edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Donald Rod: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Donald Rod: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9244. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 As senior colleagues in this House ought to know particularly Mr Brown who is on the Business Committee the Business Committee has suspended Standing Order 178 and that was endorsed by the Parliament. That means that you have the discretion—in fact the obligation—to ensure that calls for parties are allocated in proportion to their size and to enable senior and in fact lead speakers for each party to have more than one call without there being any obligation on your part to award a first let alone a second call to any other member from that party. I just remind you to apply that decision of the Business Committee and I draw it to the attention of other members of the Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Just briefly in reply I have a discretion and I have guidelines but I certainly have no obligation. These matters rest with the Chair.
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8221] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16700] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12250] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I bring to your attention that this House has agreed that the debate be taken as one question on three clauses. The debate started at 10 past 9 so it has not been going an hour yet. A number of speakers wish to contribute to this debate and I note that the Government has been moving closure motions. I ask that those speakers who have been seeking the call for the last hour be given that opportunity. I make the point very clearly. You were not in the Chair at the time but it was by agreement of the House that this debate on clauses 1 2 and 3 be taken as one question. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any assistance on this one. I thank Mr Tisch. I was not in the Chair but I am up with the play. I have noticed a number of closure motions from my right here. I am not to know before I call them whether it is a closure motion. If those speakers want the call they will get the call and I give no assurances. I will judge how the debate is going.
Prebble Richard: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5444] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I want to advise the House that the reason this has been raised is—I did not personally hear it but the Hon Ken Shirley tells me this—that when Mr Matt Robson left he said: “I’m off.” and left a clear impression in the minds of our members that he meant he had gone home. I think we could take it that he has because Parliament is still being broadcast. You can bet your sweet life that if he was here given the amount of time we have taken he would have arrived. It is clear from Mr Anderton’s statement that he just voted for him cavalierly and I suggest that the easiest way would be for Mr Anderton to decide to change his vote.
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18803] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The subject of this question is a recent bill that went through the House—the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill—putting 5c on to the excise. That bill was shepherded through the House by the Minister of Customs. He has been the Minister handling all the media announcements on this matter including on National Radio this morning when he announced that it was a new tax. He is in the House today and as we directed this question to him it seems incomprehensible why with all of that participation he is not the Minister who will now answer this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been a Minister of the Crown; he knows that it is up to the Government.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19829] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2
Clark Helen: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
Clark Helen: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
[Volume:615;Page:10999] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I can speak to the point of order raised by Mr Prebble— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No this has to be a new point of order. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I will raise a new point of order. I accept unreservedly the explanation of Mr Hide and apologise for any hurt he has felt he suffered as a result.
Peters Winston: Motions — New Zealand Cricket—Tour of Zimbabwe 
Peters Winston: Motions — New Zealand Cricket—Tour of Zimbabwe 
[Volume:627;Page:21953] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point is really to do with that. The member has another 6 days left in this House and it is rather late in one’s career to start grandstanding but if he does he should try to get his facts right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Peters. At most that is a point of information but it is not a point of order.
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7878] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8173] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to new section 42(2) in clause 225 be agreed to.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:608;Page:5899] 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee must finally report the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill to be extended to 8 September 2003 and for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to be extended to 13 February 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed on those bills? There appears to be none.
Smith Nick: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Nick: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:618;Page:13868] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I briefly want to state that National supports this bill. It is a very simple bill that provides for the Wellington City Council to be able to sell lease or dispose of land that has been reclaimed in Wellington City. It overrides an Act that was passed in 1879—a date almost as far back as the date giving rise to the recent 150th celebration of this Parliament. 
 National simply takes the view that councils should have the power to be able to use their land as they best see fit. It is not that we hold a view that the land should be sold or not sold or leased or not leased but simply that it is a favour of local democracy for the council to be able to dispose or use that land as it best sees fit. 
The changes that have been made by the Local Government and Environment Committee are small. All we have said in respect of the amendments made during the select committee process was that any disposals or powers with regard to that land should be used in relation to the Local Government Act passed in 2002 so that there is some community consultation around that. Again National supports the bill and I simply commend that it be passed as quickly as possible so that Parliament can get on to other business.
Hughes Darren: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17262] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: 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:9392] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 We can resolve this quite rapidly. Mr Speaker called the second reading quite clearly. People were communicating with each other and not paying attention. That is why we are now in this situation. I sat here and said “Aye” in response to Mr Speaker’s prompts. It is not the fault of the person in the Chair that members on the other side of the Chamber were not paying attention. If you go back and look at the record you will see that that is exactly what happened.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17718] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 4A be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b).
