edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10091] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 To be very brief I thank the member for her second contribution in the debate as Opposition spokesperson on revenue. Where they are backdated the great majority of these commencement dates are beneficial to the taxpayer and are sometimes consequential on other structural changes so we need to carry the provisions back over the period to ensure that no harm is done. I think the one area where there will be a question is around GST in relation to some local body purposes where the ruling has changed. In order not to create the risk of a very substantial back-tax liability the law is being confirmed as it was originally intended to be and understood to be. The Inland Revenue Department itself actually changed its interpretation. 
So there is nothing terribly strange about any of these provisions. The bill is not in the usual sense retrospective legislation or in the vast majority of cases a matter for concern. The change is beneficial. It will suit tax accountants and lawyers who will be well aware of these changes as a result of the way the process of consultation occurred. Indeed one or two of the changes have been made at the request of the tax profession.
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8264] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 It is unusual to take a call on the title debate simply because it is such a narrow debate but I will not sit in this House and allow that member to produce an amendment without a comment from me. The suggestion to insert the words “Asians Beware” is insulting and contemptible and that member does her people no good whatsoever by presenting this fictitious nasty piece of work in this House. 
Pansy Wong 
: It is in the  
Socialist Worker Monthly Review 
. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is interesting that the member uses the Socialist Worker magazine to promote her cause. I have not read the particular article that the member refers to but I want to tell this House that there is nothing in this Immigration Amendment Bill that in any way impacts on one particular group over another. This bill is all about changing a general skills points system that gave people residence in this country regardless of whether their skills were even needed in this country and regardless of whether they would ever get work in this country. I could table 100 articles for every one that that member has tabled showing the cases of despair from Asian people who have moved from their own countries to New Zealand believing that they have an opportunity and a future in this country. For goodness’ sake the Minister of Health has had to expend—I ask the Minister of Health to help me out—$11 million— 
Hon Annette King 
: $11.9 million. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —on a programme just to help a few of the immigrant doctors who came into this country from other countries under that member’s party’s policy that allowed those people to come in without any chance of ever working. This legislation is about making sure that skilled migration benefits skilled migrants benefits this country and it is insulting of that member to suggest anything else.
Turei Metiria: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4825] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 With all due respect to the Minister’s proposed amendment it does not satisfy the concerns of the Green Party. Those concerns are primarily that the person who is being removed does not give his or her express consent to that. That amendment will not alter that. If the purpose of this clause is to prevent issues such as a conflict of interest then that needs to be made explicit. I would have thought that there are already sufficient procedures in place for the tribunal to avoid making those kinds of mistakes when such situations occur. 
My understanding of the purpose of this clause is that where there are personal circumstances that mean a person is unable to continue in those circumstances he or she can be replaced by someone else so that the claim can continue to be heard with some sense of natural justice. The amendment being put up by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen does not address that issue. In fact it increases the uncertainty about the reasons that the person can be removed for. Those reasons need to be explicit if they are to do with anything like the inability of the person to perform because of a failure of performance rather than personal circumstances. 
Before I sit down I just want to acknowledge the hard work commitment and endurance exhibited by two very special people who have had to sit through at least 10 minutes of this particularly arduous debate. I proclaim their “fabulosity” and acknowledge the honourable “Camp Leader” and “Camp Mother” who are in the gallery this afternoon.
Smith Nick: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Nick: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:618;Page:13871] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Given the time that this bill has been going through the process I seek leave for it to be given its third reading forthwith with a shortened debate of just 5 minutes per party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry that is a matter for the House. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20132] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand National 24; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8469] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; 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. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 130 in the name of Sue Bradford to the definition of  
authorised purpose  
in paragraph (b) of clause 4 be agreed to.
Barker Rick: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21633] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will respond to two points raised by Dail Jones. I want to repeat if people will bear with me the comments I made in my second reading speech which I think cover the point precisely for the member. I said: “Having given serious consideration to these concerns the committee was satisfied as I am that neither the intent nor wording of the offence will catch persons who provide or collect funds for groups with no connection to terrorist activity. Nor will it risk criminalising the unwitting donation of funds to terrorist entities for example via a terrorist group’s apparently legitimate front organisation. To be captured by the new offence a person must intend that the money provided or raised will directly or indirectly benefit an entity which they know carries out terrorist acts: this is a significant burden for the prosecution to satisfy in any particular case.” So a person must intend and know. 
