edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Burton Mark: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17306] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) 
: 
 It is always a very positive thing to follow His Excellency the chairperson of the Regulations Review Committee and the honorary consul for Monaco Dr Richard Worth. He made a fine contribution. 
As the Minister noted the Judicial Matters Bill before us implements some important but minor amendments relating to the judiciary by amending the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 and the Judicature Act 1908. The office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner provides an important and I think generally accepted service that enables the lodgment and examination of complaints from the public about the conduct of judges—that is the point of the bill that we should not lose track of—while of course upholding the all-important independence of the judiciary. To date the commissioner has not found it necessary to refer any complaint to a head of bench nor to recommend that the Attorney-General appoint a judicial conduct panel but the inaugural commissioner Mr Haynes has identified some desirable and beneficial technical amendments to the Act in his 2005-06 and 2006-07 annual reports to Parliament. This bill effectively implements those recommendations. 
It is my pleasure to support this bill. It is a useful and important measure for Parliament to advance and it reflects this Labour Government’s commitment to a robust transparent and fair justice system which we recognise as being essential to a well-functioning society.
Sharples Pita: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Sharples Pita: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17299] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe. Na reira kei te tautoko te Pati Maori ki tenei pire kia mohio mai a tatau mokopuna ko wai ratau no whea ratau. Kia kitea hoki enei matauranga e nga mokopuna e nga kairangahau na te mea he hitori he korero ranei mo te whanaungatanga me te mana o te hapu o te iwi hoki. Kia kaua e noho huna enei korero. Kia puta enei korero na reira mehemea e pirangi ana te Pati Reipa ki te moe tahi i a matau o te Pati Maori ka pai! Ka whakakite mai kia kaha ki te whakapuakina. Kaua e noho wahangu. Mena hoki he tino wawata ta te Pati Nahinara me kuhu ki roto i te moenga o te Pati Maori ano. Whakakitea ki te ao kia rongo ai nga kaipoti katoa. Hei aha te kohimuhimu erangi whakapuakina mai i runga ra ano i nga tihi rakau ki te ao. Na reira Mr Deputy Speaker tena koe tena tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The Maori Party supports this bill so that our grandchildren will know who they are and where they are from—so that grandchildren and researchers as well can find items of knowledge such as these because they are historical or about relationships or about tribal and subtribal jurisdiction too. These matters should never be hidden; they should be made public. So if the Labour Party wants to get into bed with the Maori Party that is OK. But make it known make it really public so that voters hear about it. Do not keep it quiet. Now if the National Party really wants to get into bed with the Maori Party as well make it known say it so that the whole world knows about it. Never mind the whispers; shout it out to the world from the treetops! So greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us as well 
.]
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17302] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Bill read a third time.
Carter John: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3817] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I take a call in response to my colleagues Hone Harawira and Dover Samuels. I am pleased to say we are proud to be Northlanders. The three of us work together for Northland as MPs without letting our politics get in the way and that is how it should be. We are three proud Northlanders. Both Dover and Hone are of Maori descent; I am non-Maori. 
I want to make a point about an issue that Hone and Dover talked about today. They talked about New Zealand as we see it now and they talked about assimilation. They talked about the fact that the common view is that Maori have to assimilate into our white society—the society we brought here 160-odd years ago. I want to make this point to both of them and also to the Committee because I think it is a seriously important point to make. I have a mokopuna who is obviously of my blood but is also of Dover’s and Hone’s blood. She is the future of this country. She is New Zealand. She is what we are becoming. She is what this country will be. She is not assimilated into the white people of this country; we are assimilating into the Maori of this country and as time progresses—as the ocean of time waves over this country—so too will our blood mingle. 
I see a time in the future when we will all be part of the Treaty and that is a day I look forward to. It will be the day when our blood cannot be distinguished or defined because we are New Zealanders. The problem we have at the moment is that it is quite easy to define ourselves. But as time washes over this nation and as our bloods mingle a lot of these issues will disappear because people like my mokopuna will look at themselves and say: I’m a New Zealander.”; “I’m a Kiwi.”; “I’m of New Zealand blood.” They will not say: “I’m of overseas heritage.” or “I’m of Maori heritage.”; they will say: “I’m a New Zealander.” We will find that happening more and more. 