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17052] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 8 
United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 14 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new paragraph (a) of subclause (2).
Simich Clem: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21637] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. I do not think that is quite what the member was saying. It seems a sort of paranoia— 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Let me put it to the honourable member this way. The reason he got himself into problems with Pol Pot and the reason he now finds himself in this extraordinary position on this bill is that he is so anti the United States he actually thinks that we in this Chamber should support anyone who is also opposed to the United States. A line has to be drawn somewhere. It may be difficult to determine exact definitions of terrorist organisations but that does not mean to say there is no such thing as terrorism. There most certainly is. 
This bill says that we should not give money to entities that we know are engaged in terrorism. Only the Green Party is saying the contrary—that it ought to be lawful in this country to raise money and send it to an organisation that we know is murdering people in terrorism. Mr Locke says that is what we ought to do. That is what the Green Party ought to campaign on during this election campaign. Green Party members should not go through the election campaign saying: “We’re a bunch of conservationists but when we get into Parliament we will hold the whole House up and we will be alone in saying it should be lawful in this country to support terrorism.” When Mr Locke looks back at his record he will find that he has voted against every single measure that has been raised in this House even though the United Nations has supported it and even though it is supported by every democratic party of the world. I ask him how he can possibly claim to be a Green member of Parliament. No he is not. He is an extremist. He is the reddest MP who has ever been in this Parliament and that is what he ought to tell the Committee before he votes on this measure again.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2001/02 financial review) bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2001/02 financial review) bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4221] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7336] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the schedules as amended stand part.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13043] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 197 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) of subclause (1).
Turner Judy: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11339] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I shall take a brief and final call in the Committee stage of this cervical screening programme legislation because I only want to redress some accusations that were levelled last night at myself and United Future by National member Pansy Wong. If Ms Wong had been a member of the Health Committee she would know that no one on the committee including myself ever discussed or suggested punishing women who opt off the programme. Ms Wong’s comments reflect politicking of the kind that leaves most New Zealanders highly disappointed in the parliamentary process. 
What I did was attempt to remind the House that historically women in New Zealand have a very good track record in working unselfishly for the benefit of others. That commitment to the common good needs to be promoted as part of this bill because every woman who participates in the programme contributes to its overall success or failure. 
For whatever reason women who opt off the programme are not cut off from access to cervical screening. My concern was and is that those opting off need to understand that the programme is the poorer for that choice. United Future believes that the right of women to opt off is essential but we would like them to make that decision when it is accompanied by all the information about the implications of their choice—implications both for themselves and for others enrolled on the programme. That is all I need to say at this point.
Carter John: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Carter John: 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:9975] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Indeed if you follow the logic of that the premises we are talking about are public places. The very reason why they are in business is that they expect people to come in as part of the service they provide. They are not private in that sense at all as a home might be. They are places where the public congregate and that is the reason why we have this bill before us. Some people believe that some of the substances used there are harmful and they are trying to stop the public from being harmed by them. So by that very logic one cannot say that we could exclude them on the basis that they are private or that there is some other description for them. They are public places and therefore by your very ruling we now have a contradiction. The fact is that these are public places. If this is a bill that affects public places then you would have to rule that the amendments are in order.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15937] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand National 22. 
Noes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 5; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to proposed new clause 61A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 in his name be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (9) the following new paragraphs: 
(d)a person whom the Registrar-General believes on reasonable grounds to be a person— 
(i)who shares a donor with the donor offspring; and 
(ii)who is 18 years or older; 
(e)a person whom the Registrar-General believes on reasonable grounds to be a person— 
(i)who shares a donor with the donor offspring; and 
(ii)who is under 18 years.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9661] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am very happy to speak to the title of the Land Transport Management Bill. This bill moves us from a 1950s approach to transport into the 21st century like most other modern OECD nations. The things in this bill are absolutely mainstream in modern transport planning. The title makes it very clear why this is so. 
First of all this bill is not what some members of the Committee would like to see. This is not a “Build More Roads Anywhere and Everywhere Bill”; this is a Land Transport Management Bill because it recognises that only when we take a holistic approach to all forms of land transport will we solve the serious congestion problems in Auckland our serious dependence on fossil fuels which are not going to be there for ever and the serious air pollution time wasting and crashes that go with our particular brand of transport at the moment. It is a Land Transport Management Bill because it is multimodal. 
