edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18842] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to Part 5 which deals with commercial redress. I want to raise the issue we dealt with in the Maori Affairs Committee. We received two submissions challenging the Crown’s decision to transfer 6890 hectares of licensed Crown forest land in the Former Matahina A4 Block to Ngati Awa. The committee requested advice as we are bound to do when submitters bring serious issues to the committee. This referred to the issue of overlapping claims which I raised with the Minister earlier. Those claims are rife in the central North Island as the member Mita Ririnui knows. We both whakapapa into that area so I think we have a reasonable knowledge of the dynamics that pertain to the central North Island and of the concerns—rightly so—of those claimants still to come forward as they watch other claims being settled ahead of theirs. Some of those claims are way ahead of theirs. 
On the issue of the Tuhoe interests in the Matahina lands it was the subject of a case that went to the court. Suffice to say that the Crown’s—or the Government’s—attitude is to basically take into account the fact that there are other claims that might impinge on a particular block or blocks of land. The way that the Government or the Crown has seen fit to deal with it is to make a judgment as to whether there will still be sufficient land—in this case licensed Crown forest land—to satisfy claims still to be dealt with without holding up the right of Ngati Awa who have been through the whole process to have their claims settled. 
Hon Member 
: How does the member know about this? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I am very diligent at the select committee. So the issue of overlapping claims is a real issue. 
On balance the Office of Treaty Settlements gave us explanations that stand for the moment. They will suffice for the moment but whether as the Minister moves through the central North Island the position of: “Well there will always be other pieces of land that we can satisfy those claimants with therefore we won’t hold up this set of claimants.” can be sustained remains to be seen. I hope that it can but I have some reservations. 
Some of the land that comprised the blocks that were under challenge has been offered to Ngati Awa but some has also been left so that when other tribes—in this case the Tuhoe tribe—come to conclude their settlements the Government says there will be enough land to satisfy their claims as well. 
I think the issue will become more complex as the Minister wends his way through the central North Island. The tribes there including my own and Mita Ririnui’s are not about to see things go easily if they think there is a claim on them. The Minister needs to keep a clear eye on that matter.
Tisch Lindsay: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13438] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the 11th call in this debate to be a split speech between New Zealand First and National with New Zealand First having the first call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Barker Rick: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18596] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 This is a very interesting bill. It is the first time that Parliament has had a bill like this referred to a select committee and the first time there has been the opportunity for public submissions on a bill like this. I would have thought that the least the Opposition could do was congratulate the Government on improving the process. 
The truth is that there has been a huge under-investment in transport infrastructure in New Zealand over a considerable period of time. National Party members from Auckland have whinged constantly about the poor quality of transport in Auckland yet National in its 10 years in Government did nothing about it. But this Government has invested a substantial amount of money in Auckland roads. If members were to go to Auckland today they would see quite a lot of roadworks going on. But much more needs to be done. 
The Government will invest a substantial amount into transport infrastructure not only in Auckland but in every region around the country. Every cent raised by this proposal will be invested in transport infrastructure throughout New Zealand on a population basis. For example there will be a substantial quickening of the building and improvement of roads in my region the Hawke’s Bay. The people of the Hawke’s Bay welcome that. Likewise the people of Canterbury want to see improvements in their roads. The people of Southland want to see improvements in their roads and this bill will do that. 
The bill provides for the duty to be indexed to inflation and as the previous speaker said there is precedent for that. Funding for roading will be guaranteed and there will be a clear stream of funding to help improve New Zealand’s infrastructure. If we want New Zealand to grow we have to have better improved roads. 
I want to refer to a point made by Mr Key. I was interested in what he said about the top rate of tax in terms of police officers. If 13 percent of police officers were paying the top rate of tax before and now 39 percent are doing so he should be congratulating the Government on increasing the salaries of police constables in a very short period of time. It just shows that the member cannot count. He cannot do maths. 
