edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14126] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 4 I am very pleased to see that provision was made for Northport the company that the Hon Dover Samuels had a substantial part in creating and developing in his early years before he came to this Parliament. It is a progressive and inter-regional company as it now has a joint working arrangement with the Port of Tauranga. By the way this was something that the Local Government and Environment Committee ought not have had to amend as that very issue was brought to the mind of the select committee at the time of the first bill. Nevertheless time passes and the improvement is there. 
The other issue that I want to speak about is that because of some of its parts New Zealand First did not support the 2002 bill. The issue I particularly want to mention right now is the one just covered by the Hon Dr Nick Smith—the number of plans and processes that that bill required. One does not need to go to Statistics New Zealand; if one did a search of local papers now as councils are setting rates one would see the thousands and thousands of dollars—hundreds of thousands of dollars in the case of some councils—that ratepayers are paying for an imposed Wellington process layer by layer. That is only the beginning because there is provision in that 2002 Act for the process to be redeveloped at least twice before 2007. I do not think those issues were fully understood by all when bravely they set out this whole process. 
New Zealand First is a party that believes in the democratic process but this planning issue which had been gone through council by council will be the most costly impost that any Government has imposed upon local government in our time. I do not think that is reasonable. Even recent Acts such as the activities that now have to be covered under the Prostitution Reform Act would not have covered even a tenth of the cost of ratepayers’ involvement in this process. At the end of it all that process has only marginally I believe improved ratepayers’ knowledge of what happens in their councils day-to-day. So with those words the select committee’s change allowing Northport an understanding that was not there before is finally recognised. 
The cost of the long-term planning and other plans that were a part of the work of the 2002 Act needs to be analysed and measured. Certainly I know that as some councillors set the rates for 2005-06 and go back to the costs further incurred in this next financial year they will be surprised at how much this imposed solution to democracy locally has had upon them. To that degree though we support this part.
Dyson Ruth: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15307] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will take a call from the Hon Nick Smith who has put an amendment but I point out to Dr Smith that there is only about 1 minute to go before I have to report progress.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19449] 
12.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: What decisions has the Government made regarding New Zealand Scholarship in 2005? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Cabinet yesterday considered the report of the Scholarship Reference Group a group of noted education leaders asked to provide advice and recommendations on this year’s scholarship examinations. The Government has endorsed their key recommendations and would like to acknowledge the work of that group in this forum. One key recommendation is that scholarships should be awarded to an agreed target percentage of students in every subject set within a range of 2 to 3 percent of the number of students taking that subject at National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 3 thus giving certainty as to the number of students receiving scholarships. 
Helen Duncan 
: How will New Zealand Scholarship be assessed in 2005? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is the Government’s intention to continue with standards-based assessment for New Zealand Scholarship. The Scholarship Reference Group did not recommend for or against the standards-based examination. What it requested was an examination that is designed in such a way that “student performance can be assessed against an assessment schedule that ensures a ranking of candidates is produced by marks or grades”. This provides the certainty that the Government required for there to be no repetition of the difficulties with this year’s scholarship examination.
Vote: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10330] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill name changed to Health (National Cervical Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill.
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:20984] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; 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 Dail Jones to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) the words “the accused or the offender” and substitute the words “the victim”.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5594] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules stand part. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 54 
Schedules agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19196] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 72 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Simich(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Swain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Robson(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 48 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turia(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Turner   
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy (P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hide (P) 
Ryall(P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Shirley (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time.
Tizard Judith: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Tizard Judith: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:611;Page:8690] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
.
Alexander Marc: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3954] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I would like to submit that this bill should be called the “It’s About Time Bill” because it has been a long time coming. The purpose of the bill which is to merge the Racing Industry Board and the Totalisator Agency Board into a single statutory body to simplify the governance of the racing industry has been asked for for a very long time. It is about time that we put it to the vote and pass it. The racing industry needs the legislation. It has been begging for it for a very long time. 
As has already been stated the bill is the result of the 1997 review. An audit found that the current industry racing structures are ineffective. The bill will give the legislative grounds to design and implement a management and organisational structure to set up a joint group. It will be far more efficient and it will take away a lot of the inefficiencies. We have a few concerns but we are glad that the bill is finally before the House. We think it should be called the “It’s About Time Bill” just to emphasis the relevance of that fact. 
One of the areas we need to look at is the prohibition of races on Easter Sunday. This is echoed in our amendment and I am convinced that the Committee will welcome it. Other amendments will probably be necessary to make the legislation workable including support for an appeals process against decisions by the board in relation to the revocation of race dates. We will also probably support an amendment that provides for some fairness in the distribution process but that comes later. 