The second point I want to come back to—and I am pleased to hear that the member is withdrawing his amendment but I think I can just confirm for him the wisdom of doing so—is that if we look at schedule 4 of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 we see the reproduction of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. In clause 1(d) there is a very clear obligation on signatories to take actions that: “Prohibit their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making any funds financial assets or economic resources or financial or other related services available directly or indirectly for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;”. So it is very clear that entities have to be dealt with as well as individuals and acts. 
 To pick up on the point made by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith I tell members that if we were going to be concerned about the financing of terrorist acts only we would miss a whole range of terrorist activity such as the financing of organisations for the training and upskilling and so on of terrorists. So in fact we would be saying it was OK to finance the resourcing of terrorist organisations but not the actual acts or commission of those organisations. 
New Zealand law therefore as it currently stands falls short of compliance with the UN Council resolutions and that is what we are seeking to address here tonight. If we had adopted Mr Jones’ resolution we would have fallen short of our obligations under the UN and that would not be the right thing for New Zealand to do. We usually do the right thing and support UN resolutions.
Jones Dail: Sittings of the House 
Jones Dail: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:619;Page:14654] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me with regard to a procedure problem that we seem to face in this House. I draw your attention to page 3 of the Order Paper. We have three private members’ bills that will not be debated tonight including the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill which New Zealand First desperately wants to debate and see passed in this House and yet the Greens refuse to put that bill up for debate. What can we do to make sure that that bill can come before the House as soon as possible? We are likely to see an early adjournment tonight and we still have 1 hour and 20 minutes to go. We could easily have considered that bill yet the Greens do not want to put it up for us to debate tonight. What can we in New Zealand First do to make sure that that important legislation is dealt with? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The answer is that it is entirely up to the member who is promoting the bill. It is his decision.
Pettis Jill: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17365] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mark Ron: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Mark Ron: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22238] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to a point of order that I raised with the Speaker in the Chair earlier in the debate. The chief Government whip used a Maori word to describe me as she walked across the floor of the House. She used the word at least twice. I asked the Speaker whether he was going to allow that reference to go unchallenged. He did not intervene and I continued with my speech. I subsequently checked that Maori word and I now ask you to see whether Jill Pettis wishes that word to stand; otherwise will she accept that I might refer to her as kairau in the future. I ask whether she is prepared to stand withdraw and apologise for calling me a drunk in Maori and getting away with it. I take extreme exception— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has made his point. 
RON MARK 
: So I can call her kairau any time I like? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No we cannot get into hypothetical situations. The member Jill Pettis said something in Maori. She should have translated it. I ask her to translate please.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7321] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Horomia Parekura: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15054] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration 
referred to Maori Affairs Committee 
 that the committee present its final report by 1 December 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
[Volume:620;Page:15481] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Speaker did not use discretion this afternoon. He specifically referred to Standing Order 112(2) and specifically referred to the matter of sentence because members had raised the point that this case was not now sub judice in that a decision had been given. However the Speaker then ruled that Standing Order 112(2) does refer to the matter of sentence. Certainly that is how the Speaker ruled this afternoon.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be discharged and the bill be referred back to the Health Committee 
.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:619;Page:14936] 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he have any concerns regarding the protection of the New Zealand tax base; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I am always concerned that the tax base is protected because there are always attempts being made to undermine it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that one of the schemes outlined in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
was in fact the result of the neglect of the last National Government which had in place a tax committee attending to those issues and that the neglect was in the sense that it closed that committee down without the work being done properly? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer the question in so far as it affects his portfolio. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The McKay committee. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I think the member is correct but I would hesitate to say much more than that because the matters are still in front of the court. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister able to update the House in relation to the underpayment of tax by the Australian-owned banks operating in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I indicated in the Budget speech last year the Government was looking at the issue of the underpayment of tax by the New Zealand retail banks—particularly of course therefore the Australian banks. Discussions have proceeded on a surprisingly cordial basis between the banks and the Inland Revenue Department which is to say that there has been a recognition that it is a fair cop and changes will be introduced in legislation soon that will see a significant increase in the tax paid by Australian-owned banks in New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Government doing any work on the principle that all such foreign transactions be regarded as income until the applicants prove otherwise? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not think we are proceeding on that basis at the present time. In relation to banks I think I can say that the approach will be based essentially around a variation of the thin capitalisation rules.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8167] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
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 111 in the name of Heather Roy to omit paragraph (b) of the definition of “relevant registration body” in clause 214A(1) to be agreed to.
