edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Carter Chris: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Carter Chris: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12493] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration that the committee report the bill by 14 June 2004 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 and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 191 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate the detail that the Minister went through in moving the motion. But it was a machinery motion telling us of the time that he wished the bill to be reported and the days on which the committee could sit. I wonder whether the Minister might also give us a reason as to why the time needs to be shortened because it may influence how we vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That can only be done by leave. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: As I explained in my opening address on this bill there is some urgency because of the commitment that the Government has given to Local Government New Zealand particularly on the issue of whether people can stand as mayors and ward councillors at the same time. This is something that local government feels very strongly about and we are keen to allow that to happen and this will clarify the issue. 
Motion agreed to.
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:8798] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member is now clearly being unreasonable. I have already made clear to the House that I inadvertently ill-described the document that I am now seeking leave to table as the draft unconfirmed minutes. I think that is a matter of clarity. I am disappointed in the member.
Heatley Phil: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17093] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to put on record a thankyou from the National Party to the member from Otago. That is another thousand votes for Jackie Deans to add to the thousand she got today door-knocking in Otago while the member spent 8 hours writing that 5-minute speech so we thank the member for Otago. 
Part 4 as the deputy leader of the National Party Gerry Brownlee said is all about placating the white folks. I can tell the House what happened in relation to that. Part 3 which we debated earlier deals with the customary rights orders the Maori Land Court gives to Maori when they come to that court cap in hand. Part 4 is supposed to mirror that for the white folks and to give the High Court a jurisdiction similar to that of the Maori Land Court in giving those customary rights orders. 
I know what happened. There was a big stir in New Zealand because Maori were getting something for free—arguably something they were not entitled to—in such a blanket way across the country and the New Zealand public got quite upset. Dr Cullen went to see Winston Peters and said: “Winston with about 10 percent—no 7 percent; no 5 percent—of voters you seem to cross the great divide. Granted they are all over 67 but you have crossed the great divide between Maori and Pakeha. What shall we do to fix this?”. In his wisdom Winston Peters said: “Dr Cullen throw the white folks a bone.” and here we see it in Part 4. 
I want to bring members’ attention to clause 56A because that clause gives a definition to the white folks they are throwing the bone to: “group of natural persons with a distinctive community of interest …”. That is who the group is. The definition goes on to state that the group does not include “persons whose only connection to the group is as successors in title …”. In other words succession through the family line is not included for the white folks. How can that be? 
When it comes to Maori customary rights an association with a coastal marae generally means a customary right through whakapapa and relationships. But a non-Maori with an ancestral line through succession through relationships is not included. In other words if grandad owns a place by the beach and has had undisturbed customary use of that beach for a period of decades his daughter is not included his grandson is not included and his grandson’s daughter is not included. But for Maori whakapapa is included for generations upon generations. 
Why is relationship succession which generally leads to inherited title and which is generally passed on through family lines generation after generation not included in clause 56A for white folks but is included for Maori? There is a huge distinction between Part 3 where the Maori Land Court grants customary rights and Part 4 which we are debating where the High Court gives much more limited customary rights for everyone else.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16356] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; United Future 5. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 3; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8799] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Of course I will consider that point; what weight I give to it is a different matter. I want to repeat that it is not for the Chair to ask why a member seeks to table a document. I am not sure whether the last speaker was present when that tabling occurred or whether the member had a chance to object to it. I do not need to be reminded that the request had a slight misdescription in it. In my view that had no bearing on the acceptance of the leave at all and I repeat that. I think we need to move on. It is members’ night; if members wish to go on for another hour on this I am quite happy. I would not let it continue if it was not members’ night. It is over to members.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:14875] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 24 August priority will be given to the third reading of the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill which combined with an Imprest Supply Bill is a 3-hour debate; the remaining stages of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill; and the second reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill. The first Wednesday back is a members’ day. Members might also note that on Tuesday 31 August the first item of business will be the first reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill.
Carter John: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Carter John: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:4992] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 This is one of those issues where we are breaking new ground a little and could get bogged down a bit. Katherine Rich has suggested that it may be useful to ask the interpreter to stand up and take a minute to read in English the Maori text of the preamble. Quite honestly we could then move on. This is a new issue and it is the first time I have seen a bill that has in it such a length of Maori text. To enable us to move on even though it is suggested that the English version is a replica of the Maori one maybe it would be useful if you could ask the interpreter to do what has been suggested. I suspect that would save us a lot of time in the end.
