edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hawkins George: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Hawkins George: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:20133] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This legislation rectifies problems with New Zealand citizenship will improve border security and will reduce the likelihood of successful forgery of travel documents. 
The amendments to the requirements for the grant of citizenship including increasing the residence period from 3 to 5 years will provide a sufficient basis for assessment of applicants’ suitability for citizenship and their commitment to New Zealand. Transitional provisions mean that people who came to New Zealand as permanent residents expecting a 3-year residence period for citizenship will not be disadvantaged by the changes. They will be assessed against the current 3-year requirement instead of the new 5-year requirement. 
The amendments to the Passports Act will improve border security by providing for disclosure of information about New Zealand travel documents for use in a passenger risk management system known as Advance Passenger Processing. In addition by reducing the maximum validity of passports from 10 years to 5 years the legislation ensures that we can stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters.
Hughes Darren: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4523] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the third reading of the bill and in doing so I am pleased that we have such good legislation before the House that has been through the select committee process. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s about time. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The select committee was very ably chaired by the Hon David Carter with the support of the Hon Damien O’Connor Mr Clayton Cosgrove and several other very fine Labour Party people on the Primary Production Committee. The bill has the overwhelming support of the industry and I think that is the most important thing. We have a Government that knows how to have industry reform in a way that builds support in the community as opposed to the botched industry reforms of the National Party when it was in Government. It is good to be passing a law that has the support of people who work day to day building up this important New Zealand industry. I think that speaks volumes for the partnership approach that the Labour-Progressive coalition Government takes. I support the bill.
Duynhoven Harry: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Duynhoven Harry: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17759. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5514] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 At the Business Committee yesterday this matter was canvassed. At the suggestion of John Carter the senior Opposition whip there was a suggestion that there be a structured managed debate around the central themes of the contents of the two parts of the remaining discussion. That was something the Government was prepared to agree to but it was not agreed to by the ACT party. You can obviously check the minutes of the discussion should you wish Mr Chairman and take advice. Given that reluctance by ACT to agree to that course of action the Government’s position is that we proceed in the normal way under the Standing Orders on the ongoing debate of these matters. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my intention to be extremely generous with calls but it is still a matter for the Committee of the whole House to decide how many calls there will be and it is up to the member to seek leave.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4644] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 84 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Tizard Judith: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: Television New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3874] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise in support of this third reading of the Television New Zealand Bill. It is a bill that New Zealanders have been calling for for a long time. We had accusations from the last speaker that this bill is about political interference and the politics of envy and she immediately stumbled into personal abuse and smearing everybody who disagrees with her politics. That is a perfect example of why politicians should not be running the news media. However I say to her and to all of the pathetic market-driven wonks in the ACT party who believe that the market is everything that New Zealand has a history of having a mixed economy. There are some things that the State does because the market does not deliver them and because citizens are entitled to services. 
Katherine Rich 
: Don’t you ever watch television? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Of course I watch television. 
Katherine Rich 
: What’s your favourite programme? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
:  
Kath and Kim 
 actually. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Government members are somehow or other out of touch. We were elected handsomely only 8 months ago because this Government is in touch with what people in New Zealand want. This bill will change the Government’s involvement in public television for the better. It will change from being a purely profit-driven State-owned enterprise to a public broadcaster that balances commercial social and cultural values. 
As Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage I would say that I have heard more people in support of this legislation than for many bills. Some people who want to go back to the days when Bill Birch balanced his Budget by sucking TVNZ dry by insisting that TVNZ cater to the lowest common denominator—“And if they want current affairs let them buy it!” says Marie Antoinette from the ACT party! For good reason this legislation is broadly supported in this House and in the country.
Turner Judy: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4880] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 During the third reading debate on this very important bill for social workers I want to reiterate a couple of points that have already been made. I also want to reflect on some of the comments made by other members who were concerned that the outcome of this bill would be to remove the ability for social workers to be self-regulated. The question that pops into my mind is this: if they are so happy with their present level of registration why would they be applying to come under something regulatory like the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill which would provide them with the kind of professional status they hope to get out of this bill? 
