edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20121] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 May 2005”.
Paraone Pita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18920] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I just want to reassure the last speaker that when I stand I am not standing to be smart. 
The issue is that the first speaker in this debate made the allegation that there was something wrong with the translation. From that time subsequent speakers have stood to support that concern but I have noted that none of them have actually identified just what is wrong with the translation. [ 
Interruption 
] No no. The member for National mentioned that there was something wrong with the translation but no one has told this Committee what exactly is wrong. That is the point that I made. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: He claimed the paragraphs are equivalent; we don’t know that they are. 
PITA PARAONE 
: If we are talking about paragraphs I say that that is nothing to do with the translation. But I can assure Mr Sowry that there was the English text and the Maori is a translation of the English text. 
In terms of verifying the translation I support the previous speaker who said that the person who should give that confirmation is the promoter of this bill or his or her representative.
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7056] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20727] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Oaths Modernisation Bill be now read a first 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 26; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Cullen Michael: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Cullen Michael: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4264] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Agriculture 
: I move  
That the Wine Makers Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill was introduced as Part 5 of the Wine Bill on 14 October 2002 and was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The submissions on the bill clearly supported early enactment of Part 5 of the Wine Bill now the Wine Makers Amendment Bill to reinforce the current export regime pending passage of the full Wine Bill. The Wine Makers Amendment Bill facilitates the export of grape wines reinforcing the current wine export regime which is made up of the export provisions of the Wine Makers Act and an administrative official assurance system. 
The industry of course is a rapidly growing and highly successful one but the European Union passed legislation last year that requires other countries exporting wine to the European Union such as New Zealand to regulate conditions of use statements commonly made on wine labels such as vintage variety and traditional terms. The passage of the European Union regulation has created commercial uncertainty for exporters as it is not clear how it will be implemented. The passage of that regulation has created the need to press forward with particular provisions from the more comprehensive bill. That is because it clearly requires other countries that export wine to the European Union to regulate conditions of use statements commonly made on wine labels. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority does provide official assurance to facilitate the export of wine to the European Union and other countries. 
 Currently the issues that are required to be addressed under the regulation are not provided for in the Wine Makers Act and New Zealand’s current official assurance system for wine exports is administrative. Therefore New Zealand wine might face import restrictions from the date that the European Union regulation first applies to imports. That date was to be 1 January 2003 but on 25 November last year the European Union deferred application of its regulation to imports until 1 August this year. This bill is still necessary to overcome the hiatus that would otherwise occur from 1 August 2003 through to the commencement of the Wine Bill which is intended to commence on 1 January 2004. 
I thank the Primary Production Committee for very rapidly considering Part 5 of that bill because initially it was thought necessary to pass it before the end of the year to meet the 1 January deadline. As it is we have had somewhat longer to address the matter. I think it is still very desirable to pass this bill as quickly as possible to give a lead-in time to the new regulation coming into force on 1 August this year.
Hartley Ann: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16212] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour please say “Aye” to the contrary “No”. [ 
Interruption 
] I have not heard anybody call—
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20526] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before we make progress on this question I remind you again that under Standing Order 80 you have the ability to determine the order of the House in the best way possible. You have indicated to the acting Leader of the Opposition Mr Brownlee that he is able to ask his question but then I understand he is expected to leave the Chamber. You also indicated that you had missed a disorderly interjection from a member on the other side who had been in my view quite disorderly. I ask you in the spirit of getting the best order in the House for the afternoon whether you might like to allow Mr Brownlee not only to ask his questions but also to participate in the balance of question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy for Mr Brownlee to ask question No. 1 then to leave the Chamber and come back to ask question No. 5 and to remain in the Chamber thereafter.
Maharey Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Maharey Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14809] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In my answer I said the Acting Minister informed the Secretary of Labour Dr James Buwalda that the source of the information regarding Ms AmokuraPanoho was John Tamihere. Having checked with my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson I can advise the House that the Acting Minister did not name the source of her information when passing it on to the Secretary of Labour. No name was mentioned.