John Key 
: I certainly can. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member cannot. He has claimed that police officers’ pay is static. That means that it has not improved or changed. If the member thinks about it for a moment the point is that the top rate of tax is 39c and 39c out of every dollar means that officers get 61c in the dollar. I would have thought that if they get an extra 61c for every extra dollar earned they are improving their position. That member simply cannot count. 
This bill is a good bill. The public want to see our roading infrastructure improved and this bill will deliver for all reasons for all New Zealand.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10616] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12223] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Hereora Dave: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16183] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6816] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: That was a most extraordinary speech from the low-polling ACT party. First of all we found out that the ACT party research unit must be down Lambton Quay somewhere sipping latte away from the Pipitea Street electorate office. Mr Shirley the deputy leader of the ACT party spoke to the wrong bill. At the beginning of the debate on the two immigration bills he said that the ACT party supported the policy intent. During that speech he said that if ACT got into Government it would reverse the bill. That shows why that member went from being No. 2 on the ACT list to No. 6 and he is falling so fast that he will be applying for immigration status for another country after the next election. 
The contribution made by Mr Shirley summed up exactly the Opposition’s approach to this bill. It has not spoken to the issues that have been addressed by the Minister of Immigration the Hon Lianne Dalziel. We are desperate to make sure that when migrants come to our country they settle well. We are desperate to make sure that we can match up the skills people have with the needs that we have in our country so that we make a contribution for the migrant and for New Zealanders. This bill is about making sure that we get proper robust immigration policy. I congratulate the Hon Lianne Dalziel on her leadership with regard to this bill. It shows why she is right and the Opposition is wrong.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4963] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 This question was put down to be asked of the Prime Minister and I seek leave to ask it of the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4761] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 77 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Green Party 4. 
Amendment not agreed to and clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17052] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 19 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Kedgley Sue: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20279] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise briefly in response to the debate that has emerged over the issue of acupuncturists and Pansy Wong’s amendment. It did seem to the Greens a very odd thing that when we were in the middle of dealing with an accident compensation bill on injury prevention rehabilitation and compensation suddenly a completely new definition of “acupuncturist” was introduced. It seemed to us to be quite a bizarre way of amending that definition. As the members of the Health Committee will know the Green Party opposed it because we felt that it was being done in a rather odd and arbitrary way. It seemed odd that the Health Committee had to listen to all those acupuncturists many of whom were in great contention with each other and to try to work out whether this particular group or any other group should be included in what is now a new definition of “acupuncturist”. 
As we were outvoted and as the new and rather arbitrary definition is now in the legislation the Green Party will be supporting Pansy Wong’s amendment because it seems to us that it is quite arbitrary to recognise just two particular groups. I am not quite sure why we should do that when there are several other groups seeking recognition. I know that some of the Chinese acupuncture groups have been trying for a very long time to get recognition. Some of their members are from China and they probably have much more extensive qualifications practice and experience in acupuncture than many New Zealand - trained acupuncturists. It seems odd to us that we are recognising one particular group in this legislation. A lot of questions were asked in the Health Committee about why we were singling out that group and amending the entire definition of “acupuncturist” in the middle of consideration of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) and why we were giving favour to one group and excluding other groups. 
I regret that the proposed amendment has been presented so late. I would have liked to have much greater consultation on it with members of the acupuncture profession. But in general because of the arbitrary nature of the new definition that has been parachuted into this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill (No 3) it seems to us that it would be preferable to have Pansy Wong’s amendment in place rather than have the Health Committee try to define in the middle of consideration of an accident compensation bill which acupuncture groups should be eligible to come under the new definition of “acupuncturist” and which should be excluded. Quite frankly we in the Health Committee did not really have that sort of expertise and understanding. It was all so arbitrary and this amendment does seem to us a preferable process. For this reason we will be supporting the amendment.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12897] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16692] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 296 in the name of Dail Jones to clause 167 be agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21582] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I apologise. I was looking at the voting instructions for the evening and forgot of course that the House resumed at 7 p.m. not 7.30 p.m. I ask to correct the ACT vote from six to five.