In fact Infrastructure Auckland has shown that if we were to follow the wishes of some people in this Chamber and try to solve Auckland’s problems by just building roads not providing land transport we would end up at the end of 10 years after building all the roads on anybody in Auckland’s wish list with congestion 50 percent worse in the isthmus and 10 to 20 percent worse on the other motorways. Only an intermodal approach that says we have to match the mode to the purpose will solve the problems and that is why we are talking about transport management. It is about managing the demand; it is about managing the way we match supply to demand. Heavy freight that goes long distances from Auckland to Wellington should travel by road. People who commute the same distance to work every day should have adequate public transport so that they can use that means of transport. People who do very short trips and who are fit enough should have facilities available so that they have the options of walking or cycling. And we need to find alternatives to transport like teleworking so that people have choices. It is about managing those things. 
It may seem illogical to include water transport in a land transport bill but that is also sensible. The title underlines that funding goes to water transport only when that water transport takes traffic off roads and makes the roading dollar go further. That is the logic behind coastal shipping and ferries being in this bill. They can ease up road congestion because the funding can more efficiently be spent on an alternative route for freight. 
I commend this bill to the Committee and look forward to taking part in the debate that will ensue.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18382] 
12.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she received any reports indicating the level of support among women for her Government’s policies to improve labour force participation announced last week? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have seen reports of the views of many women quite a lot of whom are very supportive of policy that provides opportunity and choice for women. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Government have any plans to survey working-age women to find out their work-life aspirations to ensure that Government policy reflects what women want; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No we do not have such plans. Government policy is very supportive of women making choices that are the best for them and their families. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Prime Minister agree it is ironic that only last year her Government claimed to acknowledge in the  
Achieving Balanced Lives and Employment 
 report the frustrations of women who felt contributions made by unpaid carers and voluntary workers were not valued in this country yet suddenly this year their concerns are not significant; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Their concerns most certainly are significant and are fully taken account of.
Pettis Jill: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11037] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am surprised at that member’s rather revealing and Freudian comments about attitudes towards the farming community. I suspect that his comments reflect perhaps something that he might think but not necessarily say out loud and it most certainly is an attitude that is not shared by this Government. 
This bill has a high level of industry support. That was demonstrated by the very strong support that came through in the referendum held in the farming sector in August last year with a very strong result in favour. The bill will enable greater safeguarding of the benefits that will flow from access to quota markets greater accountability to levy payers and the capture of those synergies and cost efficiencies that are achievable in joint delivery of meat and wool industry-good functions. This is a good bill and I believe it is in the interests of the sector to get it passed as quickly as possible.
Hunt Jonathan: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Referral to Education and Science Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms  (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Referral to Education and Science Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18805] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration and that the committee finally report the bill to the House by 3 June 2005 since when an amendment has been moved by the Hon Nick Smith to omit the words “and that the committee finally report the bill to the House by 3 June 2005”.
Hide Rodney: Obituaries — Ronald Reagan—Former United States President  
Hide Rodney: Obituaries — Ronald Reagan—Former United States President  
[Volume:618;Page:13542] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party endorses the motion from the Prime Minister. If I may respond to the Rt Hon Winston Peters I know that in his own special way he is wishing me the best and is congratulating me. 
Ronald Reagan was a great man a great American and a great President. As a consequence of his administration and his leadership of the United States of America today we live in a freer and more prosperous world. That legacy of his will go down through the generations. Who could have imagined when he started his presidency that a former leader of the Soviet Union would be paying his respects in person in the way that Mikhail Gorbachev did? Ronald Reagan was a great man and he is a reminder and an inspiration to us all—his optimism his always looking to the future and his belief always in the very best of the people whom he represented. Ronald Reagan please rest in peace.
Mapp Wayne: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15422] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What do you think of those comments?
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6346] 
11.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Why has the Government decided to initiate a review into the circumstances surrounding the search and rescue response to the boating accident off the Oamaru coast on 11 May 2003? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Transport 
: The Government asked the Search and Rescue Council to review the circumstances surrounding the search and rescue response to the Oamaru boating incident because of concerns about the timeliness and adequacy of that response. 