[Volume:619;Page:15078] 
I am sorry that the member is not happy with all that has happened but I know he is happy that he has acted as a catalyst for opening the way for growing hemp in New Zealand.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20063] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 351 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4584] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:624;Page:19544] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 In question time today I said that I had learnt about issues under section 363 of the Building Act 2004 on 9 March. I have subsequently realised that I misread my notes and I would like to correct myself. I learnt about issues under sections 410 and 363 in January and subsequently learnt about issues relating to other aspects of the Act on 9 March after the Department of Building and Housing had done further investigative work on the new Act. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a pattern developing here and I seek to know what remedy Opposition members may have recourse to. In the last half-hour two Ministers of the Crown have come down to an empty House and fessed up to having given incorrect answers in question time when we had a very robust packed House. This is becoming a pattern. It is almost too much of a coincidence and I seek some assurance that Ministers are not just escaping when they are under pressure then returning to an empty House to fess up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: [ 
Interruption 
] No I do not need any assistance on this at all. The Ministers are fully entitled to do exactly what they have done. I do not see any need to question it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is more a request for clarification. We appreciate that the Minister has come down here. He mentioned that he was advised about sections 410 and 363 in January. Then the Minister said that on 9 March he learnt of other aspects. I would like clarification of what the other aspects were because that is a pretty wide statement. Is the member able to tell us what other aspects he became aware of on 9 March? 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Standing Orders require the Minister to clarify the answer but it is not an opportunity for a second question time. The Minister has come in and stated his case and that is where the matter lies.
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:17050] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 29 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “ but for the vesting of the full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed in the Crown by section 11 have held” and substitute the word “hold”.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18239] 
7.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made in implementing the orthopaedic project which is aimed at doubling the number of orthopaedic operations carried out in New Zealand that was announced in July last year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In the financial year to the end of November 2004 a total of 2893 major joint replacements were delivered. Of these 737 were funded under the orthopaedic initiative. The remainder represented the district health boards’ base volumes. For the same period last year 2182 joint operations were delivered. 
There has been therefore an increase in the July-November period of 33 percent. District health boards have advised the Ministry of Health that they believe they will deliver all their 2004-05 allocations. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What cooperation has been forthcoming from health professionals to make this project a success? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The project was developed in close consultation with the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association. Clinicians continue to contribute to the overall success of the project. For example they have been refining the scoring tool that is used to determine priority; they are involved in the measures that are aimed at improving efficiency and productivity; and of course they are undertaking more operations.
Pettis Jill: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8503] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Goff Phil: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goff Phil: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20632] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I missed the committee. The preference of the Minister who moved the first reading was the Government Administration Committee.
Burton Mark: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12473] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow Mr Adams. It is good to hear an enthusiastic and positive speech from a member. It is in stark contrast to the whelping from the Opposition but I suppose that is what we have come to expect. 
Simply this bill introduces changes to transport governance structure in Auckland that are long overdue. I congratulate the Minister who has brought this bill forward. The creation of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority as we have heard will address the chronic fragmentation of land transport governance by concentrating in a single body the roles of planning funding and the development of regional land transport. Not only is that good and necessary for Auckland it is necessary for all New Zealand that Auckland’s transport system works efficiently and effectively. It is my view that this measure will produce a safer more integrated responsive and sustainable land transport system for Auckland and I am pleased to support the bill. 
I simply conclude by acknowledging that this is a far-reaching and progressive measure. It is a long-term investment in the future and I congratulate the Minister and my colleagues who have worked collectively to bring this legislation forward.
Brownlee Gerry: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18910] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Notwithstanding the fact that the Committee has been given authority to consider this bill part by part I seek leave to have the Committee consider it as one debate. I do not think that a lot of scrutiny of the member in charge of it is required given the process that we have been through and I think that having a single debate may facilitate better contributions from members. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Carter John: Tabling of Documents — Spring Hill Corrections Facility 
Carter John: Tabling of Documents — Spring Hill Corrections Facility 
[Volume:617;Page:12622] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Just as clarification then was the document that was tabled inaccurate in the first place and is the Minister now tabling a corrected version? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Hon Paul Swain to take a call.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Speaker's Ruling Demonstrations—Access to Buildings 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Speaker's Ruling Demonstrations—Access to Buildings 
[Volume:627;Page:21897] 
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.