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20318] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to have raised this question out of sync but I have tried desperately to get an answer to it. The Minister of Finance in his response to Mr Key’s question used a word about ACT members calling them “tropodytic”. Standing Order 115 “Offensive or disorderly words” states: “If any offensive or disorderly words are used whether by a member who is speaking or by a member who is present the Speaker intervenes.” I was not sure whether the word was offensive so I went to the dictionary provided by the Clerk of the House and I found that the word “tropodytic” does not appear in the dictionary at all. I wonder whether we could call on the interpreter we have available in this House to give us an interpretation of that word because I think it may be offensive but I do not want to make that accusation without knowing its true meaning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No—[ 
Interruption 
] The definition we have here says that “troglodytic” means of cave dwellers. The member has raised the question out of time but he has got a response.
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7961] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is entitled to invoke Standing Order 117. I just caution members to be very careful in this area as there has been some dispute previously and we need to take a more temperate view of the statements.
Carter John: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Carter John: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19714] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether there is a Standing Order that will allow me to make the comment I want to make but I feel that I am obliged to make it. I am a long-serving member of this House and indeed one who I think has some respect in it. I am concerned that what we have seen in the last 24 hours is an abuse of the Standing Orders. I respect this House absolutely and it gives me a lot of disappointment that I am here now making these points of order which I intend to continue with for some time. The point the Speaker made was absolutely right; it will bring the House into disrepute. The problem we have is that we as the Opposition have no other means of making the point that the Government took the opportunity to misuse the Standing Orders in a way that was never intended. The only way we can fight back is by doing exactly the same thing as that. Indeed the difference is that we are doing it within the Standing Orders. I am disappointed that I have been driven to this point but I intend to continue to do what I have been doing for some little time in order to drive the point home to the Government that what goes around in this place comes around. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point. The point I was making is that it is a matter of debate. There has been considerable debate on it. Obviously members will make their judgment as will the public.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8797] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That was the second part of what I was going to address. You chose to extend the point of order and that was fine.
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:17081] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 19 
Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13290] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 7B be agreed to: 
to omit clause 7B.
Dyson Ruth: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14049] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11783] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I should have raised this earlier at the time of my question but I did not know I had the document to hand. I seek leave to table a press release that indicates the concern of the Australian Defence Minister Robert Hill and Colonel Hall of Australia about policing—. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is.
Cosgrove Clayton: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9145] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise briefly to support the bill. For those outside Parliament who did not realise who the previous speaker was that was allegedly the foreign affairs spokesperson for the National Party. He spent 10 minutes rubbishing the bill then told us he was going to support it. 
I support this bill. It implements and beefs up counter-terrorism measures after a wide-ranging review in the post - September 11 environment and gives a whole series of new powers including the power to detain property intercepted across the border beefed up investigative powers and others. 
Mr Mapp made some comments about defence and the lack of resourcing. I remind him that under his Government the defence vote was cut by in excess of 20 percent—the biggest cut in the history of this country. Yet Mr Mapp has “Ronald Reagan-itis”—“I do not recall; I have amnesia.” It is a bit rich for that member to get up and talk about beefing up defence resources after his Government made the biggest cut in the defence vote in the history of this nation. He should pipe down and explain to the people of New Zealand why he did that before he makes any comment on this bill. 
This is a good bill. Who would have thought that the provisions in it would be contested by the Opposition in a post - September 11 environment? We have to put this legislation through. We have international obligations to put this legislation through. We would be an irresponsible Government and Parliament if we did not enact the measures in the bill. Finally instead of that member making cheap political points and forgetting his own history he and his party should be responsible and support the bill. They should give it a critical examination but should support it in a bipartisan way—as Mr Dunne and others do on these sorts of bills. I support the bill.