I want to make another point in the Committee tonight. Dover Samuels was elected to the Northland Regional Council and indeed to the Far North District Council and he is Maori. But he was not elected on a special ward; he was elected because he had the ability to represent the people and he was recognised for that. Quite honestly I think it is insulting to the people—who are good people—to say: “Nevertheless we’re going to have to protect you.” I do not believe that that should be the case. Although we look at these issues in today’s environment I say to this Parliament that we need to look ahead to what the future will bring and to what New Zealand will be in time. We should not strap ourselves with laws that in time will be a barrier to our future.
Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3839] 
Historic Places Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 13 June. 
Part 2 Transitional provisions 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Madam Chair given that you are due to report progress in a couple of minutes I seek leave for you to report progress now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave. Is that agreed to? It is. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Local Government Law Reform Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into eight bills and progress on the Historic Places Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3824] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3824] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3834] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 8 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 8 agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3834] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments agreed to.
Burton Mark: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3813] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I feel the need to take this call because anyone who is listening to this debate might have gained a completely wrong impression from Mr Roy. What this part does—nothing more nothing less—is to correct minor drafting errors in order to put right a provision that already exists in law. That provision is that councils can make on their own behalf and on behalf of and with full consultation with their communities a decision as to whether this sort of representation is part of their community—not this Parliament’s community. That is all this part does; it tidies up the drafting errors. I think anyone who is listening might have been given the impression—it was a bit reminiscent of another measure earlier in the evening—that this is something we are enacting tonight. It is not; it is a tiny minor drafting correction.
Burton Mark: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3811] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I sense the debate on this part is reaching a conclusion and I thought it appropriate to take a short call. I want to echo the comments of the member Mark Blumsky. Part 2 does deal very effectively with the blight on many of our communities of litter—particularly broken glass. I suppose that if I have a favourite target it is that one. 
The tenfold increase in fine from $750 to a $7500 maximum is a good move. It sends all the right messages and I think it is something that members have been universally supportive of. On the matter the member was just getting to I agree that toughening up on issues of liability makes it much clearer for local authorities. 
All in all this part of the bill enjoys wide support from members and I am sure we are keen to see it enacted and for progress to be made. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 17A be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3823] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3809] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are we voting on clause 9D new section 41A on Supplementary Order Paper 43? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are indeed voting on an amendment to clause 9D. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Is this the one that the Minister indicated earlier relates to dead dogs which was to be removed? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: So which one is it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a consequence of the Minister withdrawing an amendment. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Could you say that again please? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a consequence of the Minister withdrawing an amendment. Is that clear? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Mr Chairman it is not clear. Could I ask that an explanation be given as to the implications of that?
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3809] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Earlier in the debate I sought by way of point of order the ability not to move clause 9D so in seeking that particular agreement we have to vote that it can be removed. 
Hon Member 
: We’re voting on whether it can be removed? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: This is to vote to remove clause 9D. In clarification I say to members that I am seeking through the process of the Committee to withdraw clause 9D. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Which is what we’re doing. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Which is what we are doing. 
Eric Roy 
: Just a point of clarification— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is quite clear and I will actually ask the Clerk to explain to you so you will understand and so I will understand what it is. 
Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Burton Mark: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3825] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 One of the tests of being a good MP is that one has to know when to give a bit of credit. It would have been perfectly fair for John Carter to take on the long-term council community plan process at the appropriate stage of the debate but this is the time for a bit more generosity of spirit. 
Mr John Carter is from a party whose last act in office in 1999 was to reach deep into the pockets of the pensioners in my electorate and attempt to take out $38000 every week in pension cuts. 
Darren Hughes 
: Including his mum! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is no wonder Mr Williamson wakes up every morning and thinks about the member’s dear old mum—he is still worried about her. 
