edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Address to HerExcellency the Governor-General—Presentation 
Address to HerExcellency the Governor-General—Presentation 
[Volume:617;Page:13215] 
Address to HerExcellency the Governor-General—Presentation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise that last evening accompanied by members I attended upon Her Excellency the Governor-General with the Address agreed to by the House to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the first sitting of the House. Her Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: 
MR SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
I am delighted as Her Majesty’s representative and participant in the law-making process to be present with you on this anniversary day. 
I am happy to endorse the sentiments that you have expressed. 
Silvia Cartwright 
Governor-General 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Her Excellency’s reply be entered in the  
Journals of the House. 
Motion agreed to.
Catchpole Brent: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Catchpole Brent: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14870] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 As we all know this bill was the result of an inquiry into the weathertightness of homes and the leaky homes problem that we had. It was recommended that there be some changes and this bill is the result. I would just like to pick up on a point made by one of the previous National speakers who claimed that it was National that brought about the inquiry into the weathertightness of homes. I find that laughable because New Zealand First could also make exactly those same claims. We did exactly the same amount of work on that problem. However we are not going to make the same claim as National. We could do but the real claim to the weathertight homes inquiry into the leaky homes was in actual fact the direct actions and the direct result of Prendos and the O’Sullivan brothers. They had a huge hand in that. For years they lobbied the Building Industry Authority the industry and also the Minister. It was not John Tamihere the Minister who is in the chair now it was the Minister of Internal Affairs who refused to acknowledge— 
Brian Connell 
: Who was that? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: It was George Hawkins. He refused to acknowledge that there was a growing problem. The other thing was that he was being very poorly advised by the head of the Building Industry Authority Dr Porteous. He failed to acknowledge or take any action. He had all the evidence put in front of him time and time again. Even when the information from the Hunn report was put in front of the head of the Building Industry Authority he failed to do anything. He refused to acknowledge that there was anything happening. Even the Barrett report from Canada was put in front of him to show what was happening. He failed to acknowledge and follow up on it. It was Prendos and the O’Sullivan brothers who eventually went to the media and published the problem. 
Before any action was done one can go back 2 years to find those media releases and media claims that were being published but everybody was ignoring them. That was the real catalyst and the real ones who were behind bringing the weathertight homes inquiry into the leaky homes problem. It had been happening for years and nobody else would acknowledge it. But Prendos did not give up and I give credit for that. That company did a lot of work in eventually forcing the inquiry and finally we end up with a rewrite of the Building Bill which is what we have here today. This will go a long way to avoiding a similar situation provided everybody acknowledges that the Building Bill is important and that they also had a part to play in the weathertight homes problems.
Gudgeon Bill: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Gudgeon Bill: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17613] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 I begin by sharing the views of Winston Churchill on the family. He said that the foundation and stability of our communities and the society we live in are dependent on the stability of our families. That is very important for each and every one of us to hear tonight. 
I will go back a few years. I was professionally trained in jungle warfare. There came the time when we had to go out on operations in combat. Before we went on our first operation our platoon commander asked us: “Men are you ready?”. [ 
Interruption 
] We were not married then. Then he said: “You have a choice. You know what is going to happen when we go out.” The total report back to our platoon commander was that we would take what was coming. I ask that member across the Chamber whether he would accept the public asking us as members of Parliament to take on a referendum. There will be no bullets flying his way as there were when I accepted that challenge. Would he accept the challenge of taking upon his shoulders a referendum of the citizens of New Zealand? Yes or no? 
Jill Pettis 
: Desperado! 
BILL GUDGEON 
: We are not desperate. Those members are the ones who will be desperate. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: We have constituents; you don’t. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: That is fine. I am prepared to put my future on the line. Are they? When the Prostitution Reform Act was passed I listened to some of the Labour Party members say that they had gone around Papakura with the police and had seen all their young female relatives becoming prostitutes. It is all in  
Hansard 
. Now those same people are turning against the very things they voted for in terms of the Prostitution Reform Act. The theme of the conference I attended in South Africa was AIDS. That is a health problem for over 14 million people. Where did it start? 
Lianne Dalziel 
: More than that! 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Yes and it is starting to creep through the Pacific. There is a concern in the Islands. Will the minority Labour Government accept the challenge of a referendum? 
