edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ward Mike: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Ward Mike: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9414] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased to support the protection and the check on unscrupulous and powerful interests that this bill provides. We would not have been unhappy with a greater level of protection to small local specialist book and record stores. In an earlier speech the Hon Tony Ryall lauded the availability of cheaper products that resulted from the introduction of parallel imports by a Government of which he was part. Cheaper products have been won at the expense of local businesses and local manufacturers frequently. That provision has made small specialist stores in smaller provincial and rural communities largely extinct. Even in the cities it has threatened the species. 
Those are the stores that provide the real choice of which the Hon Tony Ryall spoke. They are the ones that will give people the specialist products such as blues records and those specialist things that one does not get and are not the bulk-purchased products. They have been put at risk by earlier parallel importing provisions. 
The bill is modest legislation that we hope ensures that the provincial cinemas do not become similarly threatened and extinct because they provide another level of choice in those small communities. It is not a choice between cheap cheaper or cheapest version of the DVD but a choice between the right to go to a movie and the right to watch it in one’s own home. 
It probably is not possible to protect or give absolute protection in the age of the Internet. That perhaps relies on the integrity of ordinary New Zealanders to have some respect for the rights of people who have put the energy and creativity into producing the kinds of movies that we all enjoy. 
The “onus of proof” provisions may ring alarm bells but they are really a common-sense measure at a time when technology makes pirated copying a simple process. In fact as I said earlier businesses would be wise to make sure that the products they are dealing in have not come from illegitimate sources. As I said earlier film makers who have provided us with creativity and the energy have a right to the protection that the bill provides and we are pleased to support it.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Privilege—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Privilege—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
[Volume:610;Page:7291] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I now wish to raise a point of order with you. While you have referred to the Privileges Committee the matter of Mr Duynhoven’s eligibility to sit in the House after reading through the Electoral Act—and I would like you to confirm this—I believe that this is actually a decision for you. You can seek advice from wherever you are but I want from you an assurance that your referring to the Privileges Committee was not a technique to enable the Government to change the law in the meantime and that as Speaker you will look at the matter and make the decision on the law as it is at the moment rather than what the law might be after the Government has persuaded us to change it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will give the member an absolute assurance as to that. I agree. I took advice on what to do was advised and referred the matter to the Privileges Committee.
Mark Ron: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7086] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to indicate that like other parties we will be supporting the passage of this bill through Parliament. That is not to say that we will agree with everything we hear from the Government on it—if we hear a jolly word other than abuse from across the Chamber which the senior Government whip has become renowned for outside the walls of this Chamber as well as inside them. I put it on the record that I have to concur with Mr Franks when he says that “Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) and Supplementary Order Paper No 85” is not a very inspiring title to look at first thing in the morning. One could be forgiven for thinking that the bill deals with a whole heap of the extremely serious crimes that are currently facing this nation—such as violent crime which has escalated. 
In fact this bill deals with surveillance issues. It was long in its gestation in the Law and Order Committee. Given the length of time it has taken to get this bill to the floor I am bemused about why the Government has to do all of this under urgency. One would have thought we would have been debating this important bill a year or so ago at least. 
There is not a lot that I will say about the title of the bill. I simply signal that I have received a copy of Judith Collins’ proposed amendments. We will look at those from New Zealand First’s perspective and make a decision as we progress about whether we will support them and we will discuss some of the finer points of the bill as we progress through it part by part. Essentially if I were to suggest any change to the title it would probably be something along the lines of the “Bill that Shows Quite Clearly How Labour Just Doesn’t Seem to be Able to Get its Act Together and Get Legislation That is as Important as This Through the House in a Timely Fashion”. But of course that is a very hard sort of statement to condense down into one title. I simply say this one time that we will support the title and discuss the bill further in the part by part debate.
