listened to the royal commission and but for one or two it accepted the 49 recommendations. 
The royal commission on whom was put a bishop à la an ethicist—at least I hope he is an ethical bishop—asked us to consider and expressly recommended this particular amendment which the Government agreed to. A call-in is a discretionary power for the Minister for the Environment. That is all that has happened. It is not how one makes the decision. A call-in is when probably something might arise that in generic terms has been alerted to me by the Bioethics Council. It might say: “There are a whole lot of things happening overseas in this particular area particularly with ethics and we are worried about them.” then one particular example of that generic one arrives in New Zealand in terms of an application. My ability as a Minister is to add one or two specific people if I call it in to the authority to consider it and I either reject their answers or I do not. So this is not about hocus-pocus. Ethics is for those of us who have been brought up by Dominicans something fairly serious and I know that spiritual matters can be difficult in a society that is largely not so spiritual—I cannot think of the opposite. 
Simon Power 
: Secular. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I thank the member. In a secular society it is difficult. But that is the reason. It is not actually the decision-making process; it is just adding two people to the authority—just as we had an ethicist on the royal commission. 
The member asked about the definitions. They are the ordinary standard dictionary definitions and I will not pull them out because there are probably about 10 and they can have fun. Now I will try to give an explanation on the reverse burden of proof which is an issue the member raised. The Government policy is that this provision requiring the defendant to satisfy the court that he or she did not know and could not reasonably have known of the breach of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is akin to a defence to pecuniary penalty proceedings. It is appropriate that the defendant establish the elements of the defence to the civil standard of proof in the same way that the defendant is required to prove any of the defences in the proposed section 124. I will leave it at that and again if there is an argument on it I am listening.
Fairbrother Russell: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15297] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Speaking Slots—Allocation 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Speaking Slots—Allocation 
[Volume:617;Page:12701] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance on this matter at this stage. The Speaker calls members to speak under Standing Order 102. In the first instance this must be negotiated with the whips—and we are talking about the 11th speaking slot only and no other. I cannot impose unless there is a complete and fundamental disagreement between the two whips but I suggest they get together. If they cannot come to an agreement then I will make a decision at that point. But I hope the whips can come to an agreement about it.
Ryall Tony: Appointments — Electoral Commission—Membership 
Ryall Tony: Appointments — Electoral Commission—Membership 
[Volume:624;Page:18996] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 We of the National Party in Opposition will be supporting the Government motion which will see the appointment of two representatives— 
Rod Donald 
: The two-party club. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is the good old days. 
Rodney Hide 
: At least he’s honest! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There are very good reasons which I will talk about as to why it should happen that I support the nomination of the Hon David Caygill and Mr John Kenneth Warcup Isles. They are for no lesser reason than the very grand-sounding name that Mr Isles brings to the Electoral Commission but also because I think that Mr Isles together with Mr Caygill brings a perspective to the commission that is fundamental to the responsibilities for which they have been appointed. In allocating the proportion of funding for the various political parties it is vital that the practical political experience of those two appointees is brought to the table for the deliberations that the commission makes. If we look at the make-up of the commission we see that it is made up of people with minimal practical political experience. They are people who have no necessary appreciation of what it is to explain a message to the public and who have no practical appreciation of the logistics required for a party of any size within this House to get its message out to the voting public in New Zealand. So that is the reason why these two representatives one for the Government parties and one for the Opposition parties are to be appointed. 
Mr Isles has done this job previously and he did come and talk to the Opposition parties— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he didn’t. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: He didn’t come? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: He should have. I would expect him to make sure that he talks to the various parties. I think it is important to make sure that this expertise is brought to the table which is why Mr Caygill and Mr Isles have been appointed. I do not think that anyone could accuse them of favouring one political party over another. Frankly after looking at the allocation of moneys that was made last time I do not think there is anybody who could accuse either of them of doing a favour to any party because everyone was very disappointed in the outcome of the commission’s considerations last time. 