I also have a challenge for the United Future party. Why did it allow the bill to come into the House? Just like with the Prostitution Reform Act without that party’s support this bill would not have got to this stage. So now I challenge United Future members as to why they do not want to accept New Zealand First’s challenge of a referendum. Then we would see whom the public supports. Labour members should answer. 
Craig McNair 
: There is no answer. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Let us have it. I ask Mr Carter why he does not accept the challenge. There are many people sitting in the gallery who may be for or against the bill. Let them hear the Labour members. 
Craig McNair 
: They think they know best. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Do Labour members know best? I thought this was a democratic country. Their fathers and my fathers fought for that freedom. I did and now I challenge them. I did not do it for nothing. Accept the challenge! We should have a referendum. I disagree with my colleague Mr Donnelly.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8223] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 42 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of Pita Paraone to insert a definition of “optometrist” in clause 240(3) be agreed to.
Stewart Barbara: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20290] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support clauses 1 and 2. When we look at the title of a bill it should be very short it should be specific it should be clear and it should also leave the reader in no doubt as to what the legislation is about. In this instance the title is a little more difficult to decipher. It does not quite meet that test. We know that this is the third bill to implement reforms to accident compensation and this is one bill that we are particularly pleased to see. New Zealand First is of the opinion that claims and compensation for medical misadventure need to be monitored to ensure that claimants are treated fairly. We hope that this comes about with this bill. 
We like other MPs have received many complaints from constituents about medical misadventure so we are very happy to agree to the changes in the definitions contained within this bill. The processes in place prior to this bill definitely needed to be more streamlined more fair and more equitable for claimants. The rules and regulations governing accident compensation claimants need to be very clearly understood and very clearly applied and this will occur with this bill. 
In the past the punitive environment that was part of accident compensation was extremely short-sighted and we particularly like to see the attempt to implement a programme in the “no blame” system that has been put in place under this bill to improve the medical safety cultures of health professionals and their knowledge. That is really great. The biggest gains hopefully will be that there will be fewer claims for medical misadventure because medical professionals like everybody else can learn from their mistakes. 
Like other Opposition parties too we are concerned about the increased costs that may arise in relation to this bill particularly when the Department of Labour has calculated that costs will increase by $8.69 million annually and there will be a one-off transitional cost of $12 million. That is quite considerable particularly in light of the fact that the department commented that it had been very difficult to obtain data upon which to base claim number predictions and costings. We hope these costings are relatively accurate. 
Like the other Opposition parties we also want to see the anomalies concerning acupuncturists resolved very promptly. They have been ongoing for a lengthy time. We would like to see an end to this acupuncture debate and for acupuncturists to come under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. I see that the Minister agrees as well. So New Zealand First will be supporting clauses 1 and 2 and we look forward to their implementation.
Peck Mark: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peck Mark: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4667] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a very short call on this bill. I have listened to two most extraordinary speeches. I congratulate Marc Alexander on what I thought was a considered contribution to the debate but Katherine Rich and Judy Turner— 
Opposition Members 
: Not Judy Turner; it was Barbara Stewart. 
MARK PECK 
: I do apologise to the member. These things happen. I am sure people forget my name from time to time. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s right Robbie. 
MARK PECK 
: That’s all right Gerry! I do apologise to the member. 
This shock-horror-conspiracy theory has just got me stumped. I have had a look at the bill. The bill is 2 pages long. The explanatory note is longer. The bill emanates from the Commerce Committee work on reviewing the charter which it must do once every 5 years. It recommended in the immortal words of one of our former colleagues the Hon Stan Rodger some minor technical changes to the bill that probably could have been much better dealt with by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. But no there is shock and horror because we have changed two or three words— added “spiritual and ethical” broadened “varied interests” and things of that ilk. There is no conspiracy in this. This bill should take no time at all to work through the select committee. We should do it as a matter or urgency because the second 5-yearly review is due very soon. We should waste no more time of the House on this bill. Let us get it to the select committee. 