Let us be fair. This provision which in my view is overdue lifts the threshold for those who are eligible for a rates rebate and it lifts the amount. It increases the income threshold from $7500 to $20000 and the maximum amount eligible has been increased from $200 to $500. That will mean the difference between 4000 people making a claim this year and 300000 people being eligible to make a claim in the coming year. Members should be happy to support this provision. I simply ask the National members whether they will support this provision or oppose it; and if they are going to oppose it will they make a pledge to reverse it at the next election?
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3818] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Copeland Gordon: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3809] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want some clarification on clause 9D. The Minister in the chair Nanaia Mahuta has moved that she wants to withdraw that but I originally thought that the part she wants to withdraw was new section 41A(3) inserted by clause 9D on Supplementary Order Paper 43. That is to do with a fine not exceeding $100 when a dog dies and the council is not notified. The way I think you were putting it to us before the dinner break was that all of clause 9D would come out so I just want some clarification around that point.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3807] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendment agreed to.
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3808] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is right. The Committee has just agreed to certain amendments and it would be inconsistent to now deal with an amendment that would repeal what has already been agreed to several minutes ago.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3808] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Roy Heather: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3817] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 3 on behalf of ACT New Zealand. ACT has always been very consistent on the matter of separate representation so we will be opposing Part 3. 
Mr Samuels has taken exception to the use of the word “tokenism” and we could probably stand here tonight and have a long debate about whether this situation is a case of tokenism. I acknowledge what Dr Jackie Blue said in her speech—I agree with everything she said. I believe that separate representation is derogatory to Maori and is divisive.  
I also acknowledge many of the comments Mr Harawira made particularly about Maori achieving what they want to achieve in New Zealand and about the sort of New Zealand he wants for Maori. I agree with many of the comments he made but I do not think this legislation is the way to get there. I agree with much of what Maori Party members say particularly about welfare reform and health disparities which have already been mentioned but again separate Maori representation is not the way for Maori to move ahead in New Zealand so that we have one nation for all and one rule of law. 
 New Zealand now is a multicultural nation. We have a growing Asian population in this country. My youngest children go to a primary school where there are 30 different nationalities represented. Children of many cultures are learning together under that one roof. That is a New Zealand I celebrate. I welcome the fact that my children participate in an area where they are subject to many many different cultures. I think they will grow up to be much better New Zealand citizens as a result. 
The point I particularly want to make—and it is one that ACT has consistently made since its representation in Parliament in 1996—is that when special privilege or special treatment is offered to one group in society another group is automatically disenfranchised. 
In the future it might well be that some wards in our local territories and authorities are predominantly Maori. What do we do then? Do we then give special privilege to other groups so that they have representation and are not disadvantaged? 
Jacqui Dean 
: It’s a farce. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right; it is a farce that will never end. We want to see one rule of law—one law for all New Zealanders. We want to see all New Zealanders being treated equally. That is the way to make New Zealanders equal—to help them with welfarism and with those health disparities that we spend a lot of time discussing in this Chamber. 
So for those very reasons ACT will be opposing Part 3. We hope to see in the future a New Zealand where everybody is treated equally.
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3808] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the amendment that has been agreed to satisfies the member then he is free to withdraw his similar amendment. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: In that case I will withdraw the Supplementary Order Paper.
Mapp Wayne: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3808] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The reason that it is not inconsistent—
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3807] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 9B be agreed to.
Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3809] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 Perhaps I can be of some assistance. There are several references to dead dogs in the bill. In the bill itself there is a reference in new section 41A(1) which is inserted by clause 9D. I had an amendment to remove that but my amendment will be overtaken by the Minister’s typewritten amendment. But the Minister also had on Supplementary Order Paper 43 further references to the requirement to report a dead dog. The Minister then withdrew those sections which leaves in clause 9D the provision that has not been removed. That is what we are voting on. The amendment is essentially the same amendment as the one I had because I wanted to see that provision removed as well. I hope that is an explanation. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 9D be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (1) from section 41A. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to a typescript amendment in the name of Eric Roy to omit section 41A(1) inserted by clause 9D. This amendment is now out of order.