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 5 to Minister 2 August 
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 5 to Minister 2 August 
[Volume:627;Page:22196] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a piece from a reporting cable that I indicated I would table during question time today. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15186] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; United Future 8. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Abstentions 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to the amendments to clause 40 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of proposed new section 153(3A) the word “not”.
Tisch Lindsay: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8778] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. National is happy to facilitate our getting the bill through within 2 hours but before Mr Tim Barnett’s leave is put to the House—and both Gerry Brownlee and I have made this point—I ask whether there will be an opportunity for the National members from Christchurch who are here in the House to speak. If we were to have only one debate the second reading we would be entitled to only three speeches. What we ask is that we have six speeches within the time frame. That is what we are asking for—it is very simple very clear—and we are happy to facilitate getting this bill through within 2 hours. I seek leave—
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9220. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That was a very interesting speech made by the member who has just resumed her seat and I wonder whether she would consider tabling that contract. I am certain we would all like to see it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. He should look at Speaker’s ruling 1/5 and Speaker’s ruling 1/1 (Supplement).
Peck Mark: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Peck Mark: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3386] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to hear a passionate speech in the House but I have some news for that young man and it goes this way: read the polls. They are bad news for New Zealand First. Labour gets the majority of the youth vote the Greens come second National is a very poor third and New Zealand First does not even rate. Mr McNair needs to be doing a little bit more. Let me make one other serious comment to him. The difficulty with talking about youth suicide is that it can have very unintended consequences. I know because as a back-bencher in my very early days in this House I had to make a speech about a young man in Invercargill who was shot by the Armed Offenders Squad. As a result of that particular speech much happened in the area of mental health and is still happening today as a result of getting that issue to the top of the political agenda. I suggest to Mr McNair that he do some reading and thinking. Passion is fine but hard work is difficult and dealing with the effects on people’s lives of situations like that is no soft matter. I commend him for his passion but he should do some homework.
Mackey Janet: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Janet: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9510] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I stand in the House to speak to the final reading of this bill. It is a bill that came to the Primary Production Committee at the behest of the industry. The industry wanted access to the European markets and New Zealand needed to show that it met certain standards in order to achieve that. 
The select committee worked well. It always surprises me when members say the bill we got was shocking and the committee had to change it. That is what the select committee process is about. We hear submissions and then we apply that information and input to the bill before us and then return it to the House in a better shape. I would have thought that every select committee would aspire to work in that way. It sometimes appears that “You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” 
I acknowledge the contribution made by Doug Woolerton. He always has a lot to say on bills before the select committee. I was interested in his contribution tonight claiming that when he was 17 he first encountered the Miliciches and wine. I have to say that the East Coast electorate probably has claim to being the home of the grape in New Zealand given that the botanist on the  
Endeavour 
 actually sketched the wild grape growing in Poverty Bay. So I think it is appropriate that the East Coast should have an input into this legislation. 
I thank all those people who made excellent submissions. I certainly thank the officials we had. I suspect they are still convinced that some winegrowers will submit their returns on tablets of stone. We have persuaded them that we should leave it up to the various winegrowers to decide how they keep their records as long as they are readable. 
I also thank Philip Gregan from the Wine Institute who was both a submitter and an adviser to the committee and worked alongside the officials. As a result of that sort of cooperation and the cooperation of members of the committee I believe we have produced a bill that meets with the approval of the industry that asked for it. It is a bill that will enhance the industry’s opportunities in the future.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9185. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell the member that I looked at this issue. I had to decide whether there would be a special debate on it at this moment. I declined the application.
Pettis Jill: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9747] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12891] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Schedule 2 as amended 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:6000] 
1.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
: Will the committee sit during the upcoming adjournment in order to hear petitions waiting for a hearing including that of Kenneth Wang concerning the Government immigration changes; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee) 
: 
 The committee is not planning to sit during the forthcoming adjournment because it is making good progress with all the work before it at present. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Given that this petition has been waiting for over 6 months and that he as chairman could schedule the committee to meet on every single day of the adjournment from 9 in the morning until 10 at night does he not think that his committee should actually start doing its job rather than bringing the committee and Parliament into disrepute by his failure to have the committee hear this petition? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: At the start of this Parliament there were 46 petitions before the committee. A number of those have been dealt with. We are working through them in the order in which they were received by the committee. Many of the petitions that we have dealt with were before the committee long before this Parliament was even elected.