One of the other members Mr Smith talked about the fear of State control over a profession. But I reiterate that the aim of this bill is to establish a professional framework for social work that enhances rather than dismantles self-regulation. This bill strengthens that position and gives clout to the term “social worker”. The difference is that on the one hand a Youth Court judge is calling for higher standards and on the other hand a group of what at present are employees are wanting to upgrade to the status of a profession with limited success to date in self-regulating. We do however want to acknowledge the very good work of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association for Social Workers and we want to encourage it in what it has done to date. Obviously it has contributed to where we find ourselves tonight. The association’s attempt to bring all social workers under the umbrella of some sort of regulatory body is to be commended. 
The real need for professional status for social workers reflects the very sad condition that many New Zealand families find themselves in. United Future looks forward to the establishment of a commission for the family to provide a strength-based approach to supporting mums dads and their kids so that the heavy workloads of social workers are reduced. United Future acknowledges the hard work done by social workers and is happy to support the passing of this bill.
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:6286] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to insert new clause 3A be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13385] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Copeland Gordon: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16021] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in response to some of the remarks made by Peter Brown. There are two points. In terms of his accusation about backroom deals being done there were no backroom deals. I raised the matter of increasing the megawatts from 25 to 50 here in the Chamber in a public debate that followed the cancellation of Project Aqua. Secondly I wrote a letter to the Commerce Committee in that regard. In due course the select committee wrote back and notified me that it had received it and had considered it.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Simich Clem: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12361] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members of the Committee for their perseverance and patience. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Points of Order — Election Advertising—Speaker's Ruling Demonstrations—Access to Buildings 
Points of Order — Election Advertising—Speaker's Ruling Demonstrations—Access to Buildings 
[Volume:627;Page:21897] 
Points of Order 
Election Advertising—Speaker's Ruling 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Some 2 weeks ago on 8 June I wrote to you expressing concern about Labour election advertising being paid from the parliamentary budget. Because this is the last sitting day prior to a 4-week adjournment I am inquiring as to when I might expect a reply and whether you have received any reports from the Electoral Commission for example or from any other agencies evaluating that situation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. As my office notified your office I am considering the matter and will get a reply to you as quickly as possible. 
Demonstrations—Access to Buildings 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to prolong things but I want to say that we have had another protest on the forecourt of Parliament today and there was reasonably heavy security provided for that. The gates were locked and the protestors were contained in a particular space. Whether or not that is a reasonable approach is something people might consider—particularly given the latitude that Mr Donald appeared to have in his protest recently. 
But the issue I want to talk about is that members of Parliament noticing that people in the assembly are friends or even family in some cases may wish to invite them to come into the building in small numbers—perhaps for a cup of tea or something—but are unable to do so unless they get your specific approval. That places a difficulty on you because you have to be around. One of our members yesterday made a request to bring some people in for lunch but you were unable to respond to him until about 4 o’clock which created a bit of a difficulty. I wonder whether there might be a more flexible arrangement available whereby members take some responsibility themselves for people they invite into the building. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that. I have been following the Speaker’s ruling of 27 July 1999. It states that any deputation waiting on a Minister or member after a demonstration is limited to six. So that is the approach I have been taking so far. But I am of course very happy to reconsider that ruling. If members wish to make a contribution to that consideration I ask them to put it in writing or to make an appointment to see me.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20975] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) all the words after the word “means” and substitute the words “use that is full and exhaustive”.
Adams Paul: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
Adams Paul: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10699] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to clarify things United Future is interested in people having a better life not a better death.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11509] 
8.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: What progress can he report on multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organization? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 I have recently returned from an excellent Cairns group meeting in Costa Rica. Group members are determined to reinvigorate the World Trade Organization negotiations in order to secure a substantial agricultural reform. Additionally we are committed to a coordinated work programme with the G20 group with whom we share many objectives. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Why is that important? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The multilateral negotiations offer us the best opportunities as a trading nation. It is the only arena in which we can effectively combat export subsidies for example—the most pernicious barrier to our trade. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What progress can the Minister report on reinvigorating New Zealand’s free-trade agreement negotiations with the US following his recent talks with US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick or did he come home empty-handed? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I suppose that is connected in some way with the World Trade Organization negotiations which was the subject of the primary question. I can inform the member that I had another successful meeting with Mr Zoellick—at which we spent a lot of time discussing the World Trade Organization round as a matter of fact—and I certainly did not come home empty-handed. New Zealand made further headway in developing our constituency in Washington DC—on the hill and in the US business community—in support of bilateral negotiation with New Zealand. 
