edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7310] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I want to make some relatively brief comments. First of all it is good to see the member in the Chamber and I apologise for not recognising her as a member of Parliament when we were at a recent function. But I will catch up with the new National Party back-benchers at some stage. 
Simon Power 
: How is this related to the bill? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am being nice to the member. 
Simon Power 
: That is unusual! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is right and because the member is relatively new I think it is probably worth explaining one or two points. 
The essence of this bill—the piece that she focused on and the bit that we care the most about—goes to a fundamental question about whether a public servant or a State sector employee should get redundancy pay as well as a job when there is a nominal change of employer through the amalgamation of agencies. That is the guts of it. Should they get redundancy pay as well as a job? 
Sandra Goudie 
: That is contractual interference. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the member is absolutely right. There is contractual interference in this case; we are interfering with a contract. We say that we should not pay out probably hundreds of millions of dollars of redundancy to the staff members in Work and Income New Zealand because the name of that agency changed. That is what we are on about here. 
Sandra Goudie 
: The Public Service Association addressed it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One cannot address it by way of a backdated precedent. The member has suggested that every individual contract with every person who was an employee of Work and Income New Zealand should be debated and dealt with in every case when there are tens of thousands of employees. Frankly the member is bonkers. Legislation is the only way of doing something like that. 
I want to make one more point as National Party members have criticised the redundancy area of the bill. I want to remind them about the Tourism Board and how it had a bunch of incompetents on it—Murray McCully’s mates—and paid $400000 to an individual when he resigned. This Government stands up for probity and that lot are opposed to it.
Jones Dail: Budget Debate 
Jones Dail: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5917] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I heard the speech and as I understood it the member said there would be seven secondary schools in Waitakere City in 2007. I say that that is how many there are now. I got the impression that more were going to be built. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11513] 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Is he supportive of proposals to reclassify the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct as being no longer “objectionable”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Unlike all the other matters listed in section 3(2)) of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act which are automatically deemed to be objectionable the use of urine or excrement in association with sexual conduct is not itself a serious criminal offence. In the light of the increases in the maximum penalties proposed in the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill for the supply of section 3(2) material to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment retaining section 3(2)(d) covering the matters referred to could be seen as potentially excessive. 
Peter Brown 
: Is he telling the House that it is Government policy that films or videos that depict the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct are not objectionable in themselves; has Cabinet signed up to this and have his coalition partners and support parties signed up to it also? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Such material can still be classified as objectionable. Indeed this particular matter has been transferred to section 3(3)(a) of the principal Act. It is not removed from the principal Act but removed from section 3(2) to section 3(3)(a). No doubt the select— 
Peter Brown 
: No no—you’ve got it wrong. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes yes—I am sorry but that is true. The member will have to read the bill more carefully. No doubt the select committee will give careful consideration to this matter. 
Peter Brown 
: Who does the Minister believe will benefit from this type of legislation? Who will be rubbing their hands with glee—the weirdos or wonder boys or the average New Zealander? Does the Minister agree that the average New Zealander will be appalled by this amendment to the legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think this is one of those issues where we simply have to talk through carefully what is proposed. To retain this material in section 3(2) as opposed to section 3(3) could involve somebody who is actually transferring such a video to another person—and a maximum penalty of 10 years—when unlike all the other material in section 3(2) the use of urine and excrement in association with sexual conduct is not itself a serious criminal offence. If the member wants to introduce a member’s bill to do that then that is a different matter. I have no doubt that the vast majority of people—and I assume the vast majority of members of this House—would find such association objectionable.
