edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hodgson Pete: Obituaries — Maurice Wilkins 
Hodgson Pete: Obituaries — Maurice Wilkins 
[Volume:620;Page:15947] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I shall continue with some brief remarks. I note that having graduated from Victoria University Dr Wilkins spent most of the rest of his life in Britain although sometimes in the United States. Having worked on the Manhattan Project as a physicist he then made his contribution in the emerging collision between physics and biology as an X-ray diffraction expert. He produced a photograph in 1953 from which weeks later Watson and Crick derived the structure of DNA thus opening an era that today we call biotechnology. He was the third man of DNA and his passing is sorely missed. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16747] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Transport Legislation Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:618;Page:13911] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: Next week in the House priority will be given to completion of the first reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; the third readings of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) if they are not completed today; and the first reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill. The Government then intends to move an urgency motion and the likely business to be included in that motion is the remaining stages of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) the Meat Board Restructuring Bill the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill and other legislation including a number of first readings.
Ririnui Mita: Maori Television Service Bill — Second Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Maori Television Service Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4914] 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I had not intended to take a call in this debate. I simply sat here this afternoon to support my colleague the Hon Minister of Maori Affairs during the second reading of the bill. But then I listened to one of the previous speakers from the National Party the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and I thought to myself that people obviously have very short memories or they just do not want the Maori Television Service to go to air. 
I remind that member that there used to be a television service called Aotearoa Television. It went through some difficult times and then disappeared off the face of the earth. I say that a lot of the responsibility for that has to go to the previous regime the previous Government. [ 
Interruption 
] Not only did National underfund this television service it refused to give it the support that it required. I am surprised to hear the interjections from the Hon Brian Donnelly who should be standing in this debate to support what I am saying. Members from his party bit the dust because the commitment and the support were not there. I am very very surprised to hear his interjections at this point in time. 
I congratulate the Minister of Maori Affairs on the commitment he has put into this entire process. It has been difficult. It has been marred by a number of highly contentious matters. The Maori Television Board did its best to conduct a transparent process when it came to appointing a chief executive officer—so much so that it sought outside advice. But that advice was not sound and as a result a mistake was made but the appropriate actions were taken thereafter. So some people have very short memories. Millennium People had to accept the blame for the mistake but that is business. When a firm gives bad advice it suffers the consequences. In this case that is exactly what happened. But the board lifted itself up and got on with the business. Here we are today in this House debating a very very important bill. 
If the National Party spokeswoman on obviously everything cannot handle this television service going to air then the problem is hers or the problem is theirs. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who hired Millennium? 
MITA RIRINUI 
: There goes that member from up north again—the Hon Brian Donnelly—interjecting with something that his previous colleagues were very very supportive of. Maybe he should read the  
Hansard 
 not me. 
I stand to take a very very brief call to support this bill to support the Minister of Maori Affairs and to congratulate the Maori Affairs Committee on bringing the legislation to the House for debate.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6752] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7802] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except Sue Bradford”.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:621;Page:16381] 
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?
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17124] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 101 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit the proposed omission and substitution of new clauses 2(2)(c) 3(1)(e) 5(4)(g) and 20(4)(g) of the First Schedule of the principal Act.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10582] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my reply of 3 June explaining that that would require an exception to Government residence policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is.
Burton Mark: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Burton Mark: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5444] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are two factors here that have been fundamentally upheld by this House over and over by presiding officers. Firstly if a whip or a leader casts a vote their word must be accepted. Full stop. Secondly whips do not require written proxies to vote in regular votes in this House and they never have.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21575] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to insert in the heading to this clause after the words “sensitive land” the words “and significant business assets”.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19207] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 72 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Locke  (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Barnett(P)  
Ewen-Street 
Mackey M(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Beyer  (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff (P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Yates 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Pillay (P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donnelly 
Key(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King 
Robertson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Robson (P) 
Hughes   
Noes 48 
Adams(P)  
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field 
Peters J (P) 
Turia 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Turner 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power 
Wang(P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hide(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Catchpole(P)  
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Jones(P)  
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5261] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am confident I can suggest to you that given we now have elected deputy chairs of select committees which we did not have in the past it would seem to me one possible suggestion is that the deputy chair can answer on behalf of the chair—provided of course the deputy chair has been given the necessary information. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very good issue for the Standing Orders Committee to consider but unfortunately that is not the current rule. However I will look at this issue over the weekend for the member.