Pettis Jill: Care of Children Bill Status of Children Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Pettis Jill: Care of Children Bill Status of Children Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16728] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 This is important legislation which sadly has had a lot of misinformed controversy surrounding it. However this legislation will ensure that the processes for resolving guardianship issues are inclusive and very importantly focused on the welfare and best interests of children. No Government regardless of its political persuasion can control what parents do when they use their children as vehicles of power as relationships break down. I think that all members of Parliament regardless of what party they belong to are appalled when parents use their children during personality battles. That is entirely inappropriate for the long-term care and protection of our most important asset—our children. 
This legislation will help children and families. The best thing we can do is to get the bills passed so that their aims and intent can be put into practice.
Franks Stephen: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Franks Stephen: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20592] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We might give United Future a moment to consider. The United Future speaker said that he would vote against the second reading. I wonder whether he has been muzzled by his party. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order.
Barker Rick: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Barker Rick: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16285] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 After that speech made by Maurice Williamson I am flabbergasted and I cannot understand why he languishes amongst the most lowly back-benchers of the National Party. That was the most talented able speech the National Party has ever put up—a classic Tory anti-union line. He compares amazingly with the lacklustre limpish wimpish front bench National has. Maurice Williamson brought out all the old anti-union bogies possible. 
It was the classic right-wing line which is to attack the union and say the union is not the appropriate thing and then to put up another organisation led by a bargaining agent. Those are known all over the world I say to Mr Williamson as stooge unions yellow unions and bogus unions and it is a classic right-wing tactic to attack workers’ conditions. 
It came from a member of the National Government that when it came into power in 1990 wrote all over the country promising workers it would not attack penalty rates. Let us listen to this. They promised they would not attack penalty rates and within months the Employment Contracts Act had been brought in and penalty rates were consigned to the dustbin of history. That is what the National Party did. 
Its sole object was to do the bidding of the bosses and the Business Roundtable and to smash workers’ wage rates. Through the 1990s this country’s workers and their families descended into poverty. Not only did the National Party cut penalty rates and wages but it also cut benefits. Let us understand who Maurice Williamson is speaking for. He speaks for the Business Roundtable. 
This Government looks after ordinary New Zealanders. We are raising wages and improving the conditions of workers and doing that at a time when unemployment is falling. So there will be better working conditions and more jobs—something the National Party could never ever provide. 
This is fantastic legislation. I want to say that the sooner the National Party promotes Maurice Williamson the better off it will be.
Benson-Pope David: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13277] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call. I speak rather more in sorrow than in anger but I think it is important to set the record straight given some of the extraordinary statements that have been made by preceding speakers. It always surprises me that those advocates of the free market turn to the State to pay their bills when they do not like to take responsibility themselves. 
Peter Brown 
: Oh come on! 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I say to Mr Brown if he would take the trouble to listen to what I am saying—and I am happy to provide him with the other material I have here—that according to what he said earlier the New Zealand First position has clearly changed. We all know that this matter has arisen out of the events of 9/11 and that in order to access international markets particularly the US market there are some new issues around border security. The Government acknowledges that there are a number of issues of public good about the clearance of exports at border security but clearly there is also considerable private advantage for individual exporters. If individual exporters wish to be supported by a Government that is going to great lengths to facilitate their entry into no-delay processes in the so-called “green lane” on arrival in the US then they should be very happy to pay those costs. 
Just to set the record straight I remind members that the Government will continue to invest in the cost of export clearance. It already meets approximately $2 million of that cost. The Government has already met the capital cost of $22 million for the X-ray machines that are now required and the taxpayer has also met the set-up costs of $9 million this financial year. 
Shane Ardern 
: Show us how that has been established. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Mr Ardern seems to be interested in the taxpayer but he is asking the taxpayer to pay for the private advantage of some of his exporter friends—not of everyone but just of the rather blinkered gumboot-wearing sector that he purports to represent. The Government has also agreed to provide an additional $8 million over the next 2 years to assist exporters to meet the new requirements. 
The key factor in this issue is that overall the Government will meet 60 percent of the total export clearance costs over the next 2 years. My colleague Mr Barker has already made it quite clear that an ongoing review of all the border control and export clearance charges is flagged. I think that that is a demonstration of more than considerable goodwill towards our exporting community and of a clear intent to come to a good compromise. Frankly I am disappointed—given the urgency and importance of this matter—that we had two rather bigoted speakers from the National Party who are not prepared to see their sector and their sector interest groups pay their way.