Tamihere John: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Tamihere John: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:609;Page:6946] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13065] 
10.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What is Statistics New Zealand doing to reduce the costs to business in complying with requirements to provide statistical data? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Although New Zealand has a relatively light compliance burden by international standards Statistics New Zealand shares this Government’s commitment to improving things further. Recent initiatives taken by Statistics New Zealand to reduce compliance costs include changes to the retail trade survey to the extent that compliance has been cut by 25 percent. The post-out of monthly business frame update surveys has been reduced by 30000 questionnaires—50 percent a year. The annual frame updating survey has been reduced by 23 percent from a post-out of 121000 in 2002 to 110000 in 2003 and 93000 in 2004. Both the monthly and annual update questionnaires have been streamlined. This has meant that they have been reduced from 22 to just two. 
Mark Peck 
: To what extent is Statistics New Zealand making better use of tax data to reduce compliance costs as well? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Statistics New Zealand is further expanding the use of tax data to replace direct surveys. In 2003 GST returns were introduced in the wholesale trade survey reducing the number of survey respondents by more than 600 each quarter. That is a 36 percent reduction. The use of GST returns with regard to the quarterly survey of manufacturing meant that the number of businesses surveyed has been reduced by 450 or 28 percent. Statistics New Zealand is working to make sure that business people are as aware of the services that Statistics New Zealand can provide to them as they are of the demands placed on them.
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19307] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you for that ruling but the point is as the whip of the ACT party I would like to know whether Mr Hide can come back to ask his question No. 6. Could your ruling make that quite clear please?
Peters Winston: Prime Minister’s Statement 
Peters Winston: Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18159] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In respect of your bringing our attention to the Standing Order precluding any intervention by other members when the Prime Minister is speaking can I just say that her speech did not deserve that long applause. It was an excessive misuse of this House and if people want the rules to be observed they should stick to them themselves. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that was a point of order it would be useful.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17354] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15633] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 6 be agreed to.
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6608] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Prostitution Reform Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 60 
Barker 
Dyson 
King 
Sowry 
Barnett 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Laban 
Sutton 
Benson-Pope 
Fairbrother 
Locke 
Swain (P) 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Bradford 
Goff 
Mallard 
Tanczos 
Brash 
Gosche 
Okeroa 
Tizard (P) 
Burton (P) 
Hartley 
Parker 
Turei 
Carter C 
Hawkins (P) 
Peck 
Turia 
Chadwick 
Hereora 
Pettis (P) 
Ward 
Clark (P) 
Hide 
Pillay 
Williamson (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Rich (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Roy 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Donald 
Kedgley 
Simich 
Teller: 
Duncan 
Kelly (P) 
Smith L 
Hughes 
Noes 59 
Adams 
Dunne 
Mapp (P) 
Ryall 
Alexander 
Duynhoven 
Mark (P) 
Samuels 
Anderton (P) 
Eckhoff 
McCully (P) 
Scott 
Ardern (P) 
English (P) 
McNair 
Smith M (P) 
Awatere Huata 
Field 
Newman (P) 
Smith N 
Baldock 
Franks 
O’Connor (P) 
Stewart 
Brown 
Gallagher (P) 
Ogilvy 
Te Heuheu (P) 
Brownlee 
Goudie 
Paraone 
Tisch 
Carter D (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Perry (P) 
Turner 
Catchpole 
Heatley 
Peters J 
Wong (P) 
Collins (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Connell 
Jones 
Power (P) 
Worth (P) 
Copeland 
Key 
Prebble 
Yates 
Cosgrove 
Mackey 
Robertson (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly (P) 
Mahuta 
Robson 
Carter J 
Abstentions 1 
Choudhary (P) 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12359] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 117A of the principal Act after subsection (2) the following subsection: 
(3)This section will come into effect when the content of the qualification has been agreed by all in the industry and shall comprise existing proposed unit standards 4646 and 16705 only.
Hide Rodney: Budget Debate 
Hide Rodney: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5805] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I beg your indulgence because I think you have given the House a mistaken interpretation of Speaker Harrison’s ruling 53/2. You said that it was OK to interject from one’s seat as long as one had moved there for another purpose. However if you read the ruling you will see that it states: “. . . A member may move to such a position for another reason but if the member then embarks on a series of interjections it would be reasonable to assume that the original purpose had been overtaken by the desire to interject. The member would then be breaking the convention and should return to the member’s seat or desist from interjecting.” The member has stopped interjecting so that has been taken care of. But I was concerned that some people assume that as long as they moved to a better seat before they started to interject it would be OK. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. Each case is judged on its merits. I have judged accordingly.