Visitors — European Union—Commissioner for Trade 
Visitors — European Union—Commissioner for Trade 
[Volume:620;Page:15449] 
Visitors 
European Union—Commissioner for Trade 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Pascal Lamy the European Union Commissioner for Trade is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5500] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The acting Leader of the House has raised a point that I wish to elaborate on as I think it is very important from a procedural point of view. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order because we are not relitigating— 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes. Mr Burton—I presume in his capacity as acting Leader of the House—stood up and drew our attention to Speaker’s rulings 63/1 and 63/2. I think they were the references he used. He said that those rulings refer to the matter of relevancy. Now the point is not one of relevancy. That is the key thing. Lynda Scott was not raising an issue of relevancy; she was seeking a clarification from the Chair on how this matter would be dealt with. We are here for a long session tonight. We know that; we accept that. A number of closure motions will be taken and members have a right to be quite clear on how that issue will be dealt with on future occasions. It was not a question of relitigating and it was not a question of relevance; it was simply a question of seeking an indication from the Chair as to how it would be dealt with. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes and that has been given. I will now call clause 2.
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 question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall 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 2006”.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:622;Page:17621] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House tell members whether he is saying that the adjournment debate will be included in the urgency motion. Further can he indicate for how long he would expect a bill like the Aquaculture Reform Bill to consume the House’s time?
Cullen Michael: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Cullen Michael: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:619;Page:14876] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to sections 15(1)(d) and 17(2)(a) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Rodney Hide be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of the Hon Richard Prebble and Simon Power be appointed in place of John Carter and pursuant to section 15(1)(d) and (2)(a) of that Act Tariana Turia be appointed as a member of the commission 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Swain Paul: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 3 to Minister 
Swain Paul: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:606;Page:3651] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Further to a commitment made by the Hon Jim Sutton during question time I seek leave to table a document that has information on the Government services trade position. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21116] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Robertson H V Ross: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Robertson H V Ross: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13822] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I understand that United Future and Labour will share this slot each member speaking for 5 minutes. For the benefit of members I shall ring the bell when 1 minute remains.
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17141] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is an amendment in the name of the honourable member Larry Baldock to insert new clause 114AA. Briefly the proposal does not specify a majority by which the entrenchment provision must be carried. That provision will be dealt with as an ordinary amendment.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to insert new clause 114AA be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 114 the following new clause: 
114AARestriction on amendment or repeal of certain provisions 
(1)Subject to subsection (3) this section applies to the following provisions (the reserved provisions): 
(a)section 12(2)(a) which provides that no part of the public foreshore or seabed may be alienated except by a special Act of Parliament: 
(b)this section. 
(2)No reserved provision may be repealed or amended unless the proposal for the amendment or repeal— 
(a)is passed by a majority of votes proportional to the number of votes cast for the Ayes at the third reading of the Bill that became this Act; or 
(b)has been carried by a majority of the valid votes cast at a poll of the electors of the General and Maori electoral districts: 
(3)This section does not apply to the repeal of any reserved provision by a consolidating Act in which that provision is re-enacted without amendment and this section is re-enacted without amendment so as to apply to that provision as re-enacted.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:625;Page:20303] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am not aware that there is a Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. The next one up that I am aware of is in relation to widows and 90 percent indexation. I look forward to the member’s support. I wonder whether the member is referring to the Police Amendment Bill (No 2); I was not aware that it dealt with that matter.