Urgent Debates Declined — Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Appointment of Crown Observer 
Urgent Debates Declined — Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Appointment of Crown Observer 
[Volume:623;Page:18805] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Appointment of Crown Observer 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the appointment of a Crown observer to Te Wananga o Aotearoa. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not consider that the addition of a Crown observer to the council requires the immediate attention of the House today. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to explore that. The application is declined.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8954] 
2.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What has been the impact of his tertiary education policies on student debt? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 The latest student loan scheme annual report presented to the House today shows a $2.6 billion fall in forecast debt by 2020. Officials report that the main contributing factors to the decrease in projected long-term debt levels were the policy changes introduced in the Budgets of 2002 and 2003 especially the triennial fee/course costs maxima policy. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Can the Minister confirm that the report also shows promising trends in the repayment of debt? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can. We can see that the scheme is now beginning to mature. The amount repaid since the scheme began more than $1.8 billion is around a quarter of all debt that has been incurred. More than 120000 New Zealanders have now fully repaid their debt. 
Simon Power 
: Why is he so proud of his record on student debt when his only achievement so far as Minister has been to double the total amount of student debt and deliver a student support review a year overdue and hopelessly lacking in any substance? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Apart from thanking the member for paying his own debt back can I say that the Government is extremely pleased that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not need to have any personal comment like that. The member will withdraw and apologise and just give his answer. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise for thanking the member. The Government is extremely proud of its record on this matter. Apart from removing interest from loans and many other policies that have reduced debt to students I have to explain to the member—I know this is a very simple thing but let me explain it to him—every year people come out of school and take a loan and other mature New Zealanders under this Government are returning to study in droves and taking out loans. More loans mean more debt. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Will the Minister be travelling to Palmerston North today to talk to students there who occupied the university registry about 45 minutes ago about how good his policies are; and will he also be offering his condolences to the vice-chancellor of Victoria University who also had his registry occupied and had his effigy burnt? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member for Palmerston North I would love to be able to get leave from the whips to go home to Palmerston North today to join with I think the estimated number of about 20 students who are protesting out of the somewhat 18000 students who currently attend Massey University. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table a television transcript of the Labour Party’s advertisement at the last election that stated that according to Colin Powell they were “very very very very very very good friends”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Sowry Roger: Speaker’s Rulings — Stranger in the Lobbies—President of Council of Trade Unions  
Sowry Roger: Speaker’s Rulings — Stranger in the Lobbies—President of Council of Trade Unions  
[Volume:620;Page:16104] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that you are on exactly the right track and I may be able to offer some help. It may be appropriate that you take Mr Hide’s suggestion and say that when a Minister or a private member who is in the chair chooses to have an adviser who is not a Government employee that Minister or member advises the Speaker. Traditionally the advisers are departmental officials. They come and go and they do not all have the badges but they are often heads of department and very senior people. I do not think that anyone in the House is complaining about that but it would be useful for you to know when the advisers were non-Government employees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that point of order and wonder if he would be prepared to write to me in that regard. I will then have something to consider because I am very much in sympathy with the point he makes.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8446] 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What steps is she taking to respond to the announcement of the new rules for enrolling young international students in primary and intermediate schools? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I have announced a new guardian visa which will match the visa of young international students. This has been introduced as the visitor visa has not been adequate for this purpose. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is the guardian visa necessary? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: In response to the announcement of the Minister of Education in respect of very young international students coming to this country requiring the support of parents or guardians current visitors policy restricts them to a 9-month stay in any 18-month period. This does not cover the full year. The evidence shows that these young children need the supervision and support of their parents. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Other than children who are in New Zealand with their parents here on legitimate business why should any foreign fee-paying students be allowed to attend taxpayer-funded primary schools? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Because they pay student fees.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3828] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 38 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(4)(a)The directors of TVNZ and its subsidiaries will provide shareholding Ministers with a report on the number of employees affected by subsection (1) within 12 months of the commencement of this Act. 
(b)The shareholding Ministers will table in the House the report required under paragraph (a) above within one month of receipt.