Dail Jones 
: What action will the Minister be taking following the World Trade Organization’s report that New Zealand apples are not a pathway for transmission of fire blight; and when can New Zealand apple growers expect to see the minority Labour Government Minister for Trade Negotiations doing something personally to end the devious Australian trade practice of prohibiting New Zealand apple exports to Australia or will he just keep on swanning around the world empty-handed? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: There are some members here who recall that I have done a great deal personally starting in 1990 when I was Minister of Agriculture. I was dismayed to find in 1999 when I came back into office that a great deal of progress made previously had gone backwards under the National Government. Nevertheless we are now heading forward again. The Australian Government the other day produced a new import health standard—which is out for a 6-week consultation as required by Australian law—and I am confident that we will move this matter forward despite it being election year in Australia.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11516] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the best way to solve this is to ask for leave to table the particular judgment that the member wanted to table.
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8815] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I strongly support Mr Peter Dunne’s right of free speech. While the Chair has said that as a general rule people should be careful when addressing people outside this House the Chair has always upheld the rights of members of Parliament to have total free speech here. The answer to Mr Brown’s question is that for Peter Dunne it is a matter of taste. If Peter Dunne wants to refer to someone as a “Nazi” provided he is not referring to an honourable member of this House that is his absolute right and that should be your ruling.
Peters Winston: Business of the House 
Peters Winston: Business of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:20495] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I realise that and I do not want to offend against that.
Tamihere John: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tamihere John: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12478] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I have a great deal of sympathy for the constituents in the Coromandel seat after hearing that speech. I am lucky enough to represent constituencies in Waitakere Auckland and Manukau cities. This piece of legislation brings—as does a previous piece of legislation talked about predominantly in the general debate; the foreshore and seabed legislation—closure and certainty and allows clear economic decision-making processes to roll out in one of our greatest power houses in the country. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Waitakere! 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yes Waitakere is obviously going to be a lead player in that regard. There are two or three other points I want to make in terms of our economic management and our record on infrastructural issues. This Government has been absolutely superb. I find it hard to be modest. I find it very difficult to be modest about what has been achieved whether it be in telecommunications whether it be in energy development or whether it be in the roading infrastructure. I commend this bill to the House. It is one of the best laxatives ever given to Auckland to get it really rocking and rolling.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16488] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 2 be agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4684] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is always a privilege to make a contribution to a first reading debate and particularly on this bill. This is good positive legislation that I know that people in my area of Wairarapa will be keenly interested in since we have a fruitgrowing industry in that area. Naturally of course the bill is backed by the kiwifruit industry itself. This bill will be of interest not only to that industry but also to all New Zealanders in the hope that we make better law for their better production.
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6188] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Awatere Huata 
Dyson (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
King 
Simich 
Benson-Pope 
Fairbrother (P) 
Laban (P) 
Smith L 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Locke (P) 
Sowry 
Bradford 
Gallagher 
Mackey (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Brash (P) 
Goff (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Swain (P) 
Burton (P) 
Gosche 
Mallard (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Tanczos 
Chadwick 
Hawkins (P) 
Okeroa 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hereora 
Parker  
Turei 
Clark (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Pettis 
Wilson (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
Rich 
Donald (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Teller: 
Duncan (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Robertson 
Barnett 
Noes 53 
Adams 
Donnelly (P) 
Mapp 
Smith M 
Alexander 
Dunne (P) 
Mark (P) 
Smith N 
Anderton (P)  
Duynhoven 
Newman (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Ardern (P) 
Eckhoff (P) 
Ogilvy 
Te Heuheu 
Baldock 
English (P) 
Paraone (P)  
Tisch (P) 
Brown  
Field 
Perry (P) 
Turner 
Brownlee (P) 
Franks 
Peters J (P) 
Wong (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Goudie 
Peters W (P)  
Woolerton (P) 
Catchpole  
Gudgeon (P) 
Power (P) 
Worth (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Heatley (P)  
Prebble (P) 
Yates 
Collins 
Hutchison (P) 
Robson 
Connell (P) 
Jones (P) 
Roy 
Copeland 
Key (P) 
Scott (P) 
Teller: 
Cosgrove 
Mahuta (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Carter J 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We come now to the amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel on Supplementary Order Paper 69 which amends the Immigration Act to ensure immigration permits are not granted to persons on the basis that they have provided or intend to provide sexual services. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to insert new clause 8B and cross heading be agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9592] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I have a very specific concern with this part which I have just picked up. I was not on the Health Committee and I have not been in the debate until very recently. I refer members to clause 57(2) because I have some real concern with that provision. I think we have a problem that has been overlooked and I ask the Minister in the chair to consider it. Subclause (2) states: “If there are reasonable grounds for believing that the receipt by or the dispatch on behalf of a care recipient of any written communication or other item could be detrimental to the interests and care of the care recipient or of other persons the care manager may direct that the communication or item be checked; but a direction to check communications or items sent to the care recipient requires the approval of the co-ordinator.” 