Parker David: Building Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Building Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14535] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise in support of the second reading of the Building Bill. The background as most of us know is the leaky homes problem that we had in Auckland. In its report last year the Government Administration Committee looked into and identified a number of problems that needed legislative changes to address them. The principal issue was the need to bring the regulation of building matters back within a Government ministry so that the Government could have some control and therefore take some responsibility for things when they go wrong. One of the issues we have seen in the last few years has been the withdrawal of councils from all but the most modest supervision of building projects perhaps because they feared legal liability if they did more than the minimum. As a consequence the risk for consumers of unlicensed building practitioners has grown. At the same time as we have seen a rise in unqualified builders there has been a decline in the level of supervision perhaps from councils. The Government has decided that it is wise to introduce a licensing regime for building practitioners to guard against those risks. 
We heard Mr Tisch say that we have a problem in New Zealand with a lack of skilled trades people. That is true. What he did not mention was that that was because of the abandonment of traditional apprenticeships in the 1990s. They have been re-established only in the last 4 to 5 years by the Labour-led Government and the introduction of Modern Apprenticeships will assist in resolving the problem of qualified staff. But in the meantime it is appropriate that we license building practitioners and bring the regulation of this area of work back within a ministry and then look at the building code to see whether some of the previously permitted forms of building ought to be more tightly regulated. 
I recommend the bill to the House.
Prebble Richard: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18909] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I first say that I am obliged to Dr Cullen for drawing to my attention—and now that I look at it again I can see—the fact that the translation is almost certainly of the Maori Affairs Committee’s commentary on the bill rather than of the bill itself. But the point that I think would help Mr Brownlee—and I think it would be a very useful thing for you Mr Speaker to make this ruling—is that the custom of the courts to start to refer to what happens in Parliament for statutory interpretation is in my view very unsound. 
When I was first elected the courts could not consider anything that was said in the House and they certainly would not consider any select committee commentary. Mr Brownlee is right that some courts not all have started to do that. I do not want to be derogatory of this learned select committee but I think that that shows a fundamental lack of understanding by the courts. What is said in Parliament is very political and what is said about a bill sometimes bears little resemblance to what is actually in it. 
It would be very helpful if the Speaker would take this opportunity to confirm what Dr Cullen said—that is the select committee looks at the English text of the legislation and that alone. When that legislation comes out of a select committee and is finally passed by the House that is all the courts should look at. They certainly should not go back to the views of a select committee that for all I know has put in all sorts of interesting observations that were not made from the viewpoint that some court would take any notice of them.
Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 19 June 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House the main items of business will be the remaining stages of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill and those first readings not completed today. Wednesday is members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I am wondering whether the Leader of the House might give us an early indication of when the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is likely to progress up the Order Paper. There are a number of businesses throughout the country that are interested in that bill making some progress. It has been available to the House for some time. Further can the Minister just give us an indication about what the following week may have with regard to extended hours. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Taking the second point first I indicate that the Government is intending to take extended hours from Tuesday through to Friday 6 p.m. in the fourth week. I will come back to members whips and leaders particularly hopefully by the end of next week with a full list of the intended business. On the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill it is fair to say we are not likely to deal with that in the next 2 weeks. I hope we will make early progress in the next sitting of Parliament.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6306] 
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 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to insert new clause 18A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 18 the following clause: 
18A 
From time to time other government agencies may be incorporated into the agency established by this Act by way of Order in Council.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13033] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Speaker’s Statements — Questions for Oral Answer—New Zealand First 
Speaker’s Statements — Questions for Oral Answer—New Zealand First 
[Volume:620;Page:15575] 
Tuesday 14 September 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Questions for Oral Answer—New Zealand First 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call questions for oral answer I advise the House that I made an error myself in the calculation of questions from New Zealand First last week so I will be allocating it an extra question today.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14830] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5311] 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
: When will the committee set a time to consider the petition of Kenneth Wang and others requesting a review of the new English language immigration tests? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee): 
 Over recent meetings the committee has been working its way through each of the 46 outstanding petitions it has before it relating back to the previous Parliament. Some of those have been reported back today. We will be considering the matter further at future meetings and will be setting a meeting date in due course to hear the outstanding petitions. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Given the urgency of this issue to the thousands of people who are caught up by the change in the English language tests and given the fact that the committee has not been able to set a date have the chairman and the committee considered going to the Business Committee to have this issue transferred to possibly the labour committee which may be a better committee to consider it in the first place; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: We have not made that consideration. It is a matter I will take up with the committee. I am confident that we can deal with all the petitions before us in a timely manner. We are working on the basis of dealing with them in the order in which they have been received.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16357] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 99 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 6; Maori Party 1. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12166] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to support the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and I am glad that that member finished the way that he did because the minority view as expressed in the Education and Science Committee report made it clear the National Party wants to move to individual boards of trustees having to negotiate contracts or agreements with their employees school by school. Those members do want to break down the relationship that has been developed over many many years between those working in our schools and they want to smash the State sector unions the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute. That is the National Party’s position on this. It is not the Government’s position. When the State Services Commissioner has the power to bargain for collective agreements with employees of boards of trustees it makes good sense that the commissioner has all the powers under the legislation. It is sensible legislation from an excellent Minister of Education.