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:14042] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10945] 
Thursday 12 February 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement the first readings of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill and the Meat Board Restructuring Bill and progress on the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill and the Crime and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Simich Clem: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16774] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member was present in the House before the vote was concluded and accordingly I allowed her vote. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I please just clarify that I was present in the House and have been since 5 minutes past 9 not just before the vote was concluded. I was speaking with the Minister about the bill itself. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept that. I said that the member was present in the House at the required time.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Hon Jonathan Elworthy Larry Sutherland 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Hon Jonathan Elworthy Larry Sutherland 
[Volume:627;Page:21737] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 17 June 2005 of the Hon Jonathan Herbert Elworthy who represented the electorate of Oamaru from 1975 to 1978 and that of Waitaki from 1978 to 1984. He was Minister of Lands Minister of Forests and Minister in charge of the Valuation Department from 1981 to 1984. 
I regret also to inform the House of the death on 21 June 2005 of Larry Walter Sutherland who represented the electorate of Avon from 1987 to 1996 and that of Christchurch East from 1996 to 1999. He was a junior whip from 1993 to 1996. 
I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former members. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for their memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
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:7767] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am intrigued to find that an amendment moved by Mr Jones to have the bill called the “Electoral (Harry Duynhoven Inadvertent Error) Amendment Bill is regarded as a valid amendment but that my first amendment which was that the bill be called the “To Elect Harry Duynhoven Amendment Bill”—which is the effect of the bill—is somehow frivolous. My second amendment which also describes an effect of the bill “To allow the Prime Minister to have a foreign passport” has also been found to be frivolous. How can it be that Mr Jones’ amendment is not frivolous but that my amendments—both of which describe results of the bill and may be the real reason for it—are frivolous? How can that be? I do not follow. What is the difference?
Goff Phil: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goff Phil: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10206] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
I move  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 196(1)(b) and 196(1)(c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21408] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13163] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (Crown only Regulatory Control of Inmates) Act.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8115] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you have now moved on to question No. 9. That was the deliberate intent of the Opposition. I want to make the point that inasmuch as order in the House is your preserve it is a point of order to point out the deep disappointment the Opposition has that the Government continues to shield incompetent Ministers and not put them through the proper scrutiny that this process is supposed to encourage.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:625;Page:20303] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) the second readings of the Land Transport Amendment Bill the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill and the first readings of the Evidence Bill and the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Naming and Suspension of Member 
Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6467] 
Naming and Suspension of Member 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I name the member. The question is that that be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rt Hon Winston Peters be suspended from the service of the House. 
Ayes 106 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Question agreed to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Question time resumed.
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Messages from Governor-General 
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Messages from Governor-General 
[Volume:617;Page:13449] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can this bill be appropriated when we have not even had the vote? We still have the second reading the Committee stage and the third reading to come. I seek your guidance. It might be that we do not pass this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my understanding that the Governor-General has to make the recommendation before the bill is passed and that is the reason why it has been done as it has.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:15309] 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of the Holidays Bill and the remaining stages of the Maori Fisheries Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20004] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Public Records Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Personal Explanations — Scampi Fishery—Allegations 
Personal Explanations — Scampi Fishery—Allegations 
[Volume:618;Page:13961] 
Tuesday 29 June 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Personal Explanations 
Scampi Fishery—Allegations 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Allegations were made against me during my absence from New Zealand last week. Those allegations are baseless and ridiculous and I immediately instructed my legal counsel to take action seeking damages and costs from those organisations and individuals who promulgated those allegations. Accordingly papers were lodged in the High Court in Auckland today seeking damages and costs from Television New Zealand Radio New Zealand Yvonne Dossetter Ken Shirley MP and David Carter MP. Those who would publish or repeat such allegations either do not know me or know nothing of what I have achieved in my political career. My only other comment is to say: 
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something nothing; 
’Twas mine ’tis his and has been slave to thousands;  
But he that filches from me my good name 
Robs me of that which not enriches him 
And makes me poor indeed.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:627;Page:21897] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I remark that given recent events in the Immigration Service that have been pointed out by others I do not think the member can be at all sure of that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that comment.
Jones Dail: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19761] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. We have had a very interesting debate from all parties. As far New Zealand First is concerned we will support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill going to the Health Committee. Quite obviously a high-powered debate is being undertaken at technological levels. We recognise that biotechnology is one of the most important economic aspects for New Zealand’s future and we must be involved in the biotechnology economy. 