Williamson Maurice: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3808] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you explain how it can be that that is inconsistent with a previous decision because this amendment looks to be on a slightly different aspect of that same issue. I think David Carter has put a lot of time into this and the issue of all dogs is quite important to it. I do not think the amendment is inconsistent across the board; it is inconsistent in only one small aspect.
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3808] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment is to insert new clause 9B repealing section 36A and new clause 9BA as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 in the name of the Hon David Carter. It seeks to abolish microchipping requirements for all dogs. This amendment is out of order; it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3805] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 9A to insert new subclause (1A) be agreed to.
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3808] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Seek leave please. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw that Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon CLEM SIMICH 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is not. We will move on. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
9BMicrochip transponder must be implanted in certain dogs 
Section 36A(6) is amended by omitting the expression “subsection 2”.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3807] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have just voted for a Green amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 43. Are we now voting on a new clause in Supplementary Order Paper 43 or on an amended clause? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The previous amendment was not successful and we are now voting on the amendment as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Minister.
Copeland Gordon: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3808] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a similar point of order to the last one. As we have already now voted to exempt working farm dogs and my Supplementary Order Paper covers the same ground pretty much will we not end up with a confused situation—with two different ways of exempting farm dogs?
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3808] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment is to insert new clause 9B which inserts new subsection (5B) in section 36A as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of Gordon Copeland.
Carter David: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3807] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We simply need clarification. With the Committee voting earlier to exempt farm dogs from the necessity to microchip can we please have an explanation as to what this amendment—the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister—attempts to do. We do not want to end up with a bigger mess than what the Government gave us to start with.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3805] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 4 (Bradford Kedgley Locke Tanczos); Maori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 2 (Fitzsimons Turei); Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 in the name of the Hon David Carter to insert new clauses 9B and 9BA be agreed to.
Mapp Wayne: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3803] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I note that the Minister Nanaia Mahuta is sitting in the chair. I remind that Minister of some history. One hundred years ago in the far north—the home of New Zealand First—there was an incident in our history that became known as the dog tax war. The New Zealand First members may scoff but I ask what that was about. It was about Maori New Zealanders saying they did not want the Government bureaucracy to impose taxes and controls on their people. Is it not an irony that the member for Te Tai Hauauru is basically saying today that she wants to have taxes on dogs? 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair is not the member for Te Tai Hauauru; she is the member for the Tainui electorate. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I apologise to the member for making that mistake. I find it ironic that this Government would make the same error yet again of imposing taxes on the people of New Zealand. It is true that the cost will be $100 on average per dog and obviously more for some owners. 
Who will bear that cost? Owners will. Have we not been hearing week after week in recent times that local government is complaining about the costs that this Government is loading on to New Zealanders? Rates are going up by 7.5 percent this year. What is this Government’s response to that? Does the Government seek to reduce costs for local government? No it does not. It wants to load yet more and more costs on to the people of New Zealand and on to local government. That is exactly what one would expect from a party that can think only about loading more taxes on to people. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Forcing people to pay! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Forcing people to pay for things. It is a feature of this Government that it will always go for bureaucratic control. I tell this Committee that the most consistent theme about political correctness is bureaucratic excess. One can always identify the politically correct by how much bureaucracy they want to load on to New Zealanders. 
This legislation is a classic case of political correctness. I have received numerous emails and letters that pursue precisely that point. People ask in a fundamentally common-sense way why someone would want to microchip a dog and impose the excessive cost of that on them. They ask which bureaucratic mind could have come up with such an absurd proposition. Well I will tell them. The Labour Party because Labour and bureaucracy go together. 
Sandra Goudie 
: And the poodles! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: And the poodles. And is that not remarkable? We have heard the support party New Zealand First which generally tends to support the Government say it has had a victory. I tell that member and that party that if they had had a victory they would be voting against this legislation. 
I want to say this. The way to defeat political correctness is to vote against bureaucracy and the way to defeat this legislation is for the parties to vote for the amendments because frankly they are common sense.
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3808] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Are we satisfied that the Hon David Carter has this issue well in hand? Thank you. 
We will move on to an amendment to insert new clause 9B repealing and substituting section 36A as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46 in the name of Metiria Turei. This amendment is out of order because again it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
We come now to clause 9D and the Hon Mark Burton’s typescript amendment to omit new section 41A(1).