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:617;Page:13313] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A short while ago the Hon John Tamihere released a fine report dated 12 December 2003. He said that he would release the whole report. I see that there are attachments B C and D that are part of that report. I ask that at some convenient time the Minister make them available to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked to table what he was quoting from and he has done that. If he wishes to table anything else he has until the end of the sitting day to do so.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15529] 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many civilians are being sworn in as “temporary constables” to act as jailers during the muster crisis and how many additional remand prisoners could be held in police cells if necessary? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Police have always had a pool of temporary jailers that they can call on from time to time. But I am advised that of today 15 people are currently engaged as temporary constables. The number of additional remand prisoners who can be held will depend on the number of cells available at any given time. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister take any responsibility for any suicide by a remand inmate inappropriately held in a police or court cell as a result of this crisis? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Police are always concerned that people will commit suicide in police cells and they are trained. Many of the 15 temporary jailers are former police officers and they are also fully trained. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Do you consider that that addressed the question Mr Speaker? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I do. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What will the Government do when the police cells are full the court cells are full and the 100 mothballed beds are full; where will the prisoners go or does he think that in light of the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this week that will be someone else’s problem? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Government is managing this and I have to say it is managing it very well. It was the last Government that did not want the north Waikato prison built and that put up lame excuses. My colleague the Minister of Corrections is doing a very good job. He told the House earlier this afternoon that there was a 4 percent operational buffer and that the Government is reopening the 60-bed Larch unit at Tongariro Prison the Tawa unit at Rolleston Prison in Christchurch double-bunking at Auckland Central Remand Prison and Rimutaka Prison and adding cells to the Nikau Unit for women in Waikeria Prison. The Government is managing this at the moment very very well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish some members would actually listen to the answer. There was a continual barrage from some people. The Minister should have a reasonable chance of giving an answer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister discussed with the Minister of Corrections that Minister’s inability having known about this crisis for months and months to secure the appropriate agreements to open up the 100 mothballed beds or does the Minister of Police think that he has become the fall guy for the ministerial incompetence behind the muster crisis? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Minister of Corrections—a very good Minister—and I have been discussing this for a long while. Of course we want crooks behind bars and members on the opposite side of the House seem to want crooks out on the street.
Carter John: Business Statement 
Carter John: Business Statement 
[Volume:617;Page:13129] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House advise Parliament whether he expects us to be sitting beyond 6 o’clock on Thursday either in urgency or extraordinary urgency.
Benson-Pope David: Maori Television Service Bill — Second Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Maori Television Service Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4918] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I stand with pleasure to take a very brief call. In response to the previous speaker I have to observe that she will have the luxury of thinking about some of those deep imponderables that she confronted us with while she is in Cambridge in the UK for 3 months at the taxpayers’ expense. I tell Ms Coddington that I am not at all jealous I am just a bit befuddled by the double standard that the ACT party continually exhibits. Like other members of the House I note with great irony that the one Maori member of the ACT party seems conspicuously absent from the Chamber for the debate on this bill. I recommend this bill to the House.
Cullen Michael: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9026] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is not the point I was making Mr Speaker.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16674] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Perry Edwin: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Perry Edwin: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9471] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill. Obviously it was one of the three issues we promoted during the last election and we are proud to be part of the Law and Order Committee. New Zealand First supported the amendments put up by Mr Ryall because our belief was that those amendments would strengthen the bill where necessary. But when we come to a position of power we will no doubt be looking at them again. Expense should not get in the way of good legislation in the fight against the heinous crimes that have been committed and back-tracking on some of these criminals who are already in prison but have yet to be convicted of a crime will be available through the DNA tool. 
Although DNA makes a strong contribution against crime we should not forget to focus on crime prevention. I believe that this tool will prevent criminal activity. Criminals will now know that crime will not be so easy to get away with. New Zealand First would like to think that all criminals would see this bill as a tool to deter any future criminal activity which I mentioned previously. As we have seen DNA has become a vital crime-fighting tool around the world and now it will become an important tool for our own police force. 