I do not know who we will ask to make submissions to be frank. The people who have already submitted on the bill are probably the only ones who will be interested at any rate. We look forward to it being referred on and we will process it quickly.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8704] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to the definition of  
credit fees 
 the following paragraph: 
(f)any commission or fee charged by a broker and known to the creditor.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4407] 
2.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What reports has he received on the public response to the Government web portal? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 The e-government unit of the State Services Commission reports a steady flow of inquiries and feedback from the public indicating that our one-stop shop approach has been very successful. There has been a significant and consistent increase in traffic tracking—25 percent greater than the track for the previous Government site. In February this year for example more than 96000 visitors were recorded and despite this increased traffic I am told that people are getting results back in under 1 second. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: How are individual agencies responding to increased usage of the portal? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A number of agencies are re-using the information that people find valuable to recreate low-cost specialist portals to meet the needs of particular groups—for example work-site focuses on labour market information. I expect to see a number of those kinds of sites developed building on the work already done with the State Services Commission and the agencies.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5404] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 46 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4126] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to some quite unreasonable time frames in terms of Ministers replying to written questions. In answer to my written questions Nos 16334 to 16336 Mr Maharey provided an interim answer and said he would endeavour to provide a final answer to the library which I imagined would occur within a reasonable time frame. That was 2 months ago and I seek your assistance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that with me. It will be investigated by me within the next few hours.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8930] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6857] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10294] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will not allow the word “bribery”. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I withdraw and apologise. Perhaps another title could be the “United Future Venality Bill”. The bill is an attempt to keep United Future supporting a Government that strangely enough has been described by Mr Dunne himself as a trendy-lefty think-pink party. He has described the Prime Minister as being hijacked by the thought police and the Labour Party as hand-wringing sickly white liberals. That is the Labour Party as described by Mr Dunne which he continues to support because of the $28 million venality bill. 
What will the bill give us? It will give us a commission with three to seven commissioners. It creates a commission and an expensive office will be set up to replicate work already being done in the community. How much money will be wasted on establishing an office on administration costs on the letterheads on the logo design and on all of the fancy accoutrements relating to those things simply to replicate work that is already being done in the community? We could call this bill the “Family Issues Replication Bill” the “Snatching Scarce Resources from the Community Bill” or the “Another Bureaucracy Bill” as the previous member has already mooted. 
No doubt the seven commissioners will be well paid soaking up scarce funds that are needed by grassroots organisations in order to stroke the ego of Mr Peter Dunne. That is no criticism of any future commissioners; I am sure that they will all be competent and well intentioned. No the criticism is reserved for United Future which is prepared to force this waste to occur then abuse members who point out the deep flaws. The title of this bill does not even begin to describe what the bill does in any shape or form.
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17170] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have answered the member’s question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes you have—I accept that and that is fine. I am asking for further clarification. It is interesting to know whether that proportionality or the decisions of the Chair are affected by the ongoing contributions from the Government. It was surprising to us that having spoken very early in this part the Hon Parekura Horomia just two speeches ago decided to give another contribution that brought in I have to say quite new material. I want to know whether the opportunity to respond to that in a proportionate way will be part of the Chair’s consideration.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have already answered the question. It is taken into account.
Officer Presiding: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Officer Presiding: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6505] 
The CHAIRPERSON 
: Some confusion has arisen over a provision to do with the actual workings of the bill. The Minister has tabled the necessary parts to the bill for members to look at but members consider that that is not sufficient. They have therefore sought your ruling on this particular aspect of the legislation.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20536] 
7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 on behalf of  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “Mr Robinson is a strong and principled Commissioner”; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because that is what I believe and that is his reputation. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in the Commissioner of Police and his performance? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Generally yes. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Prime Minister continue with the “Helengrad” defence of holding no one accountable for gross failures within her administration? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Government does find people accountable and where action needs to be taken against them it is. 
Jill Pettis 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that the Commissioner of Police acted appropriately when confronted with evidence of problems with the 111 system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The commissioner took the appropriate action in commissioning an independent review of the communications centre when serious problems became apparent. He took appropriate action in raising with the Minister of Police the need for additional resources specifically to address the problems highlighted by the review and he has taken appropriate action now in committing himself to fix those problems. The Government is supporting him in that task. That is why it has granted nearly $50 million to ensure that we have a world-best 111 communications centre system. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Which part of the commissioner’s performance is the Prime Minister unhappy with? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Nobody is perfect. Every chief executive officer does some things very well and other things less well. One makes a judgment on a person on the basis of the totality of his or her performance. The Government has been pleased with the totality of this commissioner’s performance.