This is a relatively short bill and the matter can be considered by the select committee relatively quickly. We look forward to all those interested parties making submissions to the select committee and New Zealand First will take note of what they have to say. So in the meantime we support the bill going to the select committee.
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8779] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will have one more go. What has been put on the Table is consistent with all the discussion we had yesterday. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No it’s not. That’s a misrepresentation. Let’s put the minutes on the Table. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member should not speak unless he has the call. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is consistent with the discussions we had yesterday which resolved that in the end unless United Future came back there would be a motion that delivered up a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. Whether it was a second or third reading— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: 2 hours. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It was twelve 10-minute speeches. Come on Mr Brownlee! What I am saying to members is that was what we discussed and that is what is being put. If members want to discuss some other things after the leave has been put they may do so but that agreement was reached because the members who care about the bill wanted to facilitate it. If those members no longer want to do that they will probably not allow Mr Tim Barnett’s request to proceed. It is not of any consequence one way or the other to the Government per se—it is not a Government bill. It was simply an arrangement that the House Business Committee tried to facilitate to assist members who wanted to progress the bill. That is what Mr Tim Barnett is trying to do. I suggest that we now simply allow members to decide whether the debate takes place now or over 2 or 3 weeks.
Maharey Steve: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Maharey Steve: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:617;Page:12681] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343 relating to an answer I gave to a supplementary question this afternoon. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is this a correction? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes that is all. Is the member happy? In answering Brent Catchpole’s supplementary question: “Is Housing New Zealand Corporation building new housing stock or is it simply buying housing stock from the private sector” I said: “Since 1999 the Government has built 4000 new houses and it is currently in the process of building another 4000 new houses.” I need to break down that second figure of 4000. Up to the end of April 2004 the Housing New Zealand Corporation had added a net 4083 houses to the State house portfolio of which 940 were new builds 1666 were acquired from the Auckland City Council and the rest were a mixture of purchases and leases. The 4000 to be added will also be a mixture of new builds purchases and leases.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9691] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9141] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Franks Stephen: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7767] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think that there may be a test that would help decide whether an amendment is frivolous and it is this question: how will this be known colloquially; how will it be known in years to come when people are trying to distinguish this amendment from other amendments to the Act? I have no doubt that it will be known as the “Duynhoven amendment”. That is the way it will be identified and therefore I fail to see how an amendment could be seen as frivolous if in fact the amendment is an attempt to call the bill what it will probably be popularly called for the rest of time.
Mackey Janet: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mackey Janet: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18699] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I listened to the speech of the list member from Tauranga Mr Peter Brown with great interest. It was a speech that could only have been given by somebody who had nice big wide roads and a very good bridge. Because can I say that the people of the East Coast welcome this legislation. There is only one thing worse than sitting in a traffic jam in Auckland and that is sitting in a queue at a road accident on the East Coast or sitting behind six logging trucks on a one-lane road and watching schoolchildren getting off the local school bus and being spattered with gravel as the trucks pass them by. 
As the only member of Parliament who has an unsealed State highway in her electorate I say there is a very good reason why we do not make a song and dance about that. It is the road around Waikaremoana and we are very concerned that if they tar-seal it lots of people from Auckland and Tauranga will then want to drive on it. So we are leaving it as it is for now. But can I say that the people of the East Coast welcome this increase in the price of petrol so that we can have roads that look as though they come out of the same century as the rest of New Zealand. The Automobile Association report will tell members that 10 of the worst roads in New Zealand are in my electorate. I look forward to this money being invested in decent roading for the hard-working people in Gisborne and the East Coast. I think that those members who have lots of roads and big bridges should stop whingeing about it.
Benson-Pope David: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9502] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 162 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton to clause 61 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and clauses 1 to 143 and schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20444] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Now that we are able to see the document tabled by Phil Goff earlier in question time it is abundantly clear to us that that document has been used and represented in a most dishonest manner. I would like you to tell us what our remedies may be albeit that we accept that that is generally the pattern of the Government.
Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8927] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just to reiterate what the Hon Brian Donnelly pointed out to you earlier on that we did over a considerable length of time have reassurances from the Chair that Part 1—
Vote: Consumer Credit Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Consumer Credit Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3526] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Consumer Credit Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13 Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 6 
Bill read a first time. 
ACT New Zealand 6.