In summary the National Party in Opposition supports this motion. We think it is important that people with practical political experience are involved in the commission. These two men bring their personal credibility and reputations to the responsibilities that they will perform on behalf of this House and I think they will play an important role in supplementing the generally academic experience of those involved in the commission which is involved in a process that is most practical. That is why their expertise is needed.
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:19959] 
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.
Obituaries — Hon Michael Aynsley Connelly 
Obituaries — Hon Michael Aynsley Connelly 
[Volume:611;Page:8183] 
Thursday 28 August 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Hon Michael Aynsley Connelly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 27 August 2003 of the Hon Michael Aynsley Connelly CMG QSO who represented the electorate of Riccarton from 1956 to 1969 that of Wigram from 1969 to 1978 and that of Yaldhurst from 1978 to 1984. Mick Connelly was Minister of Police and Minister of Customs from 1972 to 1975 and also Minister of Works and Development and Minister of Statistics from 1974 to 1975. He was a past president of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of New Zealand. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with his wife Margaret and all of the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Smith Murray: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Smith Murray: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8218] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the bill. I do not intend to speak at any length on it—a fact that will earn me brownie points with my Petone Community Board colleague MP Moana Mackey as well as with the Government whip. Clearly the advantage of the Government being able to move by Order in Council such matters as are contained in this bill enables it to provide flexibility and to move with speed. I note in particular that it has been important and desirable for the Government to be able to move by Order in Council on the Customs Import Prohibition (Dangerous Breeds of Dogs) Order the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order the Social Security (Funeral Grants) Order and the War Pensions (Rates of Pensions and Allowances) Order. The bill provides a useful function in enabling the Government to move on those matters without their immediate consideration by the House and the delays that that incurs. On the other hand the requirement that such a bill come to the House provides an opportunity for Parliament to consider and debate the matters for which orders have been made and therefore there is a degree of accountability on the part of the Government and I think that is welcome as well. United Future will support this bill. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Regulations Review Committee. referred to the Regulations Review Committee
Hunt Jonathan: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11861] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One point I agree with Mr Brownlee about is that robust debate is permitted in this Parliament and we have it. We have a very robust democracy. But that is not the issue here. Dr Smith’s retort to the Chairperson is the point. A withdrawal must be a simple withdrawal without qualification. The member qualified his withdrawal. That is highly disorderly. I certainly uphold the ruling of the Deputy Chair.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7897] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. He will please read the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. I have heard sufficient argument to rule. A question did arise and it is being dealt with. There is presently no vacancy and therefore there is nothing for the Speaker to rule on. Members have very good guidance—the Privileges Committee recommendations. The Speaker has a role only if there is a vacancy. There are currently 120 members of the House and my judgment is that there is no vacancy at present.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18529] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As usual I do not think I need to comment. 
Rodney Hide 
: Come on Marc!
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6861] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to insert new clause 8A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 8 the following new clause: 
8ANew section 40A inserted 
The principal Act is amended by inserting after section 40 the following section: 
40A 
Principles of dealing with offenders 
In fining or otherwise dealing with an offender the Court must impose a penalty near the maximum prescribed for the offence if the offending is near the most serious cases for which the penalty is prescribed unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate.
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8073] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call given that I have a Supplementary Order Paper seeking an amendment to clause 8. The effect of clause 8 is to limit quite precisely what each registered practitioner can do. That is in stark contrast to clause 9 which imposes penalties for the loose and undefined condition of holding out by unregistered people. Clause 8 is much tighter and allows for precise definitions of the tasks of registered health practitioners who are probably a lower risk to the public because they have already qualified as health providers. Clause 9 merely prevents people from calling themselves by a particular title or holding themselves out to be registered health practitioners and does not specifically constrain the tasks they may do. There needs to be a mechanism to stop definitively an unregistered person from doing anything that lies within the scope of any registered health practitioner. Only health practitioners should be able to do things within those scopes and each will by clause 8 be limited to doing things that are safe and that they are trained to do. Clause 8 needs to be amended to exclude unregistered people from the scopes of registered health practitioners. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PITA PARAONE 
: It is understood that it will be the responsibility of each regulating authority to take action when a practitioner registered with that authority acts outside his or her scope of practice. This means that if a physiotherapist for example engages in actions that form part of medicine but are not part of physiotherapy then the Physiotherapy Board would be responsible for investigating the breach not the Medical Council. The function of the regulating authorities is to keep registered practitioners inside the set scope and not to keep others out of it. By contrast the Ministry of Health will administer clause 9. The ministry will firstly use discretion in determining whether an action constitutes holding out and secondly decide whether to take action depending on whether there is any risk of harm and depending on priorities for action and the resources available to investigate and implement action. 