 That is fair enough. I think that is a very appropriate measure. What really concerns me is subclause (3) because it states: “Subsection (2) does not apply to a written communication or other item sent by or on behalf of or addressed to any lawyer of the care recipient.” My point is that we understand what is intended here. It is very important that the patient or care recipient has the right to communicate with a lawyer but it could well be suspected that the care recipient wanted to cause the lawyer harm and under the way this is worded we could not check on the item. We could not do that search. I am sorry if this is— 
John Carter 
: The lawyer of the care recipient. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: No it says that— 
John Carter 
: Any lawyer of the care recipient. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes that is right. It could well be that the care recipient had malicious intent to the lawyer. That is not an uncommon situation. It could well be that the institution suspected it yet under this bill the item could not be checked prior to dispatch. Perhaps the Minister could explain what is intended. Perhaps I am reading it wrong but at first glance to me there seems to be a loophole that is quite serious and needs reconsideration. That is the concern I have and the main reason I took this call was to make sure that we are not passing with all best intentions something that would be very unhelpful and inappropriate. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 160 in the name of Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Franks Stephen: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22321] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am curious—as this is a matter of principle—about the reference to the House having previously made a decision on this. I would be obliged if we could be referred to it rather than there just being an assertion. I imagine there must some record of it if the House did in fact make that earlier decision.
Heatley Phil: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7073] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to bring to the House’s attention a matter that was not discussed in the Committee stage or during the first and second reading debates and that is the issue of inspectors and their requirement to inspect and withhold risk goods or what are perceived to be risk goods for a period of time. At the Primary Production Committee some of the submitters requested that we put a time limit on that. Members can appreciate that those people import goods that are useful to them as they go about their tasks. It was vets who had the greatest concerns. They import goods from overseas and have in storage things like animal vaccines and other veterinary products which of course have only a limited lifespan. 
Members will recall that in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act there are time limits whereby officials or customs officials at the gate can hold back goods before they are passed on. We had two options here which we looked at intensely. One option was to amend the Biosecurity Act so as to have time frames specific to the goods involved. The problem there is that on reading through the bill we can see it is a particularly generic bill. That option does not fit when we have specific clauses relating to specific products that relate to specific sector groups. So we set aside that option. 
Option 2 was to amend the bill so as to have time frames encompassing all goods right across the board in a generic manner. The problem there is that there is a large number of products all with specific requirements storage times and so on so making generic changes would be far-reaching all-encompassing and of course very very costly. Too many stakeholders would have been involved at the late stage of hearing the submissions on the bill and they would have needed to be consulted so we could not use that option. Therefore we have taken the middle ground which members will see whereby there will be consultation throughout the country and when we review the way that the legislation is working perhaps we can take that matter into account. 
I commend the bill to the House. The National Party will vote for it and I thank members for the opportunity to contribute this morning.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Television Coverage of Parliament—TV3 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Television Coverage of Parliament—TV3 
[Volume:624;Page:19509] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I promised the House I am now reporting back on the television coverage on TV3 News of a member of Parliament asleep in the House during question time on 16 March 2005. I have received a letter from TV3 that admits it was in breach of Standing Order 44(2) but states that the item was within the more recent liberal interpretation of the Standing Order and that the decision to screen the shot was made in the context of the debate over the decision to remove television news cameras from the Chamber when Parliament’s system was installed. 
In an acknowledgment of the concern of both TV3 and TVNZ over the decision of the Standing Orders Committee to replace their cameras with an in-house television unit I had met with both parties on the morning of 16 March and offered to meet with them further to discuss not only the issue of the cameras but also the rules that may be appropriate in those circumstances. I agreed that the new set of circumstances resulting from the decision to televise the House was an appropriate opportunity to revisit the rules. 
It was directly after this meeting that TV3 decided to breach the rules. I do not consider that the breach was within the claimed recent liberal interpretation of the rules. It was a gross breach of the Standings Orders and a direct challenge to the authority of the Speaker. 