Tizard Judith: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6876] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: I withdraw.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4527] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Connell Brian: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16193] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have to say that when Keith Locke took a call earlier a very cold shiver ran down my spine. Heaven forbid it should come to pass that if the people of this country do elect a minority Labour Government sitting around their Cabinet table—not just in caucus but sitting around their Cabinet table—will be the Greens and the Maori Party. If that does not send a cold shiver down one’s spine nothing ever will. It will be an absolute disaster for this country and about as big a disaster as this legislation will be if it goes ahead. 
I think that fair and reasonable thinking people agree that employee relationships are all about balance. The best balance we can have is when employer and employee can sit down and discuss their employment conditions without the interference of a third party that often has a political axe to grind. Under this Government that third party will be the union movement. Make no mistake about it. This legislation has been inspired by the union movement. In fact it has been written by the union movement. We needed no better evidence than seeing Ross Wilson summonsed— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have heard this a dozen times before. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh there is Trevor Mallard calling out again. If ever we wanted a better example that the moratorium on genetically modified organisms should not have been lifted he is it. It should not have happened. Ross Wilson was summoned to the lobby by the Minister using Jill Pettis as his conduit—not as one member has already suggested to get his views but rather so he could give his instructions on how the legislation should be promoted through the House. 
This is payback time for the ex - union members who make up the current Labour Government and there are 24 of them. The Minister who is sitting in the chair and the other loudmouth sitting next to him both maintain that they are neutral—they are not. All they are doing is paying back. I ask the Minister in the chair and his colleagues why if unionism was so good he needs to bribe workers to join unions. The reality is that the market is telling the union movement: “Up yours.” That is what the market is saying because 79 percent of the workers in this country do not want to be party to the union movement in any way. So the union movement worried about its declining membership went to its union mates in Government and asked them to help it out. Actually what the unions said was that if the Government wanted union funding it would have to do what it was told. The unions said: “You make sure that the union movement grows its ranks otherwise we will cut off the money supply.” 
This legislation will lead to strike after strike after strike. The union movement even before the ink has dried is starting to flex its muscles already. We are seeing it now in respect of Air New Zealand we are seeing it in the Ports of Auckland and I bet the freezing works are next on the agenda.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11778] 
3.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Police; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Peter Brown 
: How can she have such confidence; and is she not concerned at the comments of the Australian defence Minister indicating that he felt totally let down by the serious breach of security with regard to the Australian naval vessel that was in the Wellington port recently? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I have seen other indications that the Australians are not blaming the New Zealand Police for what happened in that respect. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Prime Minister not aware that 99.9 percent of New Zealand exports and imports come and go by ship and that maritime security be it concerning a naval vessel or a merchant naval vessel is very very important to this country and if she is aware of that what is she doing to address it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In terms of naval security the Government is considering at the moment a major element of expansion in terms of our naval forces. In terms of biosecurity we have put massive amounts of additional spending into that area. As far as I am aware the kind of attack that occurred on the Australian ship which is to be deplored has not occurred in relation to New Zealand cargo ships. 
Marc Alexander 
: How can the Prime Minister maintain her confidence in the Minister of Police when his police force continues to take such a laissez-faire approach to the enforcement of the new prostitution laws having recorded one pathetic offence of using an under-age prostitute despite multiple reports that at least 20 under-age prostitutes are working out of Christchurch’s Cathedral Square right now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure the police do not take a laissez-faire approach to the issue of under-age prostitution. No doubt as time develops they will become more experienced in dealing with that particular offence. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers to my earlier supplementary questions will the Prime Minister give this House an assurance that such a graffiti attack or something even worse will not occur again on a naval ship or even a merchant ship that may be carrying cargo to the USA which may be a likely target? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not think that I can give the member an assurance that there will never be a graffiti attack on a cargo ship. I doubt whether we would want all our police resources to be devoted to that particular exercise when more serious crimes are being committed than graffiti attacks on cargo ships.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:621;Page:16381] 
Thursday 21 October 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 go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 2 November priority will be given to the first reading of the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and to the remaining stages of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Care of Children Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House give us some assurance that despite the current political environment the Government will not use urgency excessively to avoid question time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. We will simply use urgency moderately to get business through the House.