King Annette: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
King Annette: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12175] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16673] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 22 
Adams(P) 
Connell(P) 
Mark  
Peters W (P) 
Ardern(P) 
Copeland(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Baldock(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Turner(P) 
Brown(P) 
Field(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Perry(P) 
Teller: 
Catchpole(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Jones  
Noes 97 
Alexander(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Locke(P) 
Shirley  
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich (P) 
Awatere Huata  
Eckhoff(P) 
Mackey M 
Smith L (P) 
Barker  
English(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Smith N 
Barnett(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mahuta 
Sowry  
Benson-Pope   
Fairbrother(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Franks(P) 
McCully(P) 
Swain(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Newman  
Tamihere(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Parker  
Tisch  
Carter J 
Hartley(P) 
Peck(P) 
Tizard  
Chadwick   
Hawkins(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Turei 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Ward(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide  
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Coddington   
Hobbs  
Prebble(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Collins  
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui  
Woolerton(P) 
Cullen  
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Worth(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hutchison   
Robson(P) 
Yates 
Dalziel  
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Donald(P) 
Key(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
King 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Laban(P) 
Scott  
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 35 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
35AInability to give informed consent to sterilisation 
If a child is unable through age or impairment to give informed consent to sterilisation: 
(a)A registered health professional appropriately qualified to carry out such an operation must apply to the family court with supporting information from a second appropriately qualified registered health professional that the procedure is a medical necessity; and 
(b)The family court is to ensure the provision of a lawyer to advocate for the rights and best interests of the child.
Cullen Michael: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6668] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes indeed I can confirm that the Labour Party has conceded its speaking slot to Metiria Turei. 
DAIL JONES 
: It would have been nice to tell us that.
Barker Rick: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9284] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Land Information 
: I move  
That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a second time 
. I wish to report to the House that this bill has had its first reading and that it is just an omnibus bill according to Standing Order 258(1)(d). Usually such a bill is regarded as a wash-up bill for non-controversial land-related matters that cannot be dealt with under existing legislation. Those bills are enacted from time to time as sufficient matters arise. The last one was enacted in 1998. 
This bill deals with four pieces of land located at Paparoa National Park Gore Port Chalmers and Picton. Specifically it provides firstly for the exclusion of a small section of land from the Paparoa National Park and declares it to be a road. The land has been part of the Paparoa National Park since 1987 but has been part of State Highway 6 since 1985. The second part of the bill is the removal of the status of “trust without power of sale” from certain land owned by the Gore District Council. That will allow the council to sell the land if it wishes to do so. Thirdly the revocation of the reserve status of certain land at Port Chalmers should have been done before the land was sold into private ownership. Approval was given to revoke that reserve status in 1983 but it did not occur. Although the transfer of the land was legitimate it was contrary to section 112 of the Reserves Act. Fourthly the bill provides for the discharging of all trusts and endowments over three areas of land vested in the Marlborough District Council. That will allow for more efficient commercial use of the site. 
I note that the Primary Production Committee has recommended no changes be made to the bill. I thank the committee and the officials for their efforts and their careful consideration of the bill and I commend the bill to the House.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:627;Page:22203] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through its remaining stages of the Appropriation (2005/06) Estimates Bill; the introduction and passing of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill; Government notice of motion No. 1; the passing through its remaining stages of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill and any bills into which that bill may be divided; and Government notices of motion Nos 2 and 3. 