Since a breach of the Standing Orders has been admitted by TV3 the question arises as to the appropriate action to be taken. I have looked for any precedents of similar incidents and note the then Speaker’s action in a similar case in 2000 involving the  
Evening Post 
 publishing a photograph of a member yawning in the Chamber. The  
Evening Post’ 
s 
still photographers were excluded from the Chamber for a week in that case. I consider the breach by TV3 similar to the case of the  
Evening Post 
. It is a serious and deliberate breach of the Standing Orders.  I have therefore decided that TV3 television operators shall be excluded from televising in the Chamber for 1 week commencing on 4 April. 
On the question of whether the Standing Orders should be changed in any way that is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee. I shall raise the matter at the next meeting for consideration by members. 
A copy of this ruling is being delivered to all members through their bill boxes.
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:615;Page:11077] 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for members of the Local Government and Environment Committee on a site visit related to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill outside Wellington on Thursday 19 February to be regarded as present within the parliamentary precincts for the purposes of the Standing Orders. It is very clear that no meeting of the select committee is being held during that time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Simich Clem: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17919] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask the member from the Green Party whether there is a vote from the Maori Party.
Mackey Moana: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8461] 
MOANA MACKEY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Peck Mark: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Peck Mark: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9670] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You had called me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Mr Mark Peck. 
MARK PECK 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12422] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand National 24; 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 Stephen Franks to clause 90 be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 5(2CC) of the principal Act by adding the following paragraph: 
(d)persons who affirm in writing to the promoters and the issuer separately from their subscription that they accept the risks that they may have inadequate information or skill or experience to assess the merits of the securities but not the risks of fraud or deceptive or misleading conduct by or on behalf of the issuer or the promoters if no promoters not the issuer have reason to believe that the person so opting out of Part 2 of this Act is not competent to make a rational decision to do so.
Dunne Peter: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8796] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That decision which I do not question raises a further issue. In the event that the committee when it meets next week does not adopt those minutes what becomes the status of the document that the Minister has just tabled which purports to be the minutes of a meeting? 
 I think we have put ourselves in a very difficult position. I accept that the House can by leave do just about anything but we have put ourselves in a very difficult position if papers that have not been formally adopted by a committee can be tabled in the House purporting to be the record of that committee’s proceedings when the possibility exists that the committee may subsequently change those records. Does that mean that the Minister is then obliged to come back to the House withdraw those papers and table the amended set of papers? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The point I am making Mr Assistant Speaker is that we end up in a situation where the integrity of the committee process is challenged. Also—and I say this with due respect to the Minister—perhaps by inadvertence his integrity is challenged by virtue of the fact that he may have tabled documents that are no longer accurate.
Pettis Jill: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16182] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Choudhary Ashraf: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14039] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9999] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When this debate commenced I sought the assurance of the Chair who was not yourself that the ruling given by the Speaker on 17 September 2003 that there must be a full and very wide-ranging debate—and I am quoting from his ruling—would be upheld. In seeking that assurance I noted that some 40 calls had been allowed on Part 2 of the bill before the closure motion was accepted. By my recollection the debate on this part began at approximately 20 past 8 which means that at the most some 16 or 17 calls—not 40 calls—have been accepted. It seems to me that under any reasonable assessment of the Speaker’s ruling that there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate just 16 or 17 calls—as opposed to 40 on the previous part—does not meet that description. I accept that this part is more specific but it is not so specific as to warrant the closure being taken so early so I think that the only course of action is that I move  
That the Speaker be recalled. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed.
Copeland Gordon: Motions — Privileges Committee Proceedings—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Copeland Gordon: Motions — Privileges Committee Proceedings—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:611;Page:8740] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I support the motion proposed by Stephen Franks because it is the view of United Future that it is a matter of importance. I seek leave for the matter to be debated by the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the matter to be debated by the House. Is there any objection? There is.
Robertson H V Ross: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16678] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: As I said this issue has previously been raised and the Speaker ruled on it. His ruling was quite clear: one cannot seek leave to table a document if the House has already granted leave and the document has already been tabled. The Standing Order is quite simple and it is one that has been repeated often: one cannot put the question to the House after it has already been put to the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that it is within his jurisdiction simply to deny leave. That has always been the case and it is a simple matter. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be objection.