The police submitters played a very important role in putting this bill together but I would like to thank the staff who also put this legislation together and who were very helpful to myself as the lone star for New Zealand First on that select committee. I would also like to thank other members across the political divide in helping to shape this very positive bill. New Zealand will be a lot safer now that this bill will be strengthened and it will provide comfort for all New Zealanders in Aotearoa. 
I just want to finish off—because I think everything has been said from New Zealand First—by saying that the public are crying out to feel safe on the streets and in their own homes. Criminals will think twice about their actions when they know that they will be caught.
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15186] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. With respect I think you have not gone nearly far enough. When I sit in this Parliament and hear a member of Parliament behind me making the cackling sounds of a hen not once but frequently I wonder about one of two things: firstly whether he is compos mentis—[ 
Interruption 
]. There has to be a range of explanations. Secondly he is sitting upon a pitchfork and refuses to move himself or thirdly he is a silly juvenile incompetent and has no place in this Chamber. In that sense he should be removed for the rest of the day. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member but that is not a point of order.
Duynhoven Harry: General Debates 
Duynhoven Harry: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8551] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think another member can request me to table a document that is not an official document. I simply read a list of occasions in the House. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: The member said he would table it. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I will consider that. But that member as a member of the Opposition does not have the right to ask me to table anything. If I choose to seek leave I will. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much.
Simich Clem: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21006] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit Part 3 is ruled out of order because it is a direct negation of the question. The proper course of action is to vote against the part. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 68 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 113(1) of the Legal Services Act 2000 new paragraph (b).
Power Simon: General Debate 
Power Simon: General Debate 
[Volume:620;Page:15481] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the point of order. 
SIMON POWER 
: This is a new point of order. At the risk of prolonging the issue around interpretation of Standing Order 111 it is of some concern—or at least equivocation—that that Standing Order starts with the phrase “Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker” which lends some uncertainty to the way in which that particular Standing Order is applied in each factual situation that presents itself. That may go some way towards answering Mr Mark’s concern over the fact that questions about this issue had been allowed in question time—it seems that today in question time the Speaker exercised his discretion under Standing Order 111. What we would like to see is a clear ruling on that discretion and what it means for this ongoing issue before the House.
Adams Paul: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Adams Paul: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8709] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on this part but I will do so to enlighten my friends in the National Party and the ACT party on this matter. I would have thought they would accept that it is OK for a business to make a profit and they are becoming very confused about this fee. Let me give members some practical examples. A commission is allowed—in other words a brokerage fee. So if someone goes to a mortgage broker and he negotiates a mortgage on behalf of a client it is quite acceptable that he gets a fee for doing that. 
I will give an example of this type of fee in the car industry. A car dealer may have an arrangement with a finance company whereby it can buy money at say 8 percent. Therefore when the company sells that money to a client at a 1 percent mark-up it is making a 1 percent profit—in other words a brokerage fee. That amount is completely disclosed to the consumer. Consumers will see exactly what interest rate they are paying but this legislation does not state that consumers must be informed of the profit that the seller is making on selling them the money. That also applies to many extended warranties—such as when a customer buys a fridge or a television or even a car. 
Customers will often be asked whether they would like to pay a $200 fee or whatever to extend the warranty on that purchase. The total cost they are paying for the warranty will be completely disclosed in the contract. What will not be disclosed—and this is where the confusion has arisen—is the proportion of that $200 that is profit for the business that is selling that money. I personally and as a United Future member do not see any necessity for disclosing to a purchaser the profit margin made by various segments involved in a purchase. What is important and what this legislation does cover is that purchasers know exactly what interest they are paying and what interest they are paying if they have an extended warranty and have hire purchase on that extended warranty. The amount of interest is totally disclosed. I think the confusion has arisen in terms of the profit in the brokerage fee. It is not a necessary part of what needs to be disclosed to consumers but all the interest they are paying for the purchase is completely disclosed. I think that is very fair.