Coddington Deborah: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14283] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 ACT supports this legislation so I will not waste the House’s time. There is nothing I hate more than the sound of my own voice but I would like to remind people in this House— 
Government Members 
: Love your voice! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Well then sit down be quiet and listen! I remind members—and Ron Mark has just talked about tools for the police to fight crime with—that we are passing legislation that sets out a registry of second-hand dealers. These are people who have done nothing wrong but they will be registered and it will be a national database. When legislation comes back before the House at the end of the year that will seek to set up a registry of convicted sex offenders I hope that members will not go queasy but will support it with the same strength and passion with which they have supported this bill and with which yesterday they supported a registry of dogs that might bite people. ACT supports this legislation. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:618;Page:14459] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the completion of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) and making progress on the Building Bill and the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Smith Nick: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4706] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I heard you very clearly call for the Ayes and the Noes and there were absolutely no Ayes at all. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There were not. That is a statement of fact I tell Mr Benson-Pope. There were no Ayes—only Noes. How can you call for a party vote when nobody voted in favour?
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Comments Marine Farm Resource Applications 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Comments Marine Farm Resource Applications 
[Volume:614;Page:10286] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate an announcement that the moratorium on processing new marine farm resource applications is to be extended. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However as the existing moratorium was not in any case due to expire until 25 March 2004 the matter does not require the immediate attention of the House. The application is declined.
Brown Peter: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5740] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. What is the limit per member? Is it four calls? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under the Standing Orders the limit is four calls per member.
Cunliffe David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5566] 
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
[Volume:608;Page:5679] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. It is never in order to question a member’s veracity no matter what the circumstance and of course if members want to take that any further there is a way of doing it by coming to me on another matter.
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Worth Richard: 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:10005] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will ask that the Speaker be recalled if you are not prepared to listen to my point of order. It is neither frivolous nor vexatious. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In that case I will listen to the member’s point of order. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: It is founded on Standing Order 51 which the Speaker gave a ruling on. The point as most tersely stated as I can put it is that it is not possible to complete the Committee stage this evening. The reason is stated in Standing Order 51 which the Speaker drew our attention to: “Whenever at the time for the Speaker or the chairperson to interrupt business a question is being put to the House or a vote is in progress or the closure is carried”—which is the relevant part—“the interruption of business is deferred until the question (in the case of the closure the main question)”—which is the part I am emphasising—“is determined.” The only remaining business that the Committee can transact tonight is whether Part 3 shall stand part. The consequence of that—and I am seeking that the Speaker be recalled if you do not agree with this proposition because I believe it to be correct and I do not offer it in any but a sincere and determined manner—is that the Committee stage cannot be concluded tonight with the consequence that the farthest point to which we can get is a vote on whether Part 3 stands part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The vote was in progress.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Tariana Turia—Ministerial Dismissal 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Tariana Turia—Ministerial Dismissal 
[Volume:617;Page:12554] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Gerry Brownlee seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the dismissal of Tariana Turia from the Government. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. 
On 24 February 2004 I ruled on an application for an urgent debate concerning the resignation of the Minister of Immigration. I indicated that I was prepared to accept that application but that on that day there was another issue that took priority for a debate. I did say that not all ministerial resignations lead to an urgent debate. 
I have looked back to the results of ministerial resignations and dismissals in terms of urgent debates. In 2000 I allowed an urgent debate on the dismissal of the Minister of Maori Affairs. During the period 1990 to 1999 three applications to debate dismissals or resignations were accepted. One related to the Prime Minister himself and three were declined. 
In the present case there are two factors that help to persuade me not to accept this application. First the dismissed Minister though of Cabinet rank was not in Cabinet. Secondly the issue that has led to Mrs Turia’s dismissal—the foreshore and seabed legislation—is on the Order Paper and was foreshadowed in the Leader of the House’s last business statement for debate this Thursday. The dismissal will clearly be relevant in that debate. In those circumstances the House does not need to hold an urgent debate on the matter today.
Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17947] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The title of this bill is the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member of the Labour Party wants to make a constructive contribution he should stand up and do more than move the end of the debate. 
The title of the bill is the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill yet I think the Government or the Minister in charge of this bill has forgotten the meaning of public finance. It means taxing the public and accounting for spending. 