 This motion is moved so that the House can complete the business the Government wishes to see finished before the House is dissolved for the upcoming general election. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Connell Brian: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
Connell Brian: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12037] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Can I begin by commending the Minister who introduced this bill. I thought his speech was a sterling effort. I thought he canvassed all the important parts of the bill. I know that my good friend and colleague Mr Worth raced down to the House so he could be a part of this debate and I saw the disappointment etched on his face when he walked in and realised that the Minister’s speech had concluded. Can I also say that I looked across at the senior Government whip just before the Minister took his call and she was starting to flag. It is late in the day but since that call she has been invigorated and she has really got back on her game so the Minister deserves our congratulations. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh now the member tells me. 
This is a good bill and we will support it through to the select committee. It is a bill of very serious note. Protecting our trade interests by ensuring security of shipping coming into this country is absolutely critical. There is no doubt that since 9/11 our lives have been changed forever and we need to be cognisant of these issues. The bill calls for a number of things in terms of obligations for New Zealand and I want to touch on a couple of those very briefly—in particular assessing security risks for individual ships and port facilities and developing security plans based on those assessments. 
These protocols are important but I do warn against unnecessary bureaucracy and delay. We need to ensure that the appropriate security measures are in place but I do not want to do it in such a way that the natural flow of shipping and shipping business coming into this country will be unnecessarily delayed. 
The other point I would like to make in taking a very brief call is to congratulate the people who will be on the select committee. The job they have in coming to terms with this on behalf of New Zealand trade and traders is absolutely fundamental. I am looking for Mr Tisch and Mr Ardern in particular to take a lead on this issue given that they have primary production portfolios.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15604] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 23 be agreed to.
Copeland Gordon: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16581] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I was not intending to take a call on this part but I must say I find it very very disappointing in the extreme that Muriel Newman continues to advise members of a completely wrong bit of information—I am being parliamentary here because I know that we are not allowed to use other words in this place. I have already officially informed this House of that on another occasion and the rule of this House is that my word must be accepted but that does not seem to make one iota of difference to the member. 
Let me make United Future’s position clear. Not only have we never advocated a capital gains tax but we have no policy in that regard. I have never advocated a capital gains tax in this country. In fact on the contrary I am on the record both publicly and privately as advocating that a capital gains tax should not henceforth apply to superannuation fund earnings. Superannuation funds at the moment pay capital gains tax if shares and bonds are traded. I have made it clear that it is our policy—and I have been an advocate for it in forums in which ACT members have also participated with me—to remove capital gains tax from superannuation fund savings so that they would be on a level playing field with other elements of the New Zealand tax system to which no capital gains tax applies. I put it on the record that that is the position of United Future.
Robertson H V Ross: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16041] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Now we have an amendment in the name of the honourable member Dr Wayne Mapp to insert a new clause 3A. I have to rule it out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision. The next amendments are to clause 4 and also are in the name of the honourable member Dr Wayne Mapp. The two amendments are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 278. Those amendments are also out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in the name of Paul Adams to clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18614] 
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 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8420] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The final remark made by the member who has just sat down is out of order. One may not call someone a traitor. But after you have asked that member to withdraw and apologise I think Mr Peters should then withdraw and apologise for his remark.
Barnett Tim: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6177] 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 In order to try to expedite the voting in some sensible order the Clerk’s Office has prepared a listing that has been emailed to all members today and is available here on the Table. It orders the various amendments in a rational logical order and apart from the withdrawal of amendments Nos 5 and 10 from Larry Baldock it still stands as I understand it as an accurate listing. Once we move to vote it is merely trying to sort us out for when we get to vote. Once we actually move to vote I seek agreement that we take the votes in this order.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16338] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a fascinating speech from— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am going to seek leave but of course I need to tell the House what it is about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must seek leave on his own behalf. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: On my own behalf—absolutely. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please do so now. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: As I say that was a fascinating— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member will actually seek leave. He does not have to go into the reasons. I want to know what the leave is for first. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek the leave of the House to ask Mr Cosgrove some questions about his speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for Mr Brownlee to ask questions. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14018] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended 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. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Gosche Mark: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13155] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question is that the question be now put.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17704] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion 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 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8704] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) the word “protect” and substitute the words “improve the protection of”.