David Parker 
: What is the purpose of the review? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The purpose of the review is to establish what occurred following the incident whether any improvements in current search and rescue arrangements and procedures are necessary and to make any changes if required. The purpose is to learn from the incident not to allocate any blame.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 11 February 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 11 February 
[Volume:615;Page:10997] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 11 February 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Last Wednesday in response to a question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters I said that for the financial year ended 30 June 2003 Television New Zealand employees had made 28 trips to international conventions and trade fairs at a cost of $380000. Now that TVNZ has had time to carefully analyse all the figures for the year I can advise that the correct figures are 38 trips at the lower cost of $340347. I take this opportunity the first opportunity I am able to present to the House the information that corrects TVNZ’s information to me.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21479] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15885] 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: Who decided that Nanaia Mahuta’s submission “received outside the parameters set by the committee” would be heard and what process was followed in making that decision? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 The committee’s independent specialist adviser made that decision. The process he followed was to select submitters who could bring additional new or fresh perspective to the committee’s deliberation and issues. 
Rodney Hide 
: Was it an independent adviser who made the decision to hear Nanaia Mahuta not the committee itself? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The committee resolved—an ACT member being present—to ask the independent adviser to assemble a list of suggested extra submitters. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Did the specialist adviser consult with the chair of the committee when selecting the extra submitters including Nanaia Mahuta; if not why not? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: As much as he consulted with Dr Wayne Mapp. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will have a direct answer thank you. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was it not a fact that he and his colleagues in the Labour Party were running scared at the time of a hikoi being organised by Nanaia Mahuta and therefore decided to lean over backwards and accommodate her even though her submission was right outside the parameters as he himself said? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: No.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6784] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Donald Rod: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
Donald Rod: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
[Volume:607;Page:4293] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave for this House to stand for a minute’s silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Barker Rick: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19935] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Building Issues 
: I move  
That the Registered Architects Bill be now read a third time 
. I am pleased to begin the bill’s final passage through the House as this bill represents the balanced path for the regulation of architects that both industry and consumers have been seeking. 
The debate in the Committee stage was very interesting and I want to applaud Murray Smith for his clear exposition of why clause 7(1A) of Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the Minister’s name should stand. He hit the nail exactly on the head when he put together the “prepares plans and specifications” provision in respect of buildings. The three things should be read together. We had some debate in the House that people who were architects of a financial plan were somehow going to be covered by this bill. This bill is about buildings so Mike Ward was exactly on the money as well. 
Dail Jones 
: No this bill is about architects. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Architects—yes that is right. The second thing I want to do is to reassure members of the ACT party who were concerned about the title “overseas agencies”. The whole purpose of the part was to be able to make a distinction between qualifications people have as academic qualifications and qualifications they have as professional qualifications. People will be able to use their titles in relation to architecture if they have qualifications from an overseas university. They will be able to write about them and say they have them but they will not be able to put those forward as if they were professional qualifications unless they are consistent with the rules provided under this legislation and therefore registered. So the bill is making a very clear distinction. I want to reassure the ACT party that people will be able to write about and have their qualifications relating to architecture on letterheads and otherwise providing they are not putting those forward as if they were professional qualifications—unless they are registered and compliant with the legislation. The bill is making a clear distinction which I think the member Stephen Franks has missed. 
This is a very good bill which has been around for a long time. I thank Stephen Franks for his comments on the symmetry of the bill. I am sure its writer Margaret Wilson would be very pleased to hear his comments of admiration.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7395] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20985] 
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 9; 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 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) and substitute the following new subparagraph: 
(i)the close of the day that is 7 months after the sending date of the previous notice; and.
Peck Mark: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Peck Mark: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17928] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mark Ron: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5389] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fail to see that what that member said had anything to do with the bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Jones Dail: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8217] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 In considering this legislation I note in particular clauses 12 and 13. I am reminded of the problems that were associated with the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act 2002 which is referred to in clause 13. In a speech quite similar to the one we have just heard from the Associate Minister of Finance David Cunliffe we were informed that it was the usual washing-up legislation it was to go to the Regulations Review Committee and there would be no problems with it. Last year we discovered that the Government—and I refer to clause 13—had a problem with at least $140 million worth of bills and charges made to fishermen. We had considerable difficulties with that legislation and the Government was terribly embarrassed by the way in which it had behaved under it. As I understand it there was a settlement of somewhere around $20 million to $40 million as a result of the Government’s behaviour with regard to the previous year’s subordinate legislation that had been validated. 