The main aim of the bill is to unite two facets of the racing industry. The industry has been asking for this to happen and we are now jointly giving it the legislation to facilitate it. As I said the bill should be called the “It’s About Time Bill”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call Dr Paul Hutchison I remind members that clause 1 is not an opportunity to debate the purpose or principles of the bill. There will be an opportunity to do that when Part 1 is debated. I refer members that the title of this particular bill is the Racing Bill.
Hughes Darren: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20516] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the voting results from the 1999 vote on the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act so that the member can return to some substantial arguments rather than personal attack. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Power Simon: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22281] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Briefly—I have ruled. 
SIMON POWER 
: I accept that. But it raises another interesting question. How are we to know whether an amendment is relevant if it is not contained in an explanatory note on the reverse of the Supplementary Order Paper? That is the very question we are asking. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That will be a matter for the Chairperson Mr Power but thank you for drawing it to my attention.
Brown Peter: General Debates 
Brown Peter: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6571] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes. I am seeking clarification. Mr Brownlee’s comment was a question and he had to withdraw and apologise. We had a specific insult from the Government member and he has not had to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the Minister was asked to withdraw. That is the end of the matter. I call the Hon Matt Robson.
Jones Dail: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
Jones Dail: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14154] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to make sure that no one else wants to take a call. I am giving members the chance to go for the call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18640] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4A be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 3B(4) of the principal Act by inserting before the word “persons” where it first appears the words “the overwhelming majority of”.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa 
[Volume:607;Page:4503] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Stephen Franks seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 a deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Ngati Awa. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but as the member acknowledges in his letter the deed of settlement will require legislation for its implementation. The House will therefore have plenty of opportunity to consider its implications while passing the legislation. I see no reason for the House to set aside its business for an urgent debate on the deed today.
Turei Metiria: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5355] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Let me first give an expression of support for the last contribution for its elucidation of the important issues and say how grateful the Greens are to hear other Pakeha standing in this House in defence of issues surrounding Maori. 
The Greens support this bill. We are very pleased to have a dedicated television channel established where te reo will be a high-priority language where the Maori perspective on local national and international issues will be aired and where images of Maori from every area of life will be shown and valued. We believe that this channel is a clear example of how a treaty right—that is the protection of te reo through broadcasting—can contribute to the development of the whole nation. This television station is sourced primarily in the community of this country and opens huge opportunities for much broader analysis and dissemination of New Zealand – focused news and current affairs. That can only contribute to a much better national understanding of ourselves as a community and a nation. 
The broadcast of information about tikanga Maori will also increase the nation’s understanding of Maori values and concepts. Maori continue to be used as a political football and often as a weapon to alarm. I think we can point very directly to the contribution from the ACT party this evening as an example of the way that Maori and Maori issues are used as a weapon to increase concerns and fears amongst the New Zealand public that have absolutely no basis. This television station will help to alleviate in some way some of those fears which are driven by a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding of both traditional and contemporary Maori existence. I need only point to the ACT party’s previous contribution from Deborah Coddington. Her aggressive and derogatory comment during the Committee stage about tikanga Maori was a further clear illustration of the levels of ignorance and fear expressed by some people on Maori issues. 
We are also delighted that the Greens’ amendments to the bill have been incorporated so that there now is much greater protection against political interference in the programming and greater protection of delivery of the service should it be provided by a third party in the future. 
Finally we are very pleased to vote in favour of this bill and look forward to its eventual establishment. Kia ora koutou.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13382] 
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 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5015] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Clause 1 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Party 8.
Personal Explanations — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Personal Explanations — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:625;Page:19785] 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This afternoon on a point of order I told the House that the Local Government and Environment Committee had issued a press release stating simply that we had met in private with Judge Bollard the Principal Environment Court Judge in relation to the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. The select committee decided to issue such a release on Friday at its meeting in Auckland last week. Because it was a straight statement of fact I did not expect that it would be run past me before release and I expected that it would have been issued yesterday. I was wrong. The clerk’s intention was always to put it in the weekly omnibus release that goes out on a Friday. Our resolution was not in time to make the 11 o’clock deadline last Friday so it was to be issued next Friday. I apologise if I have misled the House about that. The release has not been issued. The committee decided that it would be issued but it has not yet been published.
Turei Metiria: General Debates 
Turei Metiria: General Debates 
[Volume:615;Page:11105] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I commend the speech that occurred just before I stood up. I want to recite a poem—a little poem by Lewis Carroll: 
“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried 
As he landed his crew with care;  
Supporting each man on the top of the tide 
By a finger entwined in his hair. 
“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: 
That alone should encourage the crew.  