Vote: Visiting Forces Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Visiting Forces Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12864] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12146] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:608;Page:5241] 
Thursday 1 May 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3). 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting that the Order Paper is just as long now as it was at the start of the year and that considerable amounts of legislation are due to come out of select committees can the Leader of the House indicate to us whether we are likely to see some extended hours in the form of urgency during this 4-week sitting block and also whether the current order of the Order Paper is the Government’s priority for its legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I notice that there are now more private and local orders of the day than Government orders of the day which is a rather remarkable achievement on the part of the Opposition. In answer to the latter part of the member’s question no there is no intention to take urgency for matters on the Order Paper.
Power Simon: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Power Simon: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16345] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I would like to speak to the point of order if I may. In respect of the original motion that was put by Lindsay Tisch at the commencement of this bill and the motion that was put to seek leave from the House that Standing Order 144(1)(b) be suspended—that being the Standing Order that requires a vote for either the Ayes Noes or abstentions to be cast—at that point New Zealand First along with any other party or any other individual in the Chamber had the opportunity to object to that Standing Order being set aside in order that the split voting of more than two parties—I think it was three parties—could occur during the course of this bill. I suggest through you Madam Chairperson if I may that if Mr Brown and New Zealand First wish to see an amendment to that Standing Order and to have the issues relating to individual members’ votes known he and his party should make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee. I say to Mr Brown that should he wish to identify which members voted for which part I can speak on behalf of the National Party and say that he is very welcome to ring each individual member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I say to Mr Brown that there is no contention on this. The point is that leave has been given for split party votes on this bill. There is no argument.
Prebble Richard: Appointments — Judicial Conduct Commissioner 
Prebble Richard: Appointments — Judicial Conduct Commissioner 
[Volume:625;Page:20187] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I want to make just a few comments on behalf of the ACT party. We will not oppose this provision but we do have some reservations with regard to it. Although I do not say that the judiciary cannot be subject to checking it seems to me that these sorts of measures have a measure of political correctness. 
I raise this point as well. I am sure that Mr Haynes is an excellent person but it appears to me that his CV lacks court experience. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: That’s so. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Mr Worth tells me that that is so. Well it does seem a bit odd that the person we are appointing to comment about the conduct of judges will do so from the point of view of a lack of knowledge. I assure the House that within the legal profession there is a split between those who operate in the courts—and they are very few; I used to be one of them—and those who do not. Frankly those who do not do not realise what it is like—any more I think than it would be a good idea for many barristers to be doing conveyancing. 
I am a bit concerned. It makes me wonder about this position. If the Government started looking—as no doubt it did—for someone with court experience and could not find someone with court experience who was prepared to fill the position surely that is sending it a bit of a signal that perhaps this is not the right way to go about it. I have some concerns. 
I will express just one more which is more a personal concern than one of the ACT party and fits in with an earlier comment. I think the whole country has too many commissioners and here we are appointing yet another one. 
Motion agreed to.
Parker David: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3930] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I called just as Mr Hide stood down within a second of the call being sought by the member who has just spoken.
Yates Dianne: Electoral Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Electoral Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16758] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to speak on the Electoral Matters Bill and to comment on some of the comments made by Richard Worth of the National Party. 
Hon David Cunliffe:Who 
? 
DIANNE YATES 
: Yes—who! I was amazed that he was commenting on national policy statements because I remembered that when a certain party was in power for 9 whole years and Simon Upton was the Minister for the Environment in those 9 whole years there was only one national policy statement. I find the comments that Richard Worth made in the debate tonight absolutely amazing. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: National is not good on policy. 
DIANNE YATES 
: National is very good at procrastinating in this particular instance. Simon Upton is a lovely chap but in 9 whole years there was only one national policy statement on the environment. This bill does some very very good things tightens up many procedures and makes many technical amendments to the Electoral Matters Bill which should make the next election much more efficient.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17008] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments 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:20983] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 18(4) be agreed to.