Hughes Darren: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7954] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:609;Page:6329] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to correct the results of four votes that occurred during the Committee stage on the Prostitution Reform Bill. On the question in respect of new clause 2A in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison that the amendment be agreed to the result was originally Ayes 16 Noes 99. The correct result is Ayes 15 Noes 99. On the question in respect of the amendment to clause 3 and new clause 3A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of Stephen Franks that the amendment be agreed to the result was originally announced as Ayes 33 Noes 83. The correct result is Ayes 33 Noes 82. On the question in respect of new clause 6BA set out on Supplementary Order Paper 90 in the name of Sue Bradford that the amendment be agreed to the result was originally announced as Ayes 63 Noes 52. The correct result is Ayes 63 Noes 51. On the question in respect of the amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to Supplementary Order Paper 91 that the amendments to the amendments be agreed to the original result was Ayes 27 Noes 85. The correct result is Ayes 26 Noes 85.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:10949] 
4.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: How is the Government supporting tertiary education organisations to develop e-learning? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 In December the Tertiary Education Commission announced that it was investing up to $14 million for 15 projects from its E-Learning Collaborative Development Fund. Those contracts are now being finalised as part of the tertiary education strategy to strengthen our teaching capability to provide education in a wider range of settings and to a wider range of learners. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister tell the House the sorts of initiatives that this funding will support? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I give three quick examples. One is the XML editor project that will provide software enabling teachers across the sector to easily publish e-learning web pages and cross-reference their work. Another project supports polytechnics and industry training organisations working together to deliver applied e-learning in the workplace and a flexible learning leaders project will aid the development of up to 15 academic staff a year so that they can make use of e-learning teaching. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Of the 15 projects approved does any one of those projects address the rising problem at the tertiary level of cheating which Australian expert Professor Justin Zobel last month in Dunedin claimed is exacerbated by the culture of the Internet; if not is it because he does not consider that this is a significant issue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No none of these projects addresses that particular issue but I know that institutions across the country now are moving to try to block this. For example it is possible for Brian Donnelly to be doing an essay at Victoria University and have it written for him in the United States at the present time and delivered in the format that the university wants. There is a major problem of plagiarism and that kind of work going on and I know that the institutions are moving to block it.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7090] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 8. 
Noes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to insert new clause 21O be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 21M the following clause: 
21ONew section 312S inserted 
The principal Act is amended by inserting after section 312Q the following section: 
312S 
Notification of innocent subjects 
Those persons who have been the subject of an interception warrant will be notified by the police of this fact if: 
(a)the interception warrant is no longer active because – 
(i)the interception warrant has expired and no application has been lodged for renewal; or 
(ii)police determine that they have no further intention to use the interception warrant; and 
(b)the police no longer have an active investigation on those persons; and 
(c)no charges have been laid against those persons.
Vote: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Vote: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:608;Page:5714] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hon Dr Nick Smith be suspended from the service of the House. 
Ayes 89 
Noes 27 
Question agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27.
Hartley Ann: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10099] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is correct. Obviously the bill is about revenue income tax and I would ask members to keep to that.
te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4820] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 My standing is not to take a call when it might be more appropriate for the Minister because clearly Mr Hide wants some confirmation from the Minister. But I do stand to apologise to Mr Hide because I wrongly thought his comments were made in relation to paragraph (b) of clause 5AC(2). In fact they were made in relation to paragraph (c) of clause 5AC(2). We have had a little conflab while sitting here and Mr Hide is correct. Paragraph (c) of clause 5AC(2) does stand on its own as each of those provisions in that clause does but the implication was that the chairperson can just sort of throw someone off without any proper cause. It was certainly a concern for committee members whether this was a provision that suited the chair more than it might have regard to the circumstances of the person being replaced. As I say if one reads paragraph (c) of clause 5AC(2) quite carefully I think it does contemplate that someone is wishing to go. I think this was put to the officials and that is certainly what was envisaged—a member wishes to be released. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s what is envisaged. It does not make it the law. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Hang on there is no power here for any presiding officer or chairperson to remove someone without there being good reason to do so. But as I say maybe the Minister wants to take a call and reassure Mr Hide on that. The purpose for my standing was basically to recognise the error I had made in terms of the clause that Mr Hide was talking about. 