I will raise two points about Part 1 that have become quite obvious during the Committee stage although we have not received answers from the Minister. We found out that the Clerk of the House had saved the day for the supremacy of Parliament by forcing a raft of changes to Part 1 in the first draft of the bill. As it stood the bill would have given the executive unbridled power to spend without accountability. 
The second point that National felt equally strongly about was the collapse of the independent legislation the Fiscal Responsibility Act. We learnt from the Hon Lockwood Smith a former Associate Minister of Finance that the real reason why the Hon Michael Cullen is so hell-bent on collapsing the Fiscal Responsibility Act is it was introduced under the name of the Hon Ruth Richardson. That bill has served New Zealand well for the last 10 years by keeping various Governments accountable for how they have spent the public’s money. Although we are grateful to the Clerk of the House for forcing a substantial rewrite of Part 1 we are still not very happy with the fact that the Fiscal Responsibility Act is losing its independent status. 
Part 2 of the bill which amends the State Sector Act raises serious concerns because of the use of the phrase “whole-of-Government approach”. When the Labour Government talks about a whole-of-Government approach it sends a very strong message about interference in the independence of the public service. The public service is supposed to be apolitical and supposed to be accountable for achieving outcomes that can be expressed and translated into outputs that are meaningful and that can also be assessed as to whether they are successful. The phrase “whole-of-Government approach” should lead to major concern. It has the connotation of mega-ministries being created or of the State Services Commissioner together with Treasury simply overriding the independence of various Government departments as they carry out obligations and responsibilities under their charge. 
We are not convinced by a Labour Government whose policies have in the first instance caused some of the worst scandals we have seen. They were unravelled by two hard-working National MPs. The Hon Bill English unravelled the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology case concerning community education and Katherine Rich looked into all those hip-hop tours.
Vote: Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:626;Page:21300] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 8 
Green Party 8. 
Bills read a third time.
Chadwick Steve: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17097] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10042] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. The bill confirms and validates 14 Orders in Council made under nine Acts. 
The bill was referred by the House to the Regulations Review Committee on 28 August 2003 and the committee called for explanations from the five departments administering the orders. The committee was satisfied with the responses and reported to the House on 24 October 2003 recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. I am grateful to Mr Richard Worth the chair of the Regulations Review Committee and to the members of the committee for their succinctness of process and report. I am appreciative also of the support from all parties following discussion through the Business Committee that the remaining stages of the bill will proceed this afternoon. It is an illustration of the capacity of the House to treat sensibly a straightforward and non-controversial measure. 
Four of the 14 orders apply to movements in the consumer price index and two of those concern increases to social security benefits and allowances and to war pensions and allowances. A third adjusts the excise on tobacco products and the fourth increases the maximum rate for funeral grants—perhaps there is some connection between those two orders. Another three of the orders prohibit imports or exports. Two of those relate to Patagonian toothfish and the other to dogs of specified dangerous breeds. One order provides for the recovery by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries of related costs from the export of live animals and germ plasm. The final order removes a requirement relating to the taking of packhorse rock lobster.
Hughes Darren: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8581] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 At the end of those 10 minutes it is hard to know whether the associate Opposition spokesperson on transport is for or against the bill. Certainly we in the Labour Party are supporting the bill. The bill will be sent to the select committee after its first reading because it builds on the annex to the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. The convention covers 55 countries worldwide and 15000 ports. It is an appropriate response from the international community to the issues raised by this bill.
Hide Rodney: General Debates 
Hide Rodney: General Debates 
[Volume:613;Page:9961] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is clear that Mr Clayton Cosgrove has not finished his speech. There will not be anyone from this side of the House who will oppose his seeking leave to add another 5 minutes to his time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:607;Page:4546] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 62 
Noes 57 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Parker David: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5620] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of this legislation. We have heard from a number of speakers who have all said that they agree that families and the support thereof are fundamental to the success of our society but then we seem to have a division along party lines as to whether this measure will achieve anything towards furthering that end. Those in the Government and in United Future have said that it will but those on the Opposition side of the House have said that it will have no good effect. I suggest to listeners who are interested in this debate that they listen to some of the commentators’ views and I will mention three of them briefly. 