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21718] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 19; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 5 agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Obituaries — Sir William Pickering 
Prebble Richard: Obituaries — Sir William Pickering 
[Volume:616;Page:11702] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party as it is appropriate that on the passing of such a distinguished New Zealander the House make it unanimous. I join the House in agreeing with the words expressed by the Prime Minister the Leader of the Opposition and other party leaders. 
Motion agreed to.
Mapp Wayne: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8815] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Do I now understand that what you have said now constitutes a ruling that it is now proper parliamentary language to refer to people in general—although obviously not honourable members—as “health Nazis”? If that is perfectly appropriate language I guess members will do that. The only limitation is that we cannot for instance refer to the mover of the bill as a “health Nazi” even if one thinks that privately. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No that has not been ruled. I call the next speaker.
Awatere Huata Donna: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
Awatere Huata Donna: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
[Volume:617;Page:12540] 
DONNA AWATERE HUATA 
: 
 In favour.
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5151] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Noes 40 
Amendment agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9856] 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many methamphetamine labs found by police are still waiting for the evidence seized from them to be examined by Environmental Science and Research and when do these cases date back to? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Acting Minister of Police) 
: 
 There are currently 132 suspected clandestine methamphetamine labs under investigation by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. All have had initial examination by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. I am advised that the oldest active case dates from July 2002. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Noting that under Labour crime is more random and more violent does the Minister not think there is a very real risk that some of these drug cooks will escape conviction because of the undue length of time being taken to get many of these serious drug cases before the courts? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I can advise that under Labour—as that member quoted—considerable resources have gone into resolving the problem of methamphetamine in New Zealand and as a result the police have been doing an extraordinarily good job on our behalf. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What additional resources have been provided by the Government to deal with the methamphetamine problem? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As a result of this year’s Budget an extra $6.8 million over 4 years has been provided to process methamphetamine cases. Two seven-member clandestine laboratory response teams have been established and an additional $700000 has been provided to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research to investigate 100 methamphetamine labs. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Institute of Environmental Science and Research had budgeted for only 20 meth lab investigations this year when in 2001 41 labs were discovered in 2002 147 and the number is expected to exceed 200 this year; and is this not another example of this Government’s pathetically inadequate response to methamphetamine which it has allowed to become a major crisis in society? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I cannot explain the first part of the question but I can explain as far as the second part of the question is concerned that additional resources have gone into the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and as has been pointed out by the police and the institute one cannot just pick scientists up off the street. It takes a while for them to become engaged and that is what is happening right at this moment.
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:21639] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that matter. The Chair tends to give the calls proportionately to different parties and different speakers. I think that is the fairest way. I am conscious of the fact that you are on your own and that you have amendments. In this part certainly I will try to give you more than one go at it and I will tell subsequent Chairs to be conscious of that.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16220] 
4.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Will the Foreign Minister consultations with Papua New Guinea today address threats to regional security; if so what are the priority areas for consideration? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Yes. Discussions will encompass broad issues involving regional security including counter-terrorism measures transnational crime regional interventions dealing with the Bougainville peace process and the regional assistance mission to the Solomon Islands and other threats such as HIV/AIDS. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What progress has been made in areas that particularly affect Papua New Guinea such as the Bougainville peace process and HIV/AIDS? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Very good progress has been made in Bougainville—in particular with regard to weapons destruction with over 90 percent of weapons now having been destroyed. The law and order situation there has also improved and New Zealand is providing support with five community police officers on Bougainville. Following final agreement on the Bougainville constitution provincial elections are expected to be held sometime after March next year. On HIV/AIDS estimates vary but the World Health Organization has estimated that between 1 to 2 percent of the population in Papua New Guinea could be HIV-positive and the threat of a serious epidemic is real and present. The Papua New Guinea Government is showing leadership in that area and is working with international organisations on preventive measures. New Zealand is providing support for that process. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister be talking about the threat to regional security posed by Indonesia’s occupation of West Papua and will he be trying to enlist Papua New Guinea’s support for the UN’s review of the bogus 1969 Act of Free Choice by which West Papua was incorporated into Indonesia; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: West Papua has been part of Indonesia since 1969 albeit through a process that left many people around the world less than satisfied about its legitimacy. That is not a formal topic on the agenda but we will be encompassing a range of issues that deal with the wider region. Obviously Indonesia is a significant country in the region bordering Papua New Guinea.