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:20953] 
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 7 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Parliamentary Privilege—Jim Peron 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Parliamentary Privilege—Jim Peron 
[Volume:624;Page:19353] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Two weeks ago I raised the issue of an American bookseller Jim Peron in Parliament. I described him as a paedophile which according to the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 is “a person who displays paedophilia.” paedophilia being “sexual desire directed towards children”. Today I tell the House that I stand by that description. My comments were intended to be a warning to the Government about an abuse of the immigration system by a person who should not have arrived here and who should not be allowed to stay in this country. Instead I have been personally attacked for using parliamentary privilege by apologists for Mr Peron. I described him as a paedophile because he is a sick individual who has promoted the cause of sexual relations between adult men and boys. Anyone who promotes sexual relations between adult men and boys should not be allowed citizenship residency or even a temporary visa.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16583] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13161] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and Other Matters) Act”.
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Robertson H V Ross: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11540] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I tell members I have been advised that the next speech is to be shared fifty-fifty. There will be 5 minutes for National and 5 minutes for New Zealand First. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.
Donnelly Brian: Motions — Academy Awards—Achievement of New Zealanders 
Donnelly Brian: Motions — Academy Awards—Achievement of New Zealanders 
[Volume:615;Page:11417] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I endorse the remarks made by the Prime Minister. When I watched the show on television yesterday it really made me as proud to be a New Zealander as I was when New Zealand won the America’s Cup. It was a wonderful moment and Peter Jackson and all of his crew deserve the congratulations of this House as does Keisha Castle-Hughes.
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11644] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Ewen-Street Ian: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9556] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a brief call on this bill. As my colleague Sue Bradford said last evening this bill has been around for a long time and it is long overdue. We look forward to its implementation and we take pleasure in supporting it.
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14828] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The first vote that we took was the closure motion which we voted against and the Greens voted against it as well. That is all over. I think if you were to look at the votes you would see that the Government had the numbers to actually allow it to go ahead. I think Mr Ward needs to get his instructions before we continue; otherwise he is misleading the procedure.
Copeland Gordon: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3921] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I have no personal knowledge of course of just who is to blame for the long delay in the passage of this important piece of legislation. I must confess too that I have yet to develop an appetite for long debates during the Committee stage that relate to the technicality of whether a bill’s title is right or wrong. But I am delighted to know that the widows affected by this legislation will at last get the justice they deserve. In fact I could not help but think of the story in the Gospels about the widow who persisted in battering an unjust judge who refused to give her due process for such a long time that he finally got fed up and gave it to her. After such a long passage of time I guess that that is probably the way that the widows who are the recipients of this annuity will be feeling. I only hope that they feel that the wait has been worthwhile. United Future is delighted to see this bill at last pass though the House.
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14562] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I feel compelled after listening to that member to take a call to say that if National became the Government he could be the Minister of Fisheries. I would imagine that anybody from the fishing industry who has just heard that speech would now be walking on water quickly in the other direction. Because for somebody who spent so many weeks on the Primary Production Committee that member’s knowledge has some huge gaps in it. It is like a fishing net with none of the knots tied together. I suggest that he now reads the bill again and all the submissions that were received on this very very important legislation—and he should reconsider before making a speech after the dinner break. 
This is a bill that has significant importance to the fishing industry and a huge amount of debate has preceded it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to stick to the clause. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes. I am surprised at the level of that member’s contribution.
Pettis Jill: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5517] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I just want to take a brief call. I have done this because there seems to be a huge hang-up on the word “cultural”. That hang-up could be based on a lack of understanding and empathy towards things that are not necessarily contained within the world in which some people move. The word “cultural” is a very wide and flexible term. Members who are interested in historic buildings might want to read the fine Historic Places Trust magazine that comes out on a regular basis— 
New Zealand Heritage 
. In its spring edition there is a significant story called “New York Rebuilds its Cultural History”. I draw the attention of members to that because I know they have access to that as well. That story has no prejudice to it; there is no bigotry. The word Maori is not mentioned in it at all so I suspect that people look at it more openly and inclusively. 