One other point I would make because it was shared by the officials is that there may be a case where the wife or the husband—the spouse of a member—is not well. In fact that may have already occurred in the history of the tribunal. In those circumstances where a member requests that he or she be released then it seems entirely unreasonable for a chairperson not to be replaced. As I say the committee was reasonably satisfied that that provision— 
Rodney Hide 
: Oh I’m not going to believe you on this I have to say! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That is OK. I am just saying that the committee examined it. We feel we examined it reasonably thoroughly. We got some explanations from the officials and on balance as I say we are reasonably comfortable by majority that the power is to replace; it is not to remove willy-nilly and not to dismiss willy-nilly.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13915] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider the final answer given to Ms Rich’s questions by the Minister in which I think it is quite clear that he implied that there were statements of mistruth in the question. That is quite inappropriate. While it might be easy for us to sit here and think that the Minister’s own interpretation of events is somewhat fanciful it is not appropriate for him in his answer to get away with accusing a member of misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did not do that. What the Minister said was that the facts might not be as the member states. If he had said that the member was telling a lie or a deliberate mistruth or something like that it most certainly would have been out of order. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you an issue about which the more I sit here and think about it the more concerned I become. That is the issue that has just now developed with regard to the Minister’s answers—or non-answers—and the rulings you have made with regard to the response to those. I ask you to give a considered opinion to the House a little later. The issue here is that this is an opportunity for the Opposition to question Ministers about policy and performance. That is what question time is about. The difficulty we have run into is that we wanted to ask the Minister—or the Minister on behalf of the Minister—about her performance. Unfortunately the way events are unfolding is that there is now a police investigation which the Minister seems to be able to use to not answer those questions. I wonder whether you could give an opinion as to where the line is drawn when a Minister cannot answer questions that are asked by the Opposition because there is already some form of investigation. Where do we draw the line? If the question is asked of the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the New Zealand Rugby Football Union is making an investigation is it sufficient for him not to answer questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me refer the member to Speakers’ rulings on page 144. There are five of them and at least four of them are appropriate in this instance.
Newman Muriel: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16582] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an official document relating to Mr Copeland’s request in a discussion with Dr Cullen for a capital gains tax. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7409] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8988] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is not correct. It has been ruled out of order. When the member refers to other members he must refer to them by their proper names.
Simich Clem: Election of Speaker 
Simich Clem: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18945] 
Hon CLEM SIMICH (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I declare my nomination for the office of Speaker.
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12439] 
4.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What reports has he received on the progress of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamian Afghanistan? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 On 3 April the Bamian university was reopened after extensive reconstruction work by our provincial reconstruction team. The university was significantly damaged after it was taken over by the Taliban in 1998. Funding for the reconstruction has come in equal shares from New Zealand and the United States. NZAID will provide additional funding for support over the next 3 months. The university is the only tertiary education facility in Bamian and the Central Highlands. Its reopening is therefore a critical step on the path towards reconstruction in the region. New Zealand is making a difference in Bamian. 
Tim Barnett 
: What other reports has he had about the work that our provincial reconstruction team is doing in Bamian? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The team is currently implementing 35 projects worth some $6 million. In addition it has facilitated the establishment of a provincial governance structure and has formed a development group that is being used as a model for other provincial reconstruction teams. Our patrols provide liaison security presence and facilitate reconstruction efforts. This is a good example of our peacekeeping work and I note that New Zealand was recently rated No. 1 on a per capita basis for its contributions to United Nations peacekeeping forces. We should all be proud of the work of all our peacekeeping forces. 
Ron Mark 
: Given the magnificent progress that has been made in restabilising Afghanistan and moving it towards a democracy what recommendations has he made to his Government about repatriating the 100-odd Afghan refugees whom his Government brought into this country because supposedly Afghanistan was not the sort of place they should be left to live in? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the member would know that the repatriation of Afghan refugees is not the province of the Minister of Defence. But I think this is a question that raises the good work of our peacekeeping forces and I would have thought the member would want to join us in doing that. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for your assistance. I specifically asked the Minister what recommendations he had made. He skirted all around it but did not say whether he had made any had not made any was going to make some or had no intention of doing so. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out I have no responsibility for that part of Government policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That addresses the question.
Smith Lockwood: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Smith Lockwood: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10003] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In this entire debate I have had the privilege of just one call. I went to the trouble though of obtaining a lot of material under the Official Information Act about what the Government had been up to. I indicated to the Committee after that call that I had information that would be quite revealing to the public about what had been going on and was in fact verging on the scandalous. The perception evolves that Government members sought to close down the debate so that I could not do that. That is a very unfortunate flavour to be left. I have official documentation here that I think the Committee deserves to hear about and I seek leave to have a further call.