Thus it seems that the bill is setting up two levels of compliance. Registered persons will be tightly controlled within a particular scope regardless of any consideration of harm to the public. Unregistered people will be subject to inherently lax controls capable of interpretation and avoidance depending on the ministry’s freedom of choice regarding harm priorities and resources at any particular time. Clause 8 as it stands provides less protection to the public than it could or should.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16149] 
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 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert words in the heading to section 59B in clause 19 be agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8817] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will be brief Mr Speaker. I want to give you an absolute assurance as I gave Mr Brown when he raised the matter in the Committee that my comments were not directed to any member of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right. I heard that. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In relation to the comment I picked up from him I say that that group of people was contemptible despicable and the lowest form of low life imaginable and I think that the beady-eyed zealotry of the officials behind this bill fits that behaviour. The term “health Nazi” has been in common public parlance for a long time. I have heard reference to “femi-Nazis” and other forms of Nazis—the terms for all of which are out there in the popular domain. Those terms are not being used in reference to any member of this House; they are being used to categorise a form of behaviour and approach to things at the heart of this legislation and at the heart of this debate. I just wanted to make that point and to reassure you Mr Speaker that my comments were not about members of the House but about forms of behaviours causing the debate we are having this evening. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s argument on that last point. The use of terms about people outside the House is a question of taste for each member. I do not like that but it is the ruling. Anyway a point must be raised at the time; if a member is not present that is just too bad. The House cannot go back just because a member was absent so I rule that it is a question of taste as far as this is not related to members of the House. I declare the House in Committee again.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9467] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 25 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 49A(1) of the principal Act by adding the following new paragraph: 
(c)a police officer who has received appropriate training.
Shirley Ken: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Shirley Ken: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:5004] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled Mr Shirley. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I want to say that I took the liberty of discussing this matter. I accept that Mr Hide was asked to leave the Chamber. When he was instructed to leave prior to the dinner break my understanding is that no time was specified. I have discussed the matter with the ACT whip who advises me that she had no instruction about duration and on that basis now that you are in the Chair could I ask that you rule that Mr Hide’s time in the sin bin has expired and that he may return to the Chamber.
Hunt Jonathan: Privilege — Hon Harry Duynhoven—Dutch Citizenship 
Hunt Jonathan: Privilege — Hon Harry Duynhoven—Dutch Citizenship 
[Volume:610;Page:7211] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Harry Duynhoven has raised with me a question relating to the application of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. The matter concerns Mr Duynhoven’s Dutch citizenship a citizenship which he has held from his birth but which he lost in 1995 and regained following a change in Dutch law last month. 
As questions relating to the right of members to sit in the House have always been treated as questions of privilege I have determined that a question of privilege is involved in respect of this matter. It consequently stands referred to the Privileges Committee for consideration. I hope that the committee will give this matter its highest priority. 
I will be guided in my actions under the Electoral Act by the committee’s report and the House’s conclusions on it.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17145] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 4 be agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16052] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I waited until you had put the amendments to raise this issue because of course there is still an opportunity to debate a part even though the amendments have been put before you put the final motion. 
I want to raise a really serious issue because there are colleagues of mine who are very aggrieved by the rapid taking of the closure motion. I would like you to consider this issue: this bill went to a select committee but was not available so that members of the public could make a submission or be heard. In normal circumstances chairpersons have been a bit lenient but we have not been given even 1 hour on this part which is standard when the bill has been to a select committee. We have not been given the hour per part on an important part of a bill that was not open for everyone to make submissions even though it went to the select committee. Only half a dozen groups were invited to make submissions. 