Peters Winston: Election of Speaker 
Peters Winston: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18945] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 In the interest of a democratic selection perhaps we could have a 10-minute speech from each of the candidates so that we might have some remote idea as to whether they are qualified or not. I seek leave.
Chadwick Steve: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11067] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill. 
Bill read a second time.
Simich Clem: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20632] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Dr Worth we are not voting on that matter at all at this point as you well know. You know what the motion is. What you are referring to was simply an indication from the Minister of his preference for the report-back date of the committee and he was required to indicate that when he spoke. This motion has nothing to do with that. This motion is that the bill be read a first time.
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14332] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to clarify that. On the schedule we have the first vote under the Hon Steve Maharey as Vote Community and Voluntary Sector and Katherine Rich will take a call on that. We will have other speakers later on taking calls on the fourth vote under that Minister Vote Social Development. I understand that the first vote under that Minister on the schedule as presented to us and tabled is Vote Community and Voluntary Sector. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have it down here that there is a separate vote for Vote Social Development but I do have Vote Community and Voluntary Sector Vote Employment and Vote Housing being taken together. Can we get this cleared up?
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10735] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have any further discussion on my ruling that I accept the closure motion. That is the end of the matter. The debate is not unlimited. There is no unlimited debate in this Parliament. This debate is limited by the closure motion. I outlined that to the Business Committee. There was no opposition to that from a member of that member’s party.
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9895] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3782] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you are aware Mr Speaker this question has had a rather chequered path to the Chamber today. There are two matters that I wish to raise with you. Following the acceptance of this question by the Clerk’s Office a significant quote from the Minister’s original speech was deleted from the question on the insistence of the Minister’s office that it was outside the Associate Minister’s delegation. Following that I understand that a further change was required after representations were made to you. There are two matters I want to raise with you. I accept that under Standing Order 365(4) that authority does reside with you Mr Speaker and I am not questioning that.  
First Mr Speaker I want you to reflect on the practice of total reliance on the word of a Minister or Minister’s office as to the delegations to that Minister. I have looked carefully at Speaker’s ruling 116/4 and I suggest that Mr Speaker Harrison’s rulings tend to note previous practice rather than to provide a fulsome or enthusiastic endorsement of it. I suggest that there might be some scope for you to insist on a slightly better practice in that regard. Further I suggest to you that it would be helpful to members if you were to give a clearer indication of the nature and scope of the delegation that you provide to the Clerk’s Office. In these matters it has been the practice of the Opposition members to rely on after the usual debate the ruling of the Clerk or the Clerk’s officers. If we are to see members of the Government able to go directly to yourself subsequently and if that is to be an accepted practice then I put it to you that it opens a whole new vista of opportunity for members of the Opposition also of which my colleagues and I would like to take the fullest advantage. I think we might help our future practice if we were to have some clarity from you on those matters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. He advised me that he was going to raise this point with me. We had a discussion about it and I appreciate the manner in which he has raised it. Yes I agree with some of the points that he makes and I will be giving this matter very careful consideration. Of course ultimately it is I as Speaker who must rule on whether a question is in order and I accept that responsibility. However the member has made a couple of valuable comments. I invite him to discuss them further with me and I will give a further ruling in the House.
Turner Judy: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Turner Judy: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18823] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to take a very brief call on this part mostly to say that the concerns expressed by New Zealand First regarding the inclusion of particular hapu could be settled if one flicked through the bill to the definition of Ngati Awa which describes very clearly the overall body the group that is the umbrella for the hapu. The fact that Ngati Awa chooses to understand the groups that fall under that umbrella in a developing way does not propose—in my reading of this measure—any danger to the agreement in that the agreement is with Ngati Awa not with particular hapu. My understanding is that that is how Ngati Awa sees itself—its organisation—and how the people of Ngati Awa see themselves. 