Turei Metiria: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5024] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are very pleased to support this bill but we have some amendments that we indicated in our earlier speeches on the bill. One of the amendments that relate to this part in addition to our first one is an amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 77. In that Supplementary Order Paper the Minister makes an amendment to clause 3 of the bill by adding paragraph (ca). That paragraph concerns the safeguarding of the UHF right and where that spectrum may be leased or transferred to a third party which is not the Maori Television Service for the promotion of te reo and tikanga in television. 
The Greens are putting forward an amendment fairly minor at this stage to replace the words “principal functions” in that additional paragraph with the words “functions as set out in clause 8.” That amendment is intended to ensure that all the clauses concerning the transfer of the UHF right are related specifically to the entirety of the functions and the purposes of the Maori Television Service and to make sure that all those purposes are integral to any service provider whether it is the Maori Television Service or a third party. This amendment minor though it is will ensure that this clause will be consistent with later amendments that we will put forward on Part 2. The totality of those amendments will go in some way towards protecting the UHF spectrum right while making sure that that spectrum is used for the promotion and protection of te reo and tikanga and also that the service provided is delivered in a way that maximises access for all people over the whole of the motu and has regard to the learners of te reo. I urge all members to support and vote for the amendment to that clause.
Vote: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17792. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) 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 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Hughes Darren: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6894] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Cullen Michael: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16469] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Peters Winston: Business of the House 
Peters Winston: Business of the House 
[Volume:606;Page:4059] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker you will recall that last Tuesday night this House ran out of work and rose at 9.30 p.m. Therefore I ask the Leader of the House whether we are going to see for example the Responsible Gambling Bill—which is way down the Order Paper—and the Maori Television Service Bill come up the Order Paper and whether the longstanding guardianship review will materialise into some sort of bill before this House as undertaken by the Attorney-General to the leadership of New Zealand First.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11472] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Okeroa Mahara: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Okeroa Mahara: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6843] 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barker Rick: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Barker Rick: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7621] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am very tempted but I will hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith.
Personal Explanations — Hemana Waaka—Commentary 
Personal Explanations — Hemana Waaka—Commentary 
[Volume:609;Page:6329] 
Personal Explanations 
Hemana Waaka—Commentary 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I thank the House for allowing me this opportunity to make a personal explanation. I feel a little like Jonny Wilkinson after having missed a kick from halfway. Yesterday I stated that Hemana Waaka did not commentate the game between Australia and New Zealand Maori in Perth on 15 June 2002. I understand through the media that Sky Network Television has confirmed that the commentary did take place on that day. I apologise for my error. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you asked if there was any objection to the member from ACT seeking leave I heard John Tamihere say “Yes”. I am not sure how that matter was resolved. One member can deny leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The matter was resolved by that member withdrawing that objection.
Brown Peter: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Brown Peter: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9659] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was interested to hear that member’s speech but he did not mention the title once in terms of what it is about. I suggest that if we are going to carry on like this let us have a wide-ranging debate and talk about the facts in the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member can seek leave for a wide-ranging debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: I seek leave to have a wide-ranging debate on the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.
Hartley Ann: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10307] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been warned by the previous Chairperson. 
PETER BROWN 
:Have I? Have I got a yellow card? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It was not a point of order previously. 
Murray Smith 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Hon Member 
: There was no point of order. 
Murray Smith 
:If the Committee wants to encourage me to have extra time I will seek leave for an extension to my time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member was absolutely right—there was no point of order.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14723] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When we asked you questions about transferring questions before you referred us to Speaker’s ruling 130/3. That is one of your own rulings from the year 2000. I think it is interesting in that it appears to set out the criteria under which a Speaker may consider that a transfer is inappropriate. They include: “exceptional circumstances—such as if the Minister concerned could be expected to have personal knowledge of the issue that it would not be likely that any other Minister would have.” In this case the person the Government wishes to answer the question was on leave at the time so it is a bit of a stretch to think he would have personal knowledge of it. We know that the information concerned was passed to Ruth Dyson who was the Acting Minister. She is surely therefore a Minister who has personal knowledge of the information concerned and in that event should be required to answer the question. The Government’s option of transferring the question should be denied. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No this was action taken in an official capacity and any Minister can answer.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debate Declined — Government's Welfare Policies 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debate Declined — Government's Welfare Policies 
[Volume:606;Page:3699] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the interests of Cabinet collective responsibility and public disclosure I now seek leave for there to be a debate of the type that I requested. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a perfectly proper request. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8420] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Environmental Protection and Resources Conservation Committee People's Republic of China 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Environmental Protection and Resources Conservation Committee People's Republic of China 
[Volume:613;Page:10013] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Environmental Protection and Resources Conservation Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China led by the vice-chairman of the committee Mr Ye Rutang is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14263] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedule agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16347] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Well I am not too sure whether Mr Franks really made an accusation. He made it more as an observation that in listening to the debate there might be an impression given. I do think that if we took the original suggestion which I certainly can pass on to the Speaker that the matter be raised with the Standing Orders Committee as was first suggested that would deal with Mr Franks’ point of order.