In this particular legislation I note that there is again something to do with the Fisheries Act 1996. Nowadays in this House anything that says “fisheries” has to be looked at very carefully. Clause 7l refers to the Fisheries (Removal of Packhorse Rock Lobster from Eighth Schedule) Order. I would not know what a packhorse rock lobster was but anyone who is interested and has been affected by the packhorse rock lobster legislation or regulations should take a close interest in this bill. 
I am a member of the Regulations Review Committee and New Zealand First will be looking at this bill closely at the select committee.
Shirley Ken: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8802] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You wish to assist the Chair? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes that is exactly what I wish to do. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 114/1 made by Mr Speaker Tapsell in 1996. It makes the point: “Leave should only be sought to table papers that are not readily available from other sources. The tabling of a document is not an occasion to make a point;”. That is relevant in this case because the Deputy Leader of the House was of his own admission attempting to make a point. He said he wanted to counter the suggestion that in essence he had told porkies. That was his verification of that so he was attempting to make a point. I put it to you now that under that Speaker’s ruling perhaps he should never have been allowed to table it in the first instance. I seek your clarification of Speaker’s ruling 114/1 as it relates to the sequence of events that have occurred here tonight. Would you like me to repeat that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I was listening intently to it. I am aware of what you have said and I thank you for it. Was there someone else who wished to give advice on that? No there is not.
Hawkins George: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8405] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I support the passage of this bill. 
Bill read a first time.
Hawkins George: Gambling Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hawkins George: Gambling Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19853] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This short bill amends the Gambling Act to allow licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. The amendment also extends to community trustees where a licensing trust reconstitutes as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act. 
The Gambling Act prohibits licensing trusts themselves from operating gaming machines. However some gaming-machine societies that are not licensing trusts operate machines on licensing trust premises. The Act also imposes a strict separation between the people who run the commercial premises in which gaming machines are operated and the people who control the proceeds from gaming machines at those premises. That currently prevents licensing trust members from having any input into decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds and on the operation of gambling machines when the societies concerned operate machines on licensing trust premises. 
The bill exempts licensing trust members and community trustees from that separation of functions in order to reflect their unique position as elected members who are accountable to their local communities. It continues to prohibit licensing trusts themselves from operating gaming machines. 
Finally I would like to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for their consideration of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
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:17053] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Other: Nanaia Mahuta. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 33(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit the word “either” and to substitute the word “any”.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
[Volume:615;Page:11003] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want you to consider a suggestion from us that this question is quite out of order. If you look at all the other questions on the sheet—and I will focus particularly on questions Nos 2 4 7 and 9—you will see that each of them was accepted by the Clerk’s Office because we took down to that office substantial verification and justification for the question being asked. I ask you to rule on this because we are going into new territory if we in the Opposition will be able to go to the Clerk’s Office and have questions lodged on the basis of a suggestion. How do you verify a suggestion and if in fact the suggestion is made how do you link that to any ministerial responsibility whatsoever? I think it is clear enough where the question is trying to go to. But it is fair to say that the question in the circumstances relating to the way in which it has been worded clearly sits outside the Standing Orders and we suspect that some of what we have known to be going on around the question process is at play in this situation. This question should be ruled out of order and forfeited by the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will have a look at that issue. We will leave this question for now and come back to it later.
Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
[Volume:613;Page:9637] 
Points of Order 
Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is some interest in the issue of the Hon Judith Tizard. You said that at the conclusion of question time you would deal with the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said I would do so when she returned to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: OK. That is all right.
Sowry Roger: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Sowry Roger: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8656] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have one matter following on from that point and a second one concerning the statement you made at 2 o’clock. Concerning your undertaking to come back to the Parliament on this matter you made two comments on the issue raised by Mr Peters. Your first comment was that you had no recollection of the event and your second comment following Mr Franks’ intervention was that you did recall a conversation with Mr Franks on this very event in the Parliament. We need to be satisfied about how that difference occurred. 
The other point relates to the same issue with regard to your memory. You said you had no knowledge of the police speaking to your office about Mr Ardern’s case but in your statement to the House on Thursday you said: “The police indicated to my office that they intended to interview Mr Ardern.” I ask you to clarify when you knew the police had spoken to your office because if you did not know about it at the time and the police were speaking to your office and your office was not telling you that then that goes exactly to the point I made—about members needing to have confidence in the Speakership and the office that surrounds the Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that point of order. As I recollect—and I have sought clarity on that—I heard about it just as I was about to rule. I certainly did not know about it at the time.