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3806] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 9B be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and to omit from subclause (2) the expression “(7)”.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3806] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
9BMicrochip transponder must be implanted in certain dogs 
Section 36A(2) is amended by adding “unless the owner advises the territorial authority in writing that the dog provides social practical or economic services or support to the owner including but not limited to the purpose of herding or driving stock”.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3806] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
9BMicrochip transponder must be implanted in certain dogs 
Section 36A(1)(c) is amended by omitting the expression “2006” and substituting the expression “2007”.
Copeland Gordon: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3805] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I noticed during that vote that the Green Party gave a split vote. I just wanted to get an assurance that in accordance with the Standing Orders they will give the names of the people voting for and the names of people voting against. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes that is the Standing Order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 9A to add new subclause (3) be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3804] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Eric Roy to clause 8A be agreed to: 
to add to subsection (3) of section 33A the following new paragraph:  
(e)Any dog savaging a child under 13 years must be put down.
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3807] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This amendment does not in any way affect the amendments that were agreed to in the name of the Hon David Carter. It is on a different part from those. I will go back through the amendment. It is the Minister’s amendment to insert new clause 9B amending subsections (4) and (7) of section 36A as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton.
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3797] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You have identified it well enough. 
Document not tabled.
Pettis Jill: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3797] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of John Carter’s  
Hansard 
 of 27 March 1996 for his speech on the Dog Control Bill. Can I also table with the Committee’s permission the comment made by David Carter last night—this is not from  
Hansard 
; he said this on the radio—that it would be too hard to roll back this bill once it was passed.
Donnelly Brian: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3801] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call in this discussion because a lot of it really is just flimflam and I believe that Doug Woolerton our spokesperson on this issue has very eloquently put New Zealand First’s position. That position of course is to be resolute and stick with the way we have voted in the past in terms of the package—the catalyst first and foremost being Carolina Anderson and this Parliament getting together. 
In reaction to some of the jibes that came across—I think Colin King talked about New Zealand First having a choker chain on it—I want people to reflect on what the Minister told us earlier about what has happened with clause 9D and the subsequent Supplementary Order Paper. The original provision would have required dog owners to inform local authorities within 28 days when their dogs died and if they did not there would be a $100 fine. I am not too certain about all the things that went on behind the scenes but the Minister certainly referred to the persuasive arguments of Doug Woolerton in the Chamber yesterday about why that was quite stupid legislation. What I do know is that New Zealand First made a decision yesterday. We looked at that particular provision for the first time yesterday and made a decision then that we would not be supporting it. Discussions were held and in fact the Government has agreed—I do not know whether it was already planning this—to have the provision pulled out. 
I want to contrast the behaviour of New Zealand First in actually achieving things. There is no choker chain on here; those are baubles we quite accept. A stupid law may have gone through if it had not been for the timely intervention of New Zealand First. I also ask just how effective all that noise coming from the other side of the Chamber will be in making any changes whatsoever. So I will finish with one question: can New Zealand First fix it? The answer is that once again we have.
Turia Tariana: General Debate 
Turia Tariana: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:3778] 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not take the call because I thought it would be rude to interject while the person was still speaking. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that but I ask her now to take the call because in a general debate the bell goes at 5 minutes—that is it and everyone knows that. If someone does not take the call then the whole debate lapses.
Carter John: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3793] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a point of clarification. Just to be absolutely clear is the Minister taking away the reference to the dead dog provision—new section 41A(2) in clause 9D in Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton? Has that been withdrawn?
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3792] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I take a brief call at this point to indicate to the House that I will seek prior to voting to have the provision relating to dead dogs removed. Having heard the good sound arguments of Doug Woolerton last night and considered the issue I think that that is the right course to take on this particular issue. Common sense prevails in this case.