Franks Stephen: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18626] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to advise that this bill which should be able to be supported by every party and every member in this Parliament is a highly objectionable bill—unless the Minister is prepared to use the Committee stage to remove its objectionable parts. The Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff knows that censorship is always a fraught topic. It is very difficult indeed to find a balance so that censorship powers cannot be misused by an establishment or by one group getting its hands on the levers of power to suppress the opinions of others. 
In this case we are amending an Act that everyone knows will always be problematic. We are amending an Act that the Court of Appeal interpreted—to tell the censor on three separate occasions that he was going too far in the direction of suppressing free speech and doing it for purposes not related to the purposes the community through Parliament had seen as requiring the intervention of the law. Those purposes would be pretty commonly agreed—horror torture exploitation of children and the kinds of things that a general consensus says represent objectionable material. In this bill hiding under the guise of being something to deal with child pornography we have the censor coming back and wanting to reverse— 
John Tamihere 
: What do you know about it? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Chairman I ask whether you could comment on that. I believe that the member had absolutely no foundation for making such a comment. I know of no reason. It is the sort of thing for which there should be an immediate request for the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I did not hear what the member said but if objection has been taken I ask the member to withdraw. 
John Tamihere 
: I withdraw.
Hartley Ann: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19089] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have taken further advice on the matter and on the new subparts proposed by Nandor Tanczos. The purpose of the bill is to give legal effect to the Civil Union Act. Amendments that insert the words “civil union” and/or “civil union partners” are of the nature of consequential amendments. Standing Order 302(1) puts in place a restriction on law reform bills of this nature. It requires the leave of the Committee to make a substantive amendment to an Act not amended in the bill as introduced. These amendments are not substantive in nature; they merely insert words necessary to give effect to the Civil Union Act. They are consequential to the purpose of this bill and they do not introduce substantive new material. Leave is not required for the Committee to consider these amendments. If members do not support the amendments they should vote against them.
Visiting Forces Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Visiting Forces Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12864] 
Visiting Forces Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Visiting Forces Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:619;Page:15324] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that must be different from the one of the same name that Mr Ryall tabled. This document shows that money from underspent victim assistance schemes did not go to some bureaucracy as alleged but went to Victim Support to help victims. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11175] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343 to correct part of an answer I gave previously. Today I indicated that Mr Ron Mark refused leave for the tabling of a document. Mr Peters has checked with Mr Mark and has assured me that that was not the case and that the objection was taken only by Judith Collins.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14468] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to read out the paragraph— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to give the member leave. He does not need to seek leave; I am letting him do it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The paragraph states: “In answer to a questioner who pointed out that district councils said they were constrained by regional councils’ environment plans Smith said he ‘will be talking to the caucus about whether we need that many tiers of Government’ ” and then the article states: “—implying regional councils might be abolished.” That is very different from the claim that was made by Mr Carter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well let me just say—[ 
Interruption 
] That of course is why I should not be brought into the debate. This is a debatable matter and can be— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But it was a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to say to the member that he keeps on talking while I am on my feet. He cannot do that. I should have had him out a long time ago— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That’s right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know—I am just so soft and reasonable today. 
Hon Member 
: You are soft on crime. There is not long to go. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am soft on crime I know.
Tanczos Nandor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14315] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Ayes have it.
Hartley Ann: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8860] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point and I am sorry if I misinterpreted what Jeanette Fitzsimons said. Certainly what Mr Donnelly and Mr Tisch have said is clearly understood and I do not think we need to relitigate this any more. I have made the ruling.