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: 
What I tell you three times is true.”
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16393] 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Did the former Lincoln University vice-chancellor who resigned last year receive a golden handshake; if so what was the value of that payment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I am advised that the total remuneration reported in the recent annual report of the State Services Commissioner included salary from January to October 2003. Other contractual entitlements at the last day of duty end in an ex gratia payment made at the discretion of and within the authority of the council of Lincoln University after it had received legal advice. I understand that the council decided to make that payment rather than to pay extended sick leave to someone who had that entitlement. I was briefed on the matter after it became clear that there had been an inappropriate relationship with a student and that— 
Judith Collins 
: Obviously not sick enough. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Members might think that these are laughing matters but I take them seriously. I was briefed on the matter after it became clear that there had been an inappropriate relationship with a student and that the State Services Commission was not informed of that relationship when it was consulted on the proposed ex gratia payment. I should note however that there was not a statutory requirement to consult on that payment; it was something that was entirely at the discretion of the council of Lincoln University. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Prime Minister said: “This Government wants to abandon the culture of golden handshakes negotiated in secret” did the Minister think that she meant that anyone who was leaving a job under a cloud would still be entitled to “payment of contractual entitlements at last day of duty” instead of a golden handshake and is this the terminology we can expect to hear from Douglas White QC? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Some of us are very concerned about the payment made to Dr Wood. Some of us think it was inappropriate. Unfortunately in this case there was no requirement for concurrence from the State Services Commission or from any Minister. I regret that the payment was made. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister then confirm that Mr Wood as the former vice-chancellor of Lincoln University did receive a golden handshake which was against the known Government policy and that he was the Minister responsible? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am the Minister responsible for the commission and I am the responsible Minister for payments in universities. I regret the fact that the university attempted to bring forward the resignation of Dr Wood who at the time was suffering from a life-threatening illness and was wanting to move forward. I think we should make it clear that Frank Wood was appointed to the job at the New Zealand Qualifications Authority by the previous Government and we do not condone his behaviour even if it does.
Simich Clem: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
Simich Clem: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
[Volume:622;Page:18096] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. It is a technical issue and it is being worked on right at this moment. The intention is not to inconvenience or disadvantage members at all. As to my advice to members I think they should just proceed along their normal course.
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5740] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 There is no intention to limit the right that anybody already has. The aim is to try to maximise. If a member wanted to have a 5-minute call and then seek another call later that is of course in the Standing Orders and that is not to be affected in any way. 
Peter Brown 
: Are there four calls? 
JOHN CARTER 
: At the moment I think we are still limited to the four 5-minute calls but from memory we took the limit off the number of calls did we not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think that was right. No the limit did not come off. Just to help the situation in the Committee could I suggest that the right course of action might be that some honourable member seek the leave of the Committee to have more than four calls. Is that what the member is saying? 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is what I am saying. Are you saying to have more than four calls as well? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just thinking of the concerns being expressed by New Zealand First and trying to accommodate the Committee. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No can we just do the first thing first? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The reason I do that is that some members have already had three calls so it means they will at least get one more call. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes but they can have four calls now can they not as of right? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the leave of the Committee is given. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No they can as of right under the Standing Orders have up to four calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes they can have up to four calls but some of them have already had three. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes I know. I do not know that the Committee is that keen to give anyone more than four 5-minute calls. A 20-minute contribution on a bill like this is probably sufficient. We could seek leave but I suspect it might be turned down. So could we just put the leave that I have asked for first which will not interfere with the concern Mr Brown has expressed? That is not a problem; so if we could have multiple calls up to three calls— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I suggest then that we might like to seek leave to have more than one call in a row? 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is what I am seeking leave for yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Vote: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19889] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 358 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7780] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I have tabled an amendment and I seek leave that it be put before the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment as the dates are different and it would be appropriate that my amendment be put first. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “1st day of January 2006”.
Shirley Ken: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7782] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I fully concur with the comments made by Mr Sowry. I was somewhat surprised when the debate on Part 1 was closed down. I am not relitigating that matter but I did observe that the co-leader of the Greens Mr Rod Donald had been anxiously seeking a call. I was equally surprised when he voted for the closure motion having sought a call but be that as it may. 
My concern is that we spent a very short period on Part 1. This bill amends the Electoral Act but the bill has not been to a select committee. We are sitting under urgency and I just point out that we spent more time on the title than we did on Part 1; and by no means did we spend too much time on the title. Some very interesting facts were given and points made by members but the debate on Part 1 was truncated compared with the time we spent on the title. I support Mr Sowry’s point of order and urge you to give the Committee sufficient time to debate fully these very important provisions which are causing so much concern. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank all members who made a contribution. It is the custom for the title to be a long wide-ranging debate and that was permitted. It is not necessarily that way when it comes to debates on the parts. I have taken on board what members have said and I will attempt to give everyone a fair go at taking part in the debate.