Pita Paraone 
: It doesn’t need to come to this Parliament to have it endorsed. That’s the issue. 
JUDY TURNER 
: OK the concern the member has is that Ngati Awa chooses to recognise its structure in this Parliament. He considers that to be unnecessary. 
Pita Paraone 
: No the Government has chosen to recognise it. 
JUDY TURNER 
: The Government has chosen to recognise what Ngati Awa has presented before it as to the way Ngati Awa sees itself and I think that is a perfectly acceptable role for the Crown to take. Because Ngati Awa considered it to be necessary the Government has respected that opinion and included that definition as part of what was considered and put before us in this bill. 
The point was made by the National member Georgina te Heuheu that this is peculiar to that particular iwi and that it does not necessarily set up a pattern a precedent for other settlements with other iwi. That is a perfectly acceptable point to make and I think that she received assurances from the Minister in the chair at the time the Hon Mark Burton that that was certainly the case. So I think it is a matter of trusting Ngati Awa in this matter and saying that this definition is peculiar to this particular settlement. We should congratulate the iwi on looking to the interests of its people collectively and looking at the best structure by which it can then disperse the resources that will come to it.
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Jim Peron 
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Jim Peron 
[Volume:625;Page:20037] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the following documents. One is an article from the  
Sunday Star-Times  
dated 3 April 2005 in which Jim Peron states that he is being crucified over the interpretation of opinions that he expressed 20 years ago and no longer holds. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15406] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5468] 
8.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What initiatives is the Government undertaking to support youth development? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 The Government has undertaken a huge range of initiatives to support youth development. As Minister I am involved in a range of activities over coming days to mark Youth Week which runs until Sunday. They celebrate the achievements of our young people. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What particular Youth Week events is the Minister involved in? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Tomorrow the Ministry of Youth Affairs will be launching  
Keepin’ it Real 
 a youth participation guide. This is just one of a range of community-based events around the country such as dance parties hip-hop classes break-offs a youth car show and sports events. These events focus on highlighting the wonderful contribution that young New Zealanders make to our society. 
Simon Power 
: How is this Government supporting youth development by passing the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill yesterday on the basis it was to assist reducing youth drinking when in fact it does nothing of the sort taxing only alcoholic drinks such as port and sherry—two drinks that are most unlikely to appeal to young people? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: We take our role very seriously in the youth sector and to that extent this underpins a major strategy in regard to harm minimisation amongst the youth sector. 
Craig McNair 
: Does the Minister agree that the best thing he could have done instead of voting for the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill which raised the taxes of beverages like sherry that most young people do not even drink would have been to adopt New Zealand First MP Ron Mark’s member’s bill to raise the drinking age back to 20? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No.
Cosgrove Clayton: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15185] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the question be now put.
Shirley Ken: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9297] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not hear the call for the Progressive Party. Jim Anderton has spoken emphatically in support of this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I did not hear the vote. Was it cast? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is not a point of order. The Clerk called the votes correctly. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It is a point of order. I am seeking clarification of whether a particular vote was called and given. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It was called and no vote was given. It was correctly called. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Jones Dail: Inquiry into the 2002 General Election — Consideration of Report of Justice and Electoral Committee 
Jones Dail: Inquiry into the 2002 General Election — Consideration of Report of Justice and Electoral Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13127] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the report back. I would like to commend the officials who worked extremely hard on this report with I think a great degree of patience over time because we seemed to be forever making alterations to the final recommendations. I listened with some interest to Murray Smith’s description of his tour of Europe. I could give an example of how delighted people were to be part of a military coup how useful and important the military coup was and how better off the people were as a result of that military coup. But I am sure the House does not want to hear my deliberations on my tour so I leave the matter there. 
Motion agreed to.