English Bill: Privilege — Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee New Zealand Post Limited 
English Bill: Privilege — Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee New Zealand Post Limited 
[Volume:608;Page:5714] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I have come to the House to speak on this report because of my concern about its findings and more particularly my concern about the culture of dishonesty that now suffuses public agencies in New Zealand—and it starts from the top of the Government. I believe that the Privileges Committee is likely to play a greater role in the next few years than it has— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The turn of phrase that has just been used “the culture of dishonesty” that “starts from the top of the Government” can have only one meaning in that context. Dr Mapp who was one of those who unanimously signed this report agrees with it. That phrase must refer to the Prime Minister. I suggest to you that that accusation is totally out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The accusation that a member of this Parliament is dishonest is out of order. I ask the member to assure me that he was making no reflection on any member of Parliament. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot give that reassurance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All right. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw and apologise. The Privileges Committee is likely to find that it will become busier because we have a culture in the Government where half-truths evasions and straight-out lies have become acceptable— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will the member please leave the Chamber. I have warned him once and he will now go. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Stop protecting the bloody Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will return to his seat or he will be named. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8078] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Noes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 3(2) be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by adding the following paragraph: 
(f)the recognition of professional self-regulation as the basis of health practice in New Zealand.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19750] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before I can consider giving leave— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am on a point of order; would you please be seated until I have completed this point of order. The point of order is that leave be sought to table that document. [ 
Interruption 
] Is a point of clarification sought on the document?
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15193] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to.
Carter John: Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Carter John: Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14456] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I will speak for only a few minutes on this legislation because like previous speakers— 
Martin Gallagher 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I actually did rise. I understood that the senior Opposition whip was moving a point of procedure—albeit that he is not sitting in his normal seat. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is quite right. The member has the call but he should be in his correct seat. [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry—he should call from the National side. 
JOHN CARTER 
: If the member is seeking a call I am happy to let him take the next few minutes and then I will take a call. But I do point out Madam Deputy Speaker that I am entitled to take a call from anywhere I like. Indeed I think I can even take a call standing in the middle of the table. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member should go over to the National side of the Chamber to speak. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No not at all. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member retains the call? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am very happy to allow the member if he wishes to take the call and I will then run for another call. We might have to take the leave of the House for that to happen though. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: OK if that is agreed to the call will go to Martin Gallagher. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Right and then I will still get a call? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes. Is there any objection? There is not.
Vote: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19778] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—Labour Party 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—Labour Party 
[Volume:617;Page:12553] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a question about the order of the House—I did not want to interrupt question time—under Standing Order 35 and invite you to make a Speaker’s ruling about Standing Order 35. Standing Order 35 states that a party must inform the Speaker of its parliamentary membership. The Speaker must be informed of any change in those matters. You have advised the House that you have not been advised of the change in membership but the whole House saw the Clerk advise you that the Labour Party vote was one too many. 
It would appear that there has actually been a change in the Labour Party membership. Standing Order 35 requires a party to advise that change promptly. The reason for that is obvious because things like funding and the like follow a statement by the party under Standing Order 35. If a party did not have to advise promptly it could fail to tell the House that there had been a change for maybe—what is it—16 months to the next election and then say: “By the way there has been a change.” I think we need to have a ruling from you that if a party is aware that there has been a change in its membership then the Speaker should be advised immediately of that fact.
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17078] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson we have every faith in your ability to make decisions. Mr Hughes needs to recognise that yesterday at a particular meeting that takes place around here a very senior presiding officer indicated that extra time would be given on all these bills. So we are a little perplexed that the Government has decided to move to shut down the debate at such an early stage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank members for their contributions. I will decide when I take the closure motion. There are a number of guidelines I can use to make a judgment and one of them is Standing Order 102.
Beyer Georgina: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7614] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill’s second reading and just mention because it is important that this bill does improve the Reserve Bank’s ability to carry out its functions in both monetary policy and banking supervision areas. The bill does not alter the objective of monetary policy which remains the promotion of price stability. The third point is that the changes will strengthen the board’s role in monitoring the performance of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and further enhance the Reserve Bank’s accountability and independence. I support the bill.