Vote: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4885] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Workers Registration Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 100 
Noes 6 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 6.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17869. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (4).
Cunliffe David: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12487] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I support the bill.
Urgent Debates Declined — Home Detention—Review of Scheme 
Urgent Debates Declined — Home Detention—Review of Scheme 
[Volume:618;Page:13927] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Home Detention—Review of Scheme 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Marc Alexander seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 an announcement that the Government is to review the home detention scheme. This is merely an announcement of review. It does not contain any substantive policy changes. In those circumstances I do not believe there is a particular case of recent occurrence requiring the immediate attention of the House. The application is therefore declined.
Power Simon: Urgency 
Power Simon: Urgency 
[Volume:626;Page:21301] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. Could the Leader of the House just confirm that it was his intention in that motion to have those matters go through all stages?
Sowry Roger: Speaker’s Statements — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Sowry Roger: Speaker’s Statements — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8439] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise this matter with you as I know that you review the way in which issues such as this are handled not just by those directly involved but also by yourself. 
 I attended the meeting with Mr Ardern in your office on Thursday during which you stated you would require an apology from Mr Ardern and that you would read it to the House—as you have done today. I note also however that you commented in the media preceding the reading of the apology to the House. That action of yours is in sharp contrast with the way you handled the breach of the law by Mr Duynhoven when you stayed silent for several days. Indeed you stayed silent long enough for the Government to ensure the law was changed thereby denying any report to the House from yourself on Mr Duynhoven’s breach. I say that fairness in the role of Speaker is something you have to be the sole judge of but others also look to you to be seen to be fair. 
With regard to the way these two cases have been handled I hope you will take some time to reflect on your role in both of them so we can be assured that those looking on from the outside will see that you are functioning in a fair way to both members. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comments.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:611;Page:8103] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (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 30 September 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19109] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Trevor Mallard in his answer on behalf of the Prime Minister to my last supplementary question on question No. 1 said that it was not a primary function of the Working for Families package to encourage beneficiaries into work. I seek leave to table a press statement made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen entitled  
Families package good for growth 
 in which he makes it very clear that encouraging beneficiaries into work is indeed one of the primary functions of the Working for Families package. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5908] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for clarifying that. Can I just have confirmation; one of my hobbies is restoring an Austin A35 and I have a carburettor that needs working on. Is it OK if I bring it in here and work on it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is taking the time out of the House on something that is irrelevant. I have said that if it is silent yes.
Smith Lockwood: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16774] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would appreciate your guidance on the issue that has just arisen. I accept that it is now past so I am looking to the future. As I recollect the situation and I have been in the House it seemed to me that a party was not present in the House while a vote was taken. A member of that party then came into the House and sought to lodge a vote. That would seem to me to be inconsistent with the Standing Orders and I would appreciate your guidance on the matter.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8736] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have had a chance to examine your ruling briefly and I have to say with the greatest respect that I do not appreciate being told it is unfortunate that I have raised a serious issue with this Parliament. That is the first thing I want to say. Secondly the proper course is not always to put down a notice of motion because frankly members are seeking information before deciding whether such a decision may be the correct course of action. I say that with the greatest of gravity because we in this Parliament needed to know the facts. For example—
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20670] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I realise that it is convention to ask for leave to table documentation immediately after a question but I was taken by surprise by the Hon Jim Anderton’s lack of knowledge of the voting pattern of his colleague. Therefore I now ask for leave to table the votes on the third reading of the alcohol amendment bill in 1999. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
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:17123] 
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; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; 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 proposed new clause 93 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new section 107B of the principal Act.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19750] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document showing that on 25 February 2005 there were 9847 police staff compared with 8767 when Labour came into Government—thus verifying the statement I made to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?
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 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 Marc Alexander to clause 19(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b).
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:608;Page:5241] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I notice that there are now more private and local orders of the day than Government orders of the day which is a rather remarkable achievement on the part of the Opposition. In answer to the latter part of the member’s question no there is no intention to take urgency for matters on the Order Paper.