Yates Dianne: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14016] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Lockwood: Motions — Terrorism—Madrid Bombings 
Smith Lockwood: Motions — Terrorism—Madrid Bombings 
[Volume:616;Page:11627] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 The National Party would like to associate itself with that motion. All decent people in this world must feel very deeply the absolute horror of what took place in Madrid. Terrorism is something that should not be tolerated in any shape or form by decent people in this world and every effort must be made to stamp out that kind of absolutely abhorrent violence. We support the Prime Minister’s motion.
Tisch Lindsay: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15507] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is a personal vote called for? That is the point. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The confusion is that people think this is just a normal vote. The point Mr Benson-Pope mentioned before is that although I sought leave to have a split vote that was denied. We are now moving into a personal vote. That is the process we should be going for. Green members have to vote against it. Some are voting for it. We are calling now for a personal vote.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21200] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When Mr Mallard was answering a supplementary question to question No. 3 he referred to white New Zealanders as honkies. Is that acceptable language in this House?
Carter John: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12674] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 For the length of the debates that are an hour long the Business Committee has allocated the speaking times as an agreement with all parties. 
Sue Bradford 
: So it is different then? 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is different from what is in there. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is 5 minutes.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16228] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are probably going to rule that this is not a strict point of order but it is certainly a matter of keeping order in the House inasmuch as Parliament should be a place where integrity is on display. The Acting Prime Minister has been out in recent days saying to people: “If you’ve got allegations about John Tamihere if you’ve got information about John Tamihere then lay it on the table. Give it to those who are investigating this matter.” Yet Rodney Hide has just tried to lay information on the Table—not some trumped up bit of stuff he has made up but actual information relevant to this investigation—and Mr Mallard wants to say that the House cannot see it. Is that open government? Is that an honest position for the Acting Prime Minister to be taking?
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 2 to Minister 17 February 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 2 to Minister 17 February 
[Volume:625;Page:20355] 
Tuesday 10 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 2 to Minister 17 February 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 On 17 February I responded to questions in the House relating to Scholarship results. In one of my answers I said that an error had been made in my office in not opening an email on 17 January. It has now come to my attention that the email was opened by a member of my staff. However as I have previously stated the information was not passed on to me until 25 January.
Jones Dail: Appointments — Police Complaints Authority—Ian Albert Borrin 
Jones Dail: Appointments — Police Complaints Authority—Ian Albert Borrin 
[Volume:616;Page:11894] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Government’s motion to reappoint Ian Albert Borrin District Court Judge of Wellington as Police Complaints Authority for a term of 2 years. I have had the opportunity on the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the Police Complaints Authority and the way in which it works. It is obviously a very important role to undertake in New Zealand. Complaints against the police must be considered even more carefully than any other type of complaint that can possibly come forward. 
One of the points made by the previous speaker about the manner of appointment of staff to the Police Complaints Authority was very worth while. It is difficult when police are investigating police and in questioning the authority at the time it was found that one of its other problems was that the non-police members who it employs to do investigations tend to be former members of the police. There does not appear to be a sufficiently resourced group in New Zealand to undertake totally independent inquiries. None the less New Zealand First has great support for the police. They must be supported by the House. The Police Complaints Authority has a system that allows citizens to vent their spleen if they feel something has gone astray. 