Goff Phil: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Goff Phil: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20646] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee  
referred to Justice and Electoral Committee 
for consideration and that the committee have the authority to meet at any while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Were the conditions suspending the Standing Orders notified to the House at the beginning of this debate? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I can confirm that. If the member was here he would know it.
Burton Mark: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10680] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 In response to that member I remind him of one thing. The unemployment figure in this country is the lowest that it has been in a generation. That is the result of this Government’s policies. I read for the member a portion of the explanatory note: “Fair and productive employment relationships are an essential ingredient in developing a more innovative economy while protecting the more vulnerable in society.” That is what this bill is about. That is why I am proud to support it.
Parker David: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Parker David: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14870] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5912] 
9.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What progress has been made towards implementing the New Zealand waste strategy? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Very good progress has been made. Most councils have adopted the strategy. We are working with the private sector to help meet the strategy’s targets and last month we launched the Reduce Your Rubbish campaign aimed at encouraging individual people to reduce waste. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What evidence has the Minister seen indicating that the targets in the New Zealand waste strategy are being met? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The 2002 landfill review and audit shows that over 200 sub-standard landfills have been closed and that remaining landfills will be closed or upgraded in order to reduce their harmful effects. That indicates we are making excellent progress towards achieving our goal of closing or upgrading landfills by 2010. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Given the statement by Barry Carbon Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry for the Environment to the Local Government and Environment Committee that the only two quantifiable targets in the waste strategy—their targets that relate to the recycling of organic waste and access of the population to recycling services—were unlikely to be met does the Minister think that that represents good progress? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I refer to the introduction of kerbside recycling as a target. As it was introduced in Dunedin last month 90 percent of the population now has access to community recycling. So I think we are well on the way to reaching the targets set out in the New Zealand waste strategy of 95 percent accessibility by December 2005.
Pettis Jill: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pettis Jill: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6093. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to support this bill. The integration of Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand will be very good for provincial New Zealand. Excellent services have been provided by Industry New Zealand since this Government has been in power and I look forward to even more involvement in promoting industry in provincial New Zealand as a consequence of this bill. I am pleased to support it.
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4588] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 54 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Cullen Michael: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10762] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be postponed.
Tisch Lindsay: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13040] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been part of this debate since it started at 3.30 this afternoon. I have kept note of the number of calls and the time taken on the various parts. It is interesting that when we considered Part 1 which has five clauses we spent an hour and 10 minutes on it. We started Part 3 at near enough to 9.10 this evening—there are 24 clauses—and we have spent 35 minutes on those 24 clauses. The point I make is that there are members on this side of the Chamber who have been part of the debate right from Part 1. Simon Power was our next speaker and he has taken part in the debates. Mr Mark has been a consistent speaker for New Zealand First. I also have spoken on every part. This opportunity was not afforded to us because of the closure motion. 
It is our view that the closure motion was unnecessary. There have been calls from all parties on this side of the Chamber. Although National has been proactive in seeking calls it does not discount that New Zealand First or United Future should be disadvantaged by it when they have been part of the debates right through. I make the point very strongly that we are disappointed that you accepted the closure motion. We ask that when you move to the title debate you give fair consideration to the speakers who have not spoken.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8166] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to clause 169 be agreed to.
Okeroa Mahara: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Okeroa Mahara: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5012] 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In the hope that the next speaker is more relevant and speaks to the title I am going to call the honourable member Jim Peters.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
[Volume:620;Page:15797] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to Standing Order 366(4). On 21 September I lodged a written question with the Minister of Police relating to the Edwards case and the police decision not to prosecute. It was due for reply on 29 September. As of this morning the Minister’s office had not contrary to the Standing Orders replied at all. After some rather firm discussions between his office and mine this morning today at precisely 2 p.m. I received an answer. We often get a little frustrated in this House in relation to Ministers not answering questions. Right now I am left with the feeling that the Minister is deliberately flaunting the Standing Orders and toying with the Opposition in respect of answers. As the Standing Orders do not go beyond stating what recourse there is in order to bring Ministers into line I ask you Mr Speaker what protection you can offer the House to stop us simply being mucked around like that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member had come to me a little while ago I would have made sure that I used my office to get an answer pretty well straight away. But as he has asked me to look at that matter I will. 
Question time resumed.