I know you have put the amendments and I know it would be unusual but we have people who sat on the select committee who have not been given an opportunity to make a contribution. Mr Williamson was a member of the committee—in fact he was the senior member of the committee. Our spokesperson on small business who has been here all the time has not been given an opportunity to speak. I think that perhaps you might reconsider before you put the part.
Franks Stephen: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14169] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The ACT party would be happy to vote for one of those amendments but if they are all put together we cannot express that. One of them deletes section 15A(1) in clause 6A which is something we are quite prepared to vote for.
Shirley Ken: Motions — Academy Awards—Achievement of New Zealanders 
Shirley Ken: Motions — Academy Awards—Achievement of New Zealanders 
[Volume:615;Page:11417] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is also very pleased to join with everyone here in the House and express our great pleasure and joy that we did so well at the Oscars ceremony. On special occasions like this the whole country joins in the celebration. Someone made a comment at the Oscars that every New Zealander had been thanked; there is one New Zealander I would like to thank now who in all the reflected glory has not been thanked and that is the guy who first approved the regime that allowed it all to happen—one Bill Birch.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8116] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Strong condemnation was directed towards me by the Deputy Prime Minister at the statement I made at the conclusion of question No. 8 as we moved towards question No. 9. I want to make the point that members of this House are extremely considerate of other members who suffer illness or other personal circumstances that keep them from this House. If the Minister of Maori Affairs is not able to be here to answer a question because he is ill that surely raises the question of who the Acting Minister is at the present time. Has the warrant been transferred and if it has why have we not been told? Other than that it is perfectly reasonable for us to assume that if we put a question down to a Minister with a ministerial responsibility that Minister will be here to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister indicated that he was the other Minister responsible for it and he was prepared to do so. I twice heard Dr Cullen say that.
Burton Mark: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Burton Mark: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17717] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10735] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.
Prebble Richard: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Prebble Richard: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14828] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate the problem the member is having but if he has not had an instruction on the matter he should not vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the honourable member Mike Ward that unless he has a proxy vote for the Maori Party he is unable to cast it. I thank Mr Prebble for his advice. Can the member please explain the situation to the Committee?
Catchpole Brent: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7625] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall take a very short call on the commencement date. Although the bill states that it will come into effect when it receives the royal assent in fact it has already come into effect. It came into effect on 19 September 2002 at 5 p.m. That was the date the Associate Minister of Energy Harry Duynhoven put out a press release that shut down any possibility of people applying for an extension of their licences. Licence holders who had not applied by 5 p.m. on that date were deprived of their property rights. Those property rights were extinguished with that particular press release. So we are here today basically either to confirm that press release which effectively is governing by press release or to debate a bill that really is unnecessary because of that particular press release. The commencement date of the bill should be the date of the press release and that was 19 September 2002.
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18844] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Just to take the last point first I assure the member that the waivers he referred to apply only to property transferred in terms of the transfer to Ngati Awa. Beyond that normal legislative requirements apply. 
I want to pick up on the point made by Dr Mapp about clause 151 and reassure him that all existing property rights are protected including any rights the Crown forest lessees have. In response to comments made by Georgina te Heuheu the Waitangi Tribunal the High Court and the Court of Appeal have considered how cross-claims to central North Island forests were treated. These bodies found that the Crown’s approach was appropriate and consistent both with the treaty and with legal obligations. 
It is a point worth making because the member raised some important issues. I have no illusions about the scale and complexity of the challenge ahead with central North Island settlement. It is where I live and will one day retire and die so it matters deeply to me in every sense. It is worth noting for the record that 95 percent of central North Island forest land is still potentially available for settlement. So the room to manoeuvre one could argue is still considerable in terms of ensuring there is the opportunity to reach fair settlement in the future. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 329 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Simich Clem: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8420] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Prebble. That is absolutely right. At the end of the member’s speech those words were spoken. I require you to withdraw and apologise.
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:12327] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by adding the words “ one of whom shall be representative of the permanent players of the orchestra”. 
Amendment not agreed to.