We are concerned about the delay in looking at these matters. I looked into a matter in the Helensville electorate myself not too long ago. It was resolved in about 3 or 4 months—unfortunately not too satisfactorily; but at least the citizen had the opportunity to express concern about the behaviour of a policeman although he was off-duty. It is hard to let citizens know what sort of complaint they can make—whether it is just against someone on duty or someone off duty. Really it sums up the role of police officers: they are virtually on duty all the time and must maintain a high standard and New Zealand First is satisfied that they do. We support this motion.
Alexander Marc: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18650] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I shall be very short and sweet. As probably one of the only people in the Chamber who has actually watched the Living Word video I can tell members point blank that it is a piece of crap. However having said that I also say that it does not come under the auspices of this legislation. This legislation has nothing to do with it. In fact I have never heard such fanciful rubbish from any speaker in this Chamber as I have just heard the previous speaker utter—absolute and total crap. It is as much rubbish as the video he claims to talk about yet has never actually seen. 
I do not understand how there can be any party in this Parliament that will vote against legislation to protect our kids—and that from a party that claims to be the tough law and order party. But it does not want to protect children. It wants children to have full access to the most awful pornography possible all for the sake of so-called freedom. That is not the kind of freedom we want to see for our children. That is no freedom at all; that is an abuse of our children. That party the ACT party does not stand for law and order. Law and order my foot! ACT members do not want to protect our children and that is why they will not support this bill. Shame on them!
Hughes Darren: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6989] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will take one more.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Breach of Privilege—Television One 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Breach of Privilege—Television One 
[Volume:625;Page:20655] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise what I consider to be quite a serious matter for your consideration. We have a situation in which there is a question mark about whether a Minister deliberately misled the House last Thursday. As you appreciate I have raised that with you in the appropriate manner as a breach of privilege. I am not about to litigate that here. But last night we had a situation whereby Television One opened its news broadcast by saying that David Benson-Pope had lied in Parliament. That was the opening sentence of the news last night. Last night on the news Television One reported Phil Weaver as saying that the Minister had lied to this House. That is not something members can do but it shows you the serious nature of what is before you in my breach of privilege complaint. We cannot have a news reporter news reports and Television One in particular saying that a Minister has lied and not have this House take it seriously. 
We also have another situation before us. The Government has announced an inquiry. I have written to the Prime Minister and suggested some terms of reference—or some things to consider for the terms of reference. But we cannot be in a situation whereby it is the Government that decides whether David Benson-Pope deliberately misled Parliament. The only body that can consider that is Parliament itself. That is done through the Privileges Committee as is proper. If it is the case that you do not want to refer David Benson-Pope to the Privileges Committee for it to consider whether he misled Parliament and lied then you have no option but to send Television One to the committee. Television One is claiming that he did lie which in itself is a breach of privilege. 
We are looking at the release of the Budget tomorrow and then at a week’s adjournment. I do not think that Parliament can be in good standing if we have—[ 
Interruption 
] Well members may like to chip in from the back of the House and interrupt me. It would be a lot easier and a lot quicker if they would follow the Standing Orders and be quiet or take a point of order after me. We cannot be in a situation in this Parliament whereby it is being reported in the news that Ministers lie in Parliament. I suggest to you Madam Speaker that for the sake of Parliament you consider my breach of privilege complaint and make an announcement on that while Parliament is sitting this week. Otherwise we will be stuck with the adjournment and the allegations will continue through the media.
Tisch Lindsay: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16052] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have acknowledged that Mr Williamson was seeking the call. I have also been seeking the call on Part 2. We have been sitting through this debate from the start we have been seeking calls and you did give me a call on Part 1. Mr Williamson had a call on Part 1. However it would have been appropriate for both of us to have a call as we have both been here and we are interested in this legislation. As my colleague Roger Sowry has pointed out we have a major contribution to make having been involved in business ourselves and representing business interests and employee interests. Unfortunately we were denied the opportunity to take a call on Part 2 which is a significant part of the legislation. 
We are now moving to the final stage to the title debate and I would seek your indulgence that you allow a wide-ranging debate for the points brought up by Mr Sowry—that business did not get a fair hearing and they wanted to make submissions. During the debate on the title and the commencement which we are to have now I ask that due consideration be given to a fair hearing from this side of the House.
Barker Rick: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8733] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:14661] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Having noticed the extraordinarily large number of second readings and Committee stages on the Order Paper and having seen the number of bills at select committees that are due back in the House very very shortly I ask whether he expects that in the next 3-week block of Parliament there will be extended hours so that the Government might advance its business.