As New York seeks to rebuild its cultural history from the terrible tragedy that occurred there it is talking about significant cultural sites such as the Woolworth building an art deco skyscraper commissioned for the New York Telephone Company in 1927 the Greek Orthodox community building and other similar icons that are important to the people of that city. I suspect that while we in New Zealand might be far removed from New York—some of us might have never been there—we would applaud the rebuilding of a city’s cultural history. But tragically in our country there are people who live and move in a very narrow world where everybody they associate with looks just like them—their skin is white they are middle class and are no different from themselves. 
I draw the attention of members opposite to the fact that cultural history is a very flexible thing. I applaud what they are doing in New York. They are not governed by prejudice bigotry ignorance or lack of trying to repair the damage of the past and move forward into the future in an inclusive and holistic way. I suggest that we in New Zealand could emulate some of the attitudes prevailing in New York given the terrible disaster and awful events that its people have had to recover from. If we in this House could open our hearts and minds and think inclusively about what the term “cultural” might mean in a New Zealand sense learn from what other countries are doing and try to replicate that in our own indigenous way here in New Zealand I suspect that we could end up being slightly better than we are today. Let not prejudice be the governor of what we are trying to do here tonight with a bill that is farsighted far-reaching and positive in the outcomes it can have for New Zealand today and into the future.
Gallagher Martin: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Gallagher Martin: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9996] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8136] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Duncan Helen: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Duncan Helen: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17935] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Consumer Credit Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Consumer Credit Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3526] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 6 
Motion agreed to. 
ACT New Zealand 6.
Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11259] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you would like to reflect on that ruling. I appreciate you feel that you must uphold the ruling of the Chairperson before the dinner break. Her ruling was such that Mr Locke’s amendment could not be debated because it was to be ruled out of order. However it does not seem to me that a Chair of the Committee can rule an amendment out of order before it has even been voted on. Surely that is a matter that takes place at the time of the vote. So long as an amendment is extant—that is until it is voted on—if it relates to a particular part surely it and any other amendments to that part can be debated just as Mr Locke has already done in this case. Otherwise the effect of that ruling would be that Mr Locke could not even firstly put his amendment in or secondly speak to it. That would seem to infringe on the privileges of members to be able to table amendments and debate them. I ask you to reflect upon that ruling because it will have the effect of limiting the rights of members to debate on amendments and Supplementary Order Papers that they may move.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8114] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled on the point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Well the member can speak very briefly. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We have to put in our questions by mid-morning. It is one of the difficulties that we constantly have. We in the ACT party have one question and quite often—I am sure it is the same for the other political parties—we have a question that is specific to a particular Minister who has been dealing with the issue. We get another Minister answering who says that he or she does not know. I was wondering whether it would be a helpful innovation to the Parliament if it could be signalled who will be in the House at 2 o’clock—whether it will be the Minister or the Prime Minister—particularly given that we have such absences.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10310] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12797] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise in support of the second reading of this bill and I do so as a member of Parliament’s powerful Justice and Electoral Committee of which we have just heard a member from the Opposition side. I am sure we will hear from my esteemed colleagues on that committee. 
One of the good things about considering this bill was a reminder of how safe and sound our constitutional foundations in this country are. We have not had a judge removed from office. We heard submissions from people from the international legal community who commented favourably on New Zealand’s judiciary. So we are not doing this bill out of a sense of panic but to ensure that there is transparency and to reaffirm the strong faith we can have in our judiciary in terms of independence which is fundamental to a democracy. 
The committee has made some helpful changes and I believe the bill will be very good from the public’s point of view in keeping the faith that we must have in our judiciary. I support the second reading.