Mallard Trevor: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3753] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. A degree of decorum is normally observed when describing people outside the House and especially with people who are held in high esteem by New Zealanders. All I am asking is that next time the member speaks in the Chamber he shows a little more decorum when speaking about someone who is so highly respected. Otherwise he brings this Parliament into disrepute.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that point of order.
Peters Winston: Urgency 
Peters Winston: Urgency 
[Volume:622;Page:17685] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. New Zealand First made it very clear to the Government that we had no desire to join the committee being set up under Government motion No. 1 which is part of the urgency motion. We do not believe that the Government has the right to do so despite our clear view we do not wish to join this committee and the fact that we believe it to be a sham and a waste of Parliament’s time and our time as well. We do not believe that any other party in this House can force us to be members of that committee by simply adding it to the motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9020] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point of order arises from Standing Order 301 to which you have just referred members of the Committee. As you have correctly observed it states: “The member in charge of a bill can require that all amendments in that member’s name to a provision be put as one question.” But the second sentence states: “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill.” That is an irregularity in the process that has been followed today. I seek that the irregularity be corrected by re-voting on the amendments to the relevant part of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for drawing that to my attention and say that the Minister’s amendments are taken at the end in order that there is no confusion and that the amendments are not taken in the wrong order. That can happen if we have different amendments being put in by different members. So for the convenience of members the Minister’s amendments are put at the end. It has been the custom in this place for a considerable amount of time—especially since I have been in the Chair anyway—that that occurs. I am now going to declare the vote.
Tisch Lindsay: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9025] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I want to proceed further with Mr Worth’s point of order. I refer to the second sentence of Standing Order 301 that “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill.” We have voted already on two amendments proposed by the Hon Tony Ryall that relate to clauses 2 and 3. If we look at the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 151 we see there are also amendments to clauses 2 and 3. My understanding of Standing Order 301 is that the Minister’s amendments to those clauses should have been voted on before the Hon Tony Ryall’s amendments.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:616;Page:12515] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will begin a 3-week recess. When the House resumes on Tuesday 4 May priority will be given to the Corrections Bill the Border Security Bill the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill the Forests Amendment Bill and specifically on Thursday 6 May the first reading of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day in the first week.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17921] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11931] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It was quite clear that it was a threat. The precedent in this area—I think it concerned Winston Peters but I cannot remember exactly which member it was—in the past was that the member was named. That is the standard procedure for threatening a Speaker once the member concerned has been asked to leave the Chamber. Although the approach you take is of course your decision I submit to you that that is the appropriate approach. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister for his comments. When the member returns to the Chamber he will be asked whether he made a disparaging remark to the Speaker.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
[Volume:625;Page:19733] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The Hon Richard Prebble has raised a similar point. I am in the process of looking into that and I will report back. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the point of order. Is this a new point of order?
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6467] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I name the member. The question is that that be agreed to.
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4289] 
1. DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: What meetings have been held by the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) concerning dog control since it was referred back to the committee? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): 
 The bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 18 February 2003. At that time the committee was up against tight statutory deadlines to report the financial reviews. On 6 March the committee met to consider the bill and received a briefing from officials. We have today released a statement outlining our intentions regarding progressing the bill. 
Dail Jones 
: Does she have any indication as chairperson of the committee as to when the committee is likely to consider submissions on the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2)? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: The committee has been advised that Government officials are seeking further information particularly the views of all district councils on the bill and on possible methods of dog control. The officials are preparing recommendations on measures that go beyond what is currently in the bill. This may take the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. The committee has resolved to seek public submissions as soon as that information is available to us so that the public may comment on those further proposals. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister of Local Government said that he would be introducing changes within weeks and that it is now 3 weeks since the tragic incident involving the girl in Auckland has the committee had any indication as to when it will receive amendments from the Government to the dog control laws? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: The committee has been advised that the Minister is likely to be considering the recommendations of officials by the end of March which is very soon. We expect a briefing very promptly after that and we will then be able to proceed with the bill.