Fairbrother Russell: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17991] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 That was a surprising address from someone who clearly did not listen to  
Morning Report 
 very accurately this morning. He has not read the law on international obligations very carefully nor does he understand the law on compensation. This bill of course is a patch-up effort for the failures of the previous National Government during the 1990s which developed a culture of abuse within prisons resulting in the mess that this Government now has to handle. 
So this bill is the first step towards bringing something correct to the crazy world that existed under the previous administration as represented by the previous pathetic speaker who seems to be careless with facts as well as with logic. 
The main way to stop money from being paid out to prisoners is to stop prison officers from ill treating them—it is as simple as that. And of course that is what the Government is doing under its enlightened Minister of Corrections the Hon Paul Swain. We will not see the need for this legislation when it becomes law to become active as a result of the actions of this Government in relation to prisoners. But we are still cleaning up the mess left by the previous administration. During the early and mid-1990s—in 1992 at Mangaroa and then down in Christchurch—when the previous speaker the Hon Tony Ryall was a member of Cabinet prison officers felt welcome to inflict cruelty and unfair treatment on prisoners. That will no longer happen so this bill is really a patch-up for the problems caused by the last administration. The previous speaker ridiculed the bill but he will not sleep well at night knowing that he is the author of the conflict in prisons and the author who created compensation for prisoners who do not deserve such compensation. We know that this bill will have very little practical effect because of the sterling work done to sort out our prison service so that we stop mistreating prisoners.
Benson-Pope David: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9363] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 164 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 14B be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
14BInducing terror sufficient 
Section 5(2)(b) of the principal Act is deleted.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22033] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a proposal to scrap interest charges on student loans for all 436000 people living in New Zealand who have a student loan and to provide an amnesty on penalties for nearly 10000 student loan borrowers overseas who have an overdue repayment obligation. This will encourage overseas Kiwis to come home. It will save those with an average-sized loan balance around $7000 and those with higher loans much much more—up to $80000 in some cases. I am told there is considerable interest in this proposal. The website of the organisation had 133000 hits yesterday and this morning it had 78000. The place to go is www.labour.org.
Electoral Matters Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Electoral Matters Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17248] 
Electoral Matters Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Electoral Matters Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 310 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Electoral Matters Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Mark Ron: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Mark Ron: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22239] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a further point of order Mr Speaker. I much prefer a gracious magnanimous withdrawal but if it is beyond that member to do such a thing then we will let it lie where it lies and will deal with it in public. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Ms Pettis is quite aware that a withdrawal should not be qualified. An apology would be helpful.
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:13749] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment agreed to.
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7650] 
9.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Why did she tell the House in relation to the New Zealand Immigration Service memorandum stating that there was an agreement to “lie in unison” “I would have had to be a party to such an agreement” and what steps are being taken to have an independent body fully investigate her involvement in this matter? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I was simply referring to the fact that the commentary included in the media log stated that “All the others caved in”. I was the only person who spoke publicly about the matter so I made the assumption that I would have had to be included. I am awaiting the outcome of the investigations being undertaken by the Secretary of Labour—which will be publicly released—before considering whether any further steps should be taken. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that the “we agreed to lie in unison” memo was apparently circulated to the entire senior management team at the Immigration Service apparently without challenge what does the Minister think that tells us about the culture in that organisation and can she tell us whether any member of her staff received or was aware of that memorandum? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I would say it suggests that not many people in the Immigration Service read the media log and no I am not aware of anyone in my office being on the receiving end of the media log. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has it crossed the Minister’s mind that a department whose spokesperson tells the Ombudsman that a memorandum he wrote does not exist and his general manager could not remember a memo asserting an agreement to “lie in unison” and now cannot remember when he briefed the Minister about giving details of the Tampa refugees to the police who in turn cannot now remember when she was briefed on the matter would seem to be a department that is prone to outbreaks of amnesia in unison and could the Minister tell us how she explains this sad state of affairs? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am sure that not everybody who received the media log actually read it. Having read the commentary that Mr Ian Smith sent out on 20 December it would suggest to him that not many people in the Immigration Service were interested in reading his throwaway lines.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4243] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
National New Zealand 27; New Zealand First 11; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21573] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.