Prebble Richard: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21881] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party and as members know we are not members of the Maori Affairs Committee. I listened with a great deal of interest to the points made by Mr Brownlee but I have to say that at the end of it I was not a great deal wiser. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We haven’t had the questions answered yet. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I know but I am asking the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui because it appears to me there is a question about adoption and what I am not sure about is whether the consensus is that people who have been adopted are included in the claimant group. 
Pita Paraone 
: They are. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I hear someone saying they are. Well I am not sure they are and I repeat I was not on the committee but we have here and have already passed it a definition of who is in and one has to be a descendant. So people who are adopted are not included. That would be my view. Then we might say they are included because there is the Adoption Act but clause 15(3) in Part 3 states: “Despite any other enactment or rule of law” which would make it seem to me that maybe the Adoption Act is one of those laws covered by that clause. I would like to know from the Minister—and it is not just important to me in voting but is fairly important to people who have been adopted and other members—what the Government’s view is. Are adoptees included? 
I can think of other situations—the Matrimonial Property Act; a wonderful piece of legislation that I have run up against a couple of times!—that can result in property settlements. Is that an enactment that has been ignored in terms of the words “despite any other enactment”? Is that one ignored? It may not be well known that as a result of the matrimonial property legislation and descent and the like some people who own Maori land in this country do not have a drop of Maori blood in them. That is a fact; there are such people. Does this bill when we say people have to be descended mean we are overriding that legislation? If we are that seems to me to be contrary to various principles that the House has adopted in the Adoption Act and that we have adopted in the matrimonial property legislation. 
No doubt the Minister will get some advice from his officials but I think that it is important at the Committee stage especially as Mr Brownlee says the matter was discussed extensively at the select committee that the rest of the members who were not on the committee can share that knowledge. I would like to know whether adoptees are in or out and then I would like to know what the principle was in deciding that. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable question and I hope the Minister will answer it because it is not only important to me but obviously important to people who have been adopted and important to their families and all of the claimants.
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16669] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There will be successive votes? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes there will be successive votes.
Barnett Tim: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19084] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to follow on from Keith Locke. I read with interest the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Nandor Tanczos. Initially I have to record two things. Firstly Nandor Tanczos is a very valued and trusted member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and it would have been very helpful if he had put these issues forward at the select committee stage as it would have enabled us to have had a fuller look at the proposals. Secondly a principle was very clearly laid out both in the work of the select committee—it certainly was not challenged at that stage—and in the commentary on the bill that has arisen from the select committee. The principle was that legislation that is currently under review should quite properly be dealt with through that review process. That applies to both pieces of legislation to which this Supplementary Order Paper refers. 
We have engaged in an extensive consultation process on the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill. The adoption law reform process has gone back for years. I have been on the select committee that has twice considered issues arising out of the Law Commission consideration of adoption. At the end of the day we had a split outcome from that committee. The official report was anodyne but Government members were very supportive among many other things of applying human rights standards to adoption. Currently that process is back in the Government machine and at some stage it will emerge. I think that is absolutely the proper place to deal with issues of adoption. 
It is not only these two pieces of legislation. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill which has just completed its second reading in the House also contains measures that are not in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill that are concerned with applying equal rights in terms of relationships. Insolvency legislation securities legislation reform and a number of other law reform processes are under way. Indeed the Wills Act 1837 (UK) which is the one difference between marriage legislation and civil union legislation—it does not include civil unions—is currently part of the Law Commission’s examination of succession law and therefore again we decided not to add civil unions to that. We have had a quite consistent approach in the select committee and for that reason certainly I urge the Committee not to accept the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Nandor Tanczos.
Clark Helen: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
Clark Helen: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
[Volume:620;Page:15361] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note with deep sorrow the deaths of hundreds of people and the traumatisation of so many others in the school hostage crisis in Beslan Russia and extend the deepest sympathy of New Zealand to the people of Russia and to the families which have suffered such terrible losses. 
This terrorist attack is a terrible tragedy for Russia and the condolences of the House go to all the families and communities devastated by it. The appalling loss of life and the large number of children among the dead highlight the complete lack of humanity of those responsible. There can be no justification for terror; around the world there is horror at what has happened. I am sure that all New Zealanders will join this House in deploring this brutality and sharing in the sorrow of the parents families and communities of Russia who have lost children loved ones and valued members.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20118] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)Subject to subsection (2) of this section every person born in New Zealand on or after the 1st day of January 1949 shall be a New Zealand citizen by birth.
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 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; 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 Deborah Coddington to clause 15(1) be agreed to: 
to insert after the words “acquire” the words “by agreement”.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council 
[Volume:610;Page:7633] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that the Hon Mr Ahmed Qurie Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon Mr Ahmed Qurie accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.