edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Franks Stephen: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Franks Stephen: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10725] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Even if this particular decision is not changed at present I would ask you to review the application of the ruling you have just cited because in effect by saying that an event does not occur until an announcement is made particularly in the circumstances where the House is about to rise for 2 months it encourages the Government to avoid allowing this Chamber to function as it should. I would ask you to consider as Parliament’s man—not as a Government member—to consider a clarification of that ruling so that it does not encourage a Government to do what this Government is doing at present.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16151] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 263 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17553] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu  
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark (P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee to take the remaining votes on Richard Worth’s Supplementary Order Paper 314 as one single personal vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 14 be agreed to.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:622;Page:17436] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the Committee stage of the Civil Union Bill.  
The motion has been moved in order to enable extra sitting hours to be available to debate the bill so that it can be dealt with before the summer adjournment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded 
. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
O'Connor Damien: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19854] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That the Fiordland Marine Management Bill be now read a second time 
. On behalf of the Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs I would like to introduce this bill back into the House. This is a very important bill. Fiordland National Park and Fiordland as an area is an icon for this country. Many millions of people throughout the world know the sight of Mitre Peak from postcards and this bill will go some way to protect that very iconic environment that the world enjoys. Through the tourism industry it is a very big part of New Zealand’s economy and the people who live in and around that area including some very good operators whom I had the pleasure to visit in Doubtful Sound are passionate about its protection. 
I commend the Minister for her work in bringing this bill to the House. I know that those people who have a genuine interest not only in conservation but also in economic development will support this bill and its speedy passage through the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20974] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would have thought that the Clerk would ask each party the way it wished to vote which is the normal practice and we have followed that for some time. For the senior Labour whip then to call out “two” when we do not know what party she was voting for is out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that in terms of voting they cannot anticipate what will be said by the Clerk. I ask them to reflect on that because it will help the progress of the business through the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Hartley Ann: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19972] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I put the questions on the schedules I note that the Minister has an amendment to omit schedules 1 to 3. I will not put the question on that amendment as it is in direct negation of a question. It signals the Government’s intention to vote against those schedules being agreed to.
Gudgeon Bill: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Gudgeon Bill: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10247] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 Those sacred and historic sites that formed the foundation of Ngati Tama including the fishing-grounds that Ngati Tama arduously preserve through traditional conservation methods have re-formed Ngati Tama in their identification with the physical symbols that were historically theirs. New Zealand First supports the third reading of the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill and acknowledges the negotiating team’s efforts in bringing this legislation to fruition. With the Crown accepting the importance of the cultural spiritual traditional and historic association of Ngati Tama to those boundaries I am positive that an atmosphere of cooperation and fellowship will be generated between all those concerned. I am sure the Historic Places Trust will work closely with tangata whenua in their quest for the preservation of sites that will contribute to the history of the area. 
Common sense tells us that without close cooperation of the parties concerned we in this House would not be at the stage we are at today. New Zealand First acknowledges the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill and supports it to the stage at which a positive agenda will be generated amongst the recipients of this claim. 
I say to Ngati Tama that it is important to New Zealand First that the taonga they worked so hard to reclaim will be at the forefront of their ambitions and that their claims to the treasures of this world will be considered also as imperative to their further economical development. If that is not achieved they should ask themselves whether all that hard work has been worth it. 
In the end New Zealand First is happy to support this bill. We are happy it is on the way to a conclusion and that Ngati Tama will reap the benefits under good administration.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21509] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9026] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek your clarification because your ruling creates I think a situation where Standing Order 301 is internally contradictory. What the Standing Order says is that the member in charge of a bill can require that all amendments in that member’s name be put as one question. You are now saying that if there are other amendments to that part then that does not happen and we proceed to take the amendments of the member in charge of the bill bit by bit clause by clause if necessary. I just do not understand this Mr Speaker. It does not seem to me to make sense of Standing Order 301. I assume the import of Standing Order 301 is now that if there are any other amendments to that part then all the Minister’s amendments are taken first and any other amendments are taken subsequently—if they are still in order at that point.