Carter John: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3807] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The issue is that I am still not clear—and I do not know whether anyone else in the Chamber is judging by the looks of the Minister and the discussions that are going on—exactly what the situation is. Given that we have passed legislation to exempt working dogs we now need to know whether this amendment in a roundabout way upsets anything that has been done with regard to that vote. We do not want to suddenly find that we are negating the wish of Parliament with regard to working dogs. We probably need to get advice from the Minister when he has obtained advice from his officials—because he is as puzzled as we are. It may be useful for the Committee to be patient and wait until we have advice as to exactly what we are doing. That would be a rare thing for this Committee to know under the present administration but it will be useful nevertheless.
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3807] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This amendment amends section 36A. The reason it is in here is that there are quite a number of amendments to clause 9B and the Minister’s one comes first. Is that clear?
Carter John: General Debate 
Carter John: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:3789] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that during—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! While there is a point of order there is to be absolute silence and the member knows that. 
JOHN CARTER 
: —my discourse to the House you very correctly ensured that when I addressed members and talked about members I said their full name—Rick Barker or Minister— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Most times. 
JOHN CARTER 
: You kept pulling me into line. I wonder why then the same did not happen to Jill Pettis when she kept referring to the leader of the National Party as “Brash”. He is Don Brash or he is Mr Brash or he is the leader of the National Party. We need to have consistency. If we have rulings for one side then they need to be common right across Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you for that. I heard the honourable member once or twice— 
John Carter 
: Three times. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Was it three times? I am sorry I missed that. The member is quite right. In fact it is covered by Speaker’s rulings 26/6 and 26/7. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3827] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 7 agreed to.
Peters Winston: General Debate 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:3777] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What do we get? We get a poodle like you “Mr 20 Percent Loser” of the National Party— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member is now bringing the Speaker into the debate. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: My point of order is this. The bell was rung in the general debate and we all know what it means. No prior notice is given; the bell ringing means that members must stop their speeches. The member kept on speaking for the next 30 seconds. He abused you as Assistant Speaker ignoring you by turning his back on you and you let him get away with that. There is not a separate set of rules for other members of Parliament. He should have been ejected from the House because of his contempt for the Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Peters for that. I was waiting for another member to call. But I just say to the member on my left that he has only 5 minutes in a general debate. He knows that. He is not entitled to continue just because no one else takes the call.
English Bill: General Debate 
English Bill: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:3778] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know whether in my 16 years here this issue has come up before. It is so unusual for this to happen. As I understand it the determination of who is speaking and when is ultimately with you Mr Assistant Speaker not with the Clerk of the House. The Clerk of the House rings the bell; he does not decide whose call to take—you do. Members call and you take those calls. In this case because there was no call we were left with the option that the House would have fallen silent— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made his point; he will please be seated. I just say that if no one takes the call the debate lapses and finishes. The member should have been seated—and we have both learnt.
Carter David: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3810] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 During the dinner break I had the opportunity to talk to ministry officials and they have asked that I seek leave to change one point of reference on my Supplementary Order Paper 41. The reference to section 36(1A) should read “section 46(1)”. I seek leave to make that change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 9G be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 9G as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46 is now out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision we have made. 
The next two amendments have been withdrawn. Those were to insert new clause 12AA and to insert new clauses 13A and 13B as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 both in the name of the Hon David Carter. 
The question was put that the amendments except the amendment to insert new clause 9D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 4 to insert new clause 9B and to clause 9E(2) be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3775] 
11.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made in ensuring long-term affordable access to prescription drugs and doctors’ visits for all New Zealanders? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 An agreement reached yesterday means that the roll-out of cheaper doctors’ visits and low-cost prescription drugs for 45-year-olds to 64-year-olds will proceed from 1 July this year and for all New Zealanders from 1 July next year. Importantly the agreement allows general practitioners to protect the viability of their practices and allows the Government to future-proof the primary health care strategy. This is a victory for general practice it is a victory for the Labour-led Government but most important it is a victory for the health of New Zealand families. 
Maryan Street 
: What is the cost of this year’s roll-out of the primary health care strategy and has the Minister had any reports on alternative policies for this age group? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Labour-led Government is investing $110 million to enable this year’s extension of affordable primary health care. National’s stated policy is to put doctors’ fees and prescription charges back up for this age group. I think this House is entitled to know whether another U-turn is coming.