Prebble Richard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7723] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to clarify this matter. Mr Donald has just told us that he is proud of the fact that he helped to draft this bill. It would seem to me that the divide really is between those members of Parliament who saw the bill only when it was tabled last night and the other MPs—apparently from the Green Party maybe from United Future as well and from the Labour Party—who did. I think that is where the division should be. Half the speakers should be MPs who were not allowed to see the bill prior to it being tabled and the other half should be MPs who have colluded with the Government in this constitutional change. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a novel point but it is not accurate.
Brash Don: Obituaries — Sir William Pickering 
Brash Don: Obituaries — Sir William Pickering 
[Volume:616;Page:11701] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 We have just been advised through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration website that Sir William Pickering has just passed away. Sir William was one of the finest scientific minds of the last 50 years. He made an enormous contribution to the development of the US space agency and is regarded widely as one of the titans of science. He was a New Zealander. He was educated at Havelock—the same town by chance that saw Lord Rutherford educated. I move  
That the House note the death of Sir William Pickering and extend its sincere sympathy to his family.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:612;Page:9035] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Supreme Court Bill and the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill and progress will also be made on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Cunliffe David: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18704] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 The country is recovering from a decade of neglect to infrastructure. Auckland is bogged down with a roading crisis and this Government is doing what it can to solve that problem. My only reservation about this bill—to the extent that I have any—is that two-thirds of the money is not going to Auckland and $1.3 billion is going to other places around the country. However despite that I support this bill.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:609;Page:6625] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I have a feeling the process of consultation will take a little longer than that.
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14241] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Question agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7089] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendments are also in the name of the honourable member Keith Locke. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. These other amendments are amendments to the next part as I understand it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No Part 1 is clauses 2 to 24. The amendments in the member’s name range from 21A through to 21J so they are covered in that part. I shall put the question now. 
Keith Locke 
: In the bill the bolded section Part 1—the amendments 21A etc.—are under the bolded section headed Part 10. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is part of this part of the bill; the part that will be inserted into the Act. 
Keith Locke 
: Surely if sections— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think the member is confused. The amendments he is putting forward are part of Part 1. 
Keith Locke 
: If you look at the title page of the bill pages 1 and 2 the amendments to the principal Act 20-24 are under the bolded “Part 10” and not under the bolded “Part 1”. I bring up this point because I was assuming that my amendments would come up under that bolded “Part 10” and I was going to address them to the Committee under that. There is no indication from that table of contents that they come under Part 1. They are at the end of the bill. If you look at the order of them as they are described in the bill they are at the end of the bill that is after the other— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to the fact that a new part is to be inserted into the Act. However it is being inserted by this part of the bill. I now wish to put the question. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Lock to clauses 21A 21B 21C 21D 21E 21F 21G 21H 21I and 21J be agreed to: 
to omit these clauses.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6256] 
8.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that the New Zealand curriculum continues to meet the needs of New Zealand students? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday I released a curriculum stocktake report which contains the findings of a detailed 3-year study into the effectiveness of the New Zealand curriculum. The stocktake has reassured us that the New Zealand curriculum has a sound structure and measures up to all international standards. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister please detail some of the key recommendations of the curriculum stocktake report? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: One of the report’s recommendations is that schools offer second language instruction for all students in years 7 to 10—that is the old Form 1 to Form 4. This new second language initiative would strengthen a student’s understanding of English grammar and extend students’ knowledge of other languages and the values that those languages express. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the latest international study on literacy levels shows that New Zealand which once ranked first in fact ranks 13th or the second-bottom of all English-speaking countries when is this Government going to put in place a proper assessment policy that ensures we can measure the level of achievement within the curriculum? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I have a slight difficulty here. Although I am responsible for the curriculum part of the curriculum assessment and the professional development pedagogical part of delivering what students learn I cannot answer that precise question on the assessment. I ask the member to refer it to the Minister of Education. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Minister undertake that requiring a second language in the curriculum does not mean compulsory Maori language classes for the thousands of children in schools that cannot offer more than Maori and what assurance can she give that this is not more than a disguise for sneaking in mandatory Maori for those hundreds of thousands of children? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Quite simply I can assure the member to the degree that at present we have curriculum statements for the following languages: German Spanish Chinese Japanese Samoan Korean French Cook Islands Maori and of course te reo Maori. We also have curriculum statements in draft form for Nuiean Tokelauan Tongan and te reo Maori as a second language instead of as a primary language. This is a genuine second-language policy. 
Opposition Member 
: Answer the question. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I did.