Hartley Ann: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
Hartley Ann: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:615;Page:11342] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That really is for the House to decide on leave being sought. If Mr Ward wants to test that remembering that anyone can deny leave that is his right. 
Peter Brown 
: I will be denying leave.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8886] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the document that I quoted from and I have highlighted the areas that I have quoted to show that I have done so accurately. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Carter Chris: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Carter Chris: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10860] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 In her speech to the House today the Prime Minister made mention of the fantastic progress we have made in the high country of the South Island—transferring Molesworth Station. An area of 183798 hectares of a piece of land the size of Stewart Island has now been protected for the people of New Zealand for ever. There was a real possibility that this icon of the high country of the South Island would be privatised by a future ACT-National Government. We in the Labour Government have protected it for the people of New Zealand for ever. 
Debate interrupted.
Duncan Helen: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Duncan Helen: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17893. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cunliffe David: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8512] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6476] 
8.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: What initiatives are under way to enhance the development of a design-based furniture industry in New Zealand? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 Following my visit to Europe and discussions with the Danish furniture industry Industry New Zealand is now engaged with the Danish furniture industry the Furniture Association of New Zealand local New Zealand manufacturers and New Zealand designers. The aim is to accelerate the use of world-class design within the New Zealand furniture industry with products made here under licence and exported directly to overseas markets. Already we have begun a programme to audit the quality of nine leading furniture manufacturers in New Zealand to improve their capability to form partnerships with Danish companies. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: How will the formation of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise assist in accelerating those initiatives for the design-led furniture industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is to be the one-stop shop providing advice for businesses industries and regions and for integrating trade industry and investment support. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will support individual businesses—in this case high-quality furniture manufacturing—to grow and develop so they can take on new high-added-value opportunities such as working with Danish designers and manufacturers. It will also assist them to identify investment capital and export opportunities. What is wrong with that? 
Darren Hughes 
: How did the Minister’s recent visit to Scandinavia assist in developing linkages with designer-led industries and companies and what regions will benefit from those linkages? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The visit created strong interest among designer-led furniture manufacturers particularly in Denmark who had no idea—despite many years of the wood-processing industry under previous New Zealand Governments—of the quality of New Zealand pine. The coalition Government’s leadership in both the design and wood-processing task forces has clearly demonstrated our design-led and added-value commitment to manufacturing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come to the answer please. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: These discussions are leading to a great improvement in job opportunities in high-quality added-value manufacturing in New Zealand.
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9019] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There seems to be a plan to put these amendments globally. There is nothing in the Standing Orders that strictly sanctions that course. I seek that the amendments be put separately in the absence of a Speaker’s ruling to the contrary. I stand subject to correction that there may be a Standing Order or a Speaker’s ruling concerning that but I do not think so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that it is up to members themselves as to whether that can happen. It is my understanding that the Minister has chosen to do it that way. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The issue is what Speakers’ rulings the conventions of the House or the Standing Orders state. I do not believe that the issue is covered by the Standing Orders. You have a better knowledge of that than I do.
Turner Judy: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Turner Judy: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7966] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I shall take a very brief call to address some concerns raised by the Green member Sue Kedgley regarding my participation at the Health Committee. I state upfront that I am committed to the issues that were raised about a safe work environment for New Zealand workers in terms of second-hand smoke. I support the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment. 
One of the issues that came up and on which we had a lot of submissions was the appropriateness of ventilation systems. The evidence that seemed to stack up at the time was that no existing ventilation system short of a ventilation system—and I quote my words—“that was the strength of a gale-force wind” was able to remove the harmful carcinogens from a facility. The problem was that we restricted our thinking and the scope of the bill to existing technology. Mr Dunne’s amendment—and I do not feel compromised as a spokesperson on health supporting that amendment—is forward-looking and requires an approved air-quality standard. It also requires that developers produce the technology so that an air-quality standard can be reached. Even if that is not technically possible at present adopting this amendment would mean that the legislation will allow for future development. I wanted to take a quick call to clarify that now as a sort of credibility issue was at stake. 