Jan Pryor the head of the centre for family studies at Victoria University speaking in support of the proposals said: “Strong families cannot be legislated for. However families can be supported provided with advocacy and helped to identify and build on their strengths.” Similarly Plunket’s chief executive has come out in support of the proposal and has said: “The Families Commission has the potential to make a positive contribution to the outcomes for New Zealand children.” The Parents Centre president Sharon Cole said: “To have even one Government agency promoting to Government what parents need to succeed is not only a break with tradition but incredibly cost effective.” 
I support this legislation.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17140] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20952] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the definition of  
Crown 
.
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17182] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take this point of order to advise the Committee more than anything that the Supreme Court has just brought down its decision in favour of the ACT party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order.
Ogilvy Bernie: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19597] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to say that we support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). We believe that it has value for us the entire Parliament and the entire nation. This amendment bill is worthwhile putting through— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What’s in the Supplementary Order Paper? 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: —and when we get to the next stage we will look at the Supplementary Order Paper. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time.
Williamson Maurice: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9689] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I put it to you that this is a very significant piece of legislation and this part has 60 clauses in it. There has never been transport legislation with as many clauses and in a short period of time the National Party has I think taken three calls. To take the closure motion as quickly as this is an outrage.
Locke Keith: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
Locke Keith: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
[Volume:619;Page:14716] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to endorse what the previous speakers have said and express our absolute repugnance at the desecration of Jewish graves in Makara and in Wellington. We share the sadness and the pain of the Jewish community. What has happened is particularly distressing because New Zealanders have taken some pride in being largely free of the anti-Semitism that we see in some other countries. It is therefore important that on this sad occasion we renew and reaffirm our opposition to all forms of racial intolerance. The Nazi symbols daubed at the cemetery make this crime even more dastardly. The Nazis killed 6 million Jews and crushed democracy and freedom in Europe. These Nazi symbols are an affront not only to the Jewish families of the people killed in the Holocaust but also to the families of the thousands of New Zealanders who died fighting fascism. Today we stand together with the Jewish community in remembering those who died and in expressing our horror at the desecration of the tombs of their ancestors.
Hartley Ann: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18726] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that he was heard in silence and put his point. Mr Burton was certainly entitled to be heard in silence. That is the end of the matter. That is my ruling.
Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation: House of Assembly Tasmania Parliamentary Committee B on Foreign Affairs Defence and National Security Timor-Leste 
Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation: House of Assembly Tasmania Parliamentary Committee B on Foreign Affairs Defence and National Security Timor-Leste 
[Volume:613;Page:9919] 
Wednesday 12 November 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Parliamentary Delegation: House of Assembly Tasmania 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the House of Assembly Tasmania Australia led by the Speaker Mr Michael Polley is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed. 
Parliamentary Committee B on Foreign Affairs Defence and National Security Timor-Leste 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have pleasure in informing members that Parliamentary Committee B on Foreign Affairs Defence and National Security from Timor-Leste led by the Chairman Mr Jose Manuel Fernandes is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed.
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
[Volume:619;Page:14594] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Of course that is a rather peculiar assertion because if the Minister has been accused of misleading the House by giving incorrect answers he goes away and checks those answers and he comes back to reaffirm them then that is just as important as correcting the answer in the first place.
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:17121] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; 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 104 be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed new regulation 10(2)(h) the words “ in the opinion of the consent authority may be adversely” and substitute the word “is”.
Cullen Michael: Children's Commissioner Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Children's Commissioner Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10113] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I move  
That the Children's Commissioner Bill be now read a third time 
. I do so very briefly with some considerable pleasure because I was the Minister of Social Welfare responsible for the original creation of the Commissioner for Children. It was created initially by an amendment to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act and because it had to be created as an amendment to the Act it had to be in effect a subsidiary office of the Department of Social Welfare as it then was. With this legislation we clearly will have a separate Children’s Commissioner who is independent in all forms from any other influence. I think that is a very very good thing indeed. 
We have been well served by the successive commissioners for children who have been appointed. They have reported on issues of great difficulty at times without fear or favour and in almost every case I can think of their suggestions have been useful ones and have been taken up by successive Governments in a variety of forms. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.
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:14010] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.