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15598] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call particularly in support of the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the member for Whangarei. Notwithstanding the length of time this bill has taken to come to the House and the fact that Maori gave some support to it particularly the model presented by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd not all Maori support it. In fact I suggest that the support was given only in order to progress this issue particularly after 12 years of waiting. 
This bill is complex; hence the extra layers of bureaucracy. In Maoridom there is a saying that there is only one thing worse than a Pakeha bureaucrat and that is a Maori one. Given that that is what Maori think they will have some real concerns about the levels of bureaucracy. If we seriously consider removing one layer that might get a positive reception from Maori. But to give Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd the power that this bill invests in it would continue to attract the same criticism that the present Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd has received over the last 12 years. 
It will be interesting to see who will make up the board of directors of the company. It will probably be the same people who are directors now. If not it will at least be the majority of them. The argument will be that they have the experience. I say to the Minister that my concerns will probably be alleviated if the membership of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd does not comprise the majority of the present commission. New Zealand First will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the member for Whangarei.
Barker Rick: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7804] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. We have had an interesting debate throughout the day and I want to highlight a number of points to confirm that this legislation is to cover this forty-seventh Parliament from the day the writs were returned until the general election. During the remaining part of this Parliament I will be asking the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider this piece of the legislation. I do not want to recap on the issues because they have been gone over thoroughly enough but I want to highlight one inconsistency among many—that is if someone is elected to this Parliament who has a passport for or is a national of another country and continues with that right throughout his or her time in this Parliament there is no problem; but if someone wishes to pick up a right that he or she has by birth or by foreign law then there is a problem. 
The ACT party seems to have a view that people in this Parliament should be New Zealand nationals only. Well we have never in my opinion made a considered view that that should be the case. The riding to the Justice and Electoral Committee will give it the opportunity to consider all those issues including the view of the ACT party. It will be able to take submissions from the public and get this legislation sorted out before the next election. 
Arguments have been put up about retrospectivity. I restate the view that retrospective legislation is not good where it takes away people’s rights retrospectively but that is not the case where it confers rights and privileges retrospectively. This Parliament has passed an amount of legislation of that kind. I recall that one of the first measures I witnessed in this Parliament was a rates validation bill for the Whakatane District Council. Without that legislation the council’s rates would not have been able to be collected. There are many many other examples of that kind. 
This bill is a fair piece of legislation. It confers a right on all MPs. To do as some would suggest—confer it on only one MP—would have been wrong. To confer it on one MP up to a certain period of time would also be wrong. It is not good to confer a particular right on one MP and not on all members. That is what New Zealand First and United Future were saying—that we should do it for one. I do not agree with that view. I commend the bill to the House. It has been thoroughly debated and I look forward to the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Alexander Marc: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20969] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This part is the meat of the bill. There is an awful lot in the part that needs to be discussed and I would hope that the Chair recognises that the debate needs to carry on in order to appreciate the full depth and complexity of this portion of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4902] 
8.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What was discussed at this morning’s meeting between himself and the Australian Senate and House of Representatives’ Defence Subcommittee? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 We discussed a number of matters. I was very appreciative of the fact that the chair of the defence subcommittee the Hon Bruce Scott began by referring to the significant contribution that New Zealand has made in the region and beyond in deployments such as Operation Enduring Freedom East Timor and Bougainville. He also commented on how much the Australian service chiefs valued working with the New Zealand Defence Force. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of the latter part of that answer did the Minister discuss with the delegation the possibility of any form of integration of New Zealand and Australian defence forces; if so in what form; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No we had no such discussion because as the member knows New Zealand is a sovereign nation and has its own Defence Force. But we certainly did discuss in some detail the discussions I have had with successive Australian Ministers of Defence about closer cooperation. In particular I discussed the work we have under way to achieve that with Senator Robert Hill. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Was any particular acquisition project discussed at this morning’s meeting? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes we talked in particular about Project Protector and the usefulness of the multi-role vessel to both New Zealand and indeed Australia in our region and elsewhere. In that regard I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Project Protector request-for-proposals document will be formally issued to the six short-listed companies in May and is expected to close in September of this year. 
Simon Power 
: Did the Minister offer any apology to visiting members of the Australian defence subcommittee as a result of comments made by the Prime Minister which implied that Australia was involved in the war in Iraq in return for a trade deal—comments that the  
Australian  
newspaper described as “odious” and “plain wrong”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Certainly not because as the member well knows the comments he refers to were made specifically about the very very vague comments that came across from members of the Opposition and had no reference to anyone outside New Zealand. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can I take the Minister back to his answer to my earlier supplementary question and ask him whether he was saying that he is ruling out any form of integration between Australian and New Zealand defence forces? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am very specifically saying that no such discussion took place there nor has it taken place in ministerial meetings prior to today’s meeting.
Yates Dianne: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Yates Dianne: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7047] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: Although I recognise the humour that is passing backwards and forwards tonight on this bill it is a very serious and very important biosecurity bill. I wish to support it and also acknowledge the support of all members of the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13483] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for her contribution. I look at the proportionality in the Chamber and ACT is certainly within that consideration. At the moment the Green Party has not had one call at all.
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21641] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 My amendment as the Minister has just said would reduce the period of extension from 2 years to 1 year and that was actually a recommendation made by the Human Rights Commission in its submission. It is concerned and put forward a very detailed paper about the weakness of the United Nations process. I can elaborate a bit: there have been incorrect designations because the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee which processes these designations does not have a proper interrogation process. It does not have a process for informing those so designated which would allow them to make submissions. There is not due process.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19714] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave for the 2½ hours that was lost last evening as a consequence of Dr Cullen’s not being able to provide the Minister required in accordance with the Standing Orders to the House. I think the date is important. The date that I was indicating for that time be set aside is on Tuesday 10 May. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that date. Is there any objection? There is.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) 
[Volume:607;Page:4421] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it never has been and I want to tell the honourable member that in the 37 years I have been in this House I can recall no example when there has been any change to that.
Pettis Jill: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7886] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barnett Tim: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Barnett Tim: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20561] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to commend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill to the House. I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee which dealt with the legislation. We went through a very interesting exercise as a committee in hearing submitters from both sides of the spectrum who had concerns about the legislation and who proposed a number of other ways to deal with them. As a committee we went into a very detailed process of going through all the other ways in which the commonly desired outcome could be achieved. We came back to broadly what was in the bill but at the same time we came up with two separate and quite crucial recommendations. 
I was interested to hear Mr Ryall deny the reality of 9 years of a National Government that was very careful to keep in line with the international obligations it had signed up to and abided by and actually advocate that we breach international law. For the majority of the committee that was not an acceptable way forward and I am very pleased that that position was taken by the committee. Given that constraint and given that we needed to come up with a scheme that actually worked we went through all the options and alternatives and we came back to the model proposed in the legislation. In our view it is the only one that is workable applies to cases that are currently before the courts and is within our international obligations. We also noted that the scheme contained in the bill may never be needed. 
There were two issues that would not go away. The first was that we have prison inmates in this nation who have been abused that we run the risk of that continuing and that we need a better prison complaints system. Our committee unanimously recommended the establishment of an independent prison complaints system and that is detailed in our report. The second issue is that there is clearly a need to move further along the agenda of victims’ rights. We heard about that very powerfully from victims who were brave enough to come before our committee and we recommended an inquiry which we intend to initiate ourselves as a committee into the next stage of the development of victims’ rights. 
Lastly I note the conversation about the fact that a number of parties have put forward minority views. That quite accurately reflects the debate we had in the committee. United Future and Labour members who made up the majority of the committee ended up supporting the legislation to this stage. The United Future member had doubts but recognised that overall this seemed to be an appropriate way forward. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3740] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to the amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent” and substitute the words “1 July 2007”.