I do not accept that every provision in the bill is exactly as I would have written it myself. However the overriding issue for me is worker safety. Regardless of the suspicion that people hang over the evidence of second-hand smoke being detrimental to people’s health there is sufficient evidence and backing from medical professions to suggest that those of us with no medical background need to take heed and I plan to do that.
Carter John: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4388] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the member’s speech but I noticed something that is rather extraordinary. I hope that what I saw was not what I think I saw as I would hate to feel that the senior Government whip was putting some pressure on the Chair to conclude the debate. It seemed odd that the senior Government whip was tapping his watch and pointing at you as though to say: “We have had enough time on this bill.” If the senior Government whip wishes to indicate to the Chair there are other ways in which it can be done but if he needs to do so he should not do it quite so obviously. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will also notice that the Chair took no notice.
Mackey Moana: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11280] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14842] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Part 4 clauses 243 to 316G including debate on schedule 3 stand part.
Tisch Lindsay: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8779] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to be very clear that because there will be only one debate according to the schedule of speakers National will be entitled to only three speakers. We are sacrificing speeches on the Committee stage—we are taking that out of the equation—and we are sacrificing speeches on the third reading where in normal circumstances we would be entitled to another three speakers. I am asking that if we have just one debate the National members from Christchurch who are here in the House—and there are more than three—each be entitled to speak. If that were the case and we work within the 2-hour period then we would be happy to reconsider but at the moment we will have to vote against the leave.
Power Simon: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17919] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept the member’s explanation in his point of clarification but the Committee needs to be assured that United Future is not being persuaded to vote in a certain way by other political parties in the Chamber.
Connell Brian: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
Connell Brian: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:608;Page:6001] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in getting answers to written questions. I have four that are outstanding—two to the Minister for ACC dated 16 January— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member brings them to me then as soon as I leave the Chair in a minute or two I will look into the matter.
Peters Winston: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Peters Winston: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21172] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reality is that we have just had a member from the Labour Party get up and talk about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi but he failed to define them. One of them he said was I think reciprocity. Was that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: What is the point of order? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Mr Tamihere will have to listen very carefully because this will be somewhat complicated for him. The reality is that the member talked about fairness as well. Surely the fair thing to do is to allow those who say that they have never heard the principles explained put their case in the same time that was given to someone who said he could explain it but spent the whole 10 minutes not explaining it. Surely that would be fair that would be balanced and that is what we should apply in this debate. I seek leave for Mr Brownlee to be given 10 minutes to state his case. After all National members went to Orewa and stole my policy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made his point. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] No I am going to rule and I remind members that this is a sessional order that was passed on 17 September 2002: the first two speeches will be of 10 minutes and the remaining eight will be of 5 minutes with the member in reply getting 5 minutes. I now call the honourable member Gerry Brownlee.
Hunt Jonathan: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11843] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course being followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
I want to say to members that I would like to make a comment on this matter from the Chair. This is a time-limited debate and there are a limited number of slots. I hope there are very very few points of order because that is unfair to smaller parties. I know the point that Mr Brown is making; it was considered by the Standing Orders Committee but there was no change in that regard. I wonder whether I could crave the indulgence of other members: when the discussions come up on the two areas that I have any association with is it likely that anyone will take a call? [ 
Interruption 
] Thank you very much.
Pettis Jill: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16378] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to speak just briefly to this bill. I think it might be interesting as we come to the closing stages of the debate this evening to go over a little bit of historical fact. 
Docking of tails on farmers’ or drovers’ dogs used for herding and driving cattle and sheep originated in early Georgian times in England as it exempted the owner from a tax levied upon working dogs with tails. Many other types or breeds of goods were also similarly docked to avoid that tax. Although the tax was repealed in 1796 the habit of docking has persisted until modern times. Short-tailed dogs around that period were called “curs” and that gave rise to the term “curtailing” which means to cut short. 
I think it is time we cut short this debate. In conclusion I just want to add that it will be very useful for this bill to go to a select committee so that people who are genuinely interested in making submissions will have the opportunity to do so.
Field Taito Phillip: New Zealand Superannuation and retirement income Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: New Zealand Superannuation and retirement income Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20087] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister of Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill repeals the Retirement Income Act of 1993 and transfers the provisions relating to the Retirement Commissioner to what is to be known as the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. Any reference to the accord on retirement income policies will not be transferred. The accord has fallen into disuse since 1998 and many of the processes established by the accord are no longer followed. The enactment of the New Zealand Superannuation Act in 2001 provides a new opportunity for political parties to indicate their support for retirement income policies and supersedes the need for the accord provisions currently set out in the Retirement Income Act. 
The continued need for 6-yearly periodic reviews has also been questioned. The most recent periodic report was completed by the Periodic Report Group 2003. However the Government has acknowledged the value of retaining independent reviews and the bill will require the Retirement Commissioner to undertake 3-yearly reviews of retirement income policies. 
The bill renames the principal Act the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act as this name better reflects the overall purpose of the Act with the inclusion of the Retirement Commissioner’s functions. The bill ensures that the retirement income policy framework more closely reflects the current environment and consolidates key retirement income policies under the one Act. 
I thank members of the Social Services Committee and the officials for their work on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20247] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the member may have accidentally—in confusing an official and a Minister who was responsible—suggested that a Minister had lied to the House by way of a written answer. I am sure what he meant to say was that the Minister was misinformed. He would not have said what he did if he had thought about it carefully. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sure that that is what the member intended to say. Thank you for raising that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think he does have to withdraw and apologise for what he said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes because it did come out the other way.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8605] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can give you that absolute assurance now. The other matters I will reflect on and I will give a ruling to the House shortly.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9067] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Pettis Jill: Third Readings 
Pettis Jill: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9138] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 This is good legislation. New Zealand will keep its edge as a leading developer of medical and agricultural research that is vital to New Zealand’s economic future. I am pleased to support it.
Gallagher Martin: Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4560] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Rarely have I been so stunned in this Parliament. I had assumed that the ACT party was some kind of law and order party. This afternoon we saw the ACT party go back to one of its roots which Deborah Coddington well knows—that is the Libertarian Party. I believe that the Libertarian Party is well known to that member. Where is Stephen Franks? Was he at the caucus on Waiheke Island? Rodney Hide had obviously popped out of the room when this issue was discussed. The previous speaker talked about picking on people in black jeans. 
 This bill is all about preventing mum and dad wearing black to their kid’s funeral. This bill is about stopping tragedy before it happens. It was my privilege and pleasure to talk extensively with the New South Wales traffic police in Parramatta. Far from gobbling up and absorbing extra police resources—as suggested perhaps by the previous speaker—this bill is about releasing police resources for other areas of crime. It gives a clear message to people not to use the roads of our country as some kind of speeding track and put other lives at risk. As the chair of the Law and Order Committee I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. We will get this bill through under urgency. I thank all the other parties except ACT and the Greens for their cooperation. Let us get on with this bill and save a few lives in the process.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4270] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The actual issue that you are being asked to rule on Mr Speaker is more specific—that is the question of Standing Order 100. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes that was the issue raised by Dr Smith. The primary issue was the question of whether the same motion was being moved. I suggest that he looks at his  
Hansard 
 and see what he talked about for most of his point of order. That is the actual issue that involves the Standing Orders. The issue of the drafting of a bill the way it is drafted is not a matter for the Standing Orders; the matter of the motion is an issue for the Standing Orders. That Standing Order refers to a matter being proposed in the same calendar year—that is in relation to a bill a bill that received or was defeated on a first second or third reading. The bill that is on the Order Paper at present that is being superseded has not had a motion moved in relation to it this calendar year. It received its first reading—which is the motion being moved this afternoon in relation to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)—some considerable time ago. It was not even last year or the year before; I think it was in 1999. Therefore Standing Order 100 does not apply. The motion being moved this afternoon is in relation to the first reading of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). No such motion has been moved this calendar year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are two issues here. In answer to the Hon Richard Prebble I want to say that the Standing Orders do have some drafting requirements and I will examine the bill to see whether they have been complied with and I think the member wants me to do that. As far as the other issue is concerned we are concerned with the first reading of a bill. We have not got anywhere near the Committee stage yet—that is somewhat further down the line—so I do not have to give an immediate ruling on this. I want to give it a bit of thought. The No. 2 bill may be similar now to the No. 1 bill but the latter bill has been considerably changed since it was read a first time. Therefore there is no prohibition on the No. 2 bill proceeding through its first reading. But members have raised those points about the drafting; I will have a look at them and come back to the House.
Shirley Ken: Motions — New Zealand Cricket—Tour of Zimbabwe 
Shirley Ken: Motions — New Zealand Cricket—Tour of Zimbabwe 
[Volume:627;Page:21953] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek a clarification of the vote. We heard clearly from the Hon Winston Peters that he was opposed to the motion but his party voted for it. Was that intentional or was that— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Would the member please sit down. The party has voted.
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5419] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8226] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 249 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (5).
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa Defence Cooperation 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa Defence Cooperation 
[Volume:607;Page:4421] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just refer the member to the first sentence in his own letter: “I request an urgent debate regarding a proposal for the Government to enter ...”. It is not a decision that has yet been taken.
Burton Mark: Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Burton Mark: Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11578] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee to take the provisions of this stage as a single debate.
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:623;Page:18588] 
9.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Was she referring to any specific institutions—if so which ones—when in her Prime Minister’s statement to the House she stated: “Low-quality providers and courses should not expect to survive. The money they have consumed can be far better spent elsewhere.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned with the lack of financial accountability of Te Wananga o Aotearoa and can she explain to the House how taxpayer funding went from $8 million in 2000 to $111 million in 2002 to $239 million this year with inadequate checks on financial management and quality outcomes; is that not a case of double standards? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the Minister of Education said in his earlier answer there are a number of issues to be looked at around that level of funding and no I could not say that I am satisfied there is value for money. In my statement to the House I said that I want value for money. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can the Prime Minister account for the spending of over a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money in just the current financial year when her own advisers on the governing body of that organisation have been saying that there is a lack of accountability bad management and gross extravagance by senior management; how can she just flush away taxpayers’ money on that scale? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member listened carefully he would find that I actually agree with him that there is an issue to be examined. I also draw attention to the statement: “… ‘that our educational programmes be funded in ways that are consistent with the … Treaty of Waitangi.’ ” That was a statement the ACT leader issued stating that he agreed with Mrs Turia about that. 
Rodney Hide 
: When did the Prime Minister first have concerns about the financial management of Te Wananga o Aotearoa and in particular about what Mr McNally said about there being possible breaches of statutory duty serious cases of financial mismanagement and that the Maori university suffered from a culture of non-accountability and extravagance; and when does she think she will announce an investigation of the wananga so that her Government can escape further questioning? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There are of course a couple of investigations under way at the moment. One was initiated by the Hon Steve Maharey who wrote to the Auditor-General in late August 2004 asking him to look at potential conflicts of interest at the wananga and another was initiated by the Hon Trevor Mallard who is corresponding with the Registrar of Companies and inviting that office to exercise its statutory power in respect of the use of the term “university”. There has also been another audit of Te Wananga o Aotearoa and as the former Associate Minister will confirm I have on many occasions raised with him concern. That was dealt with in my speech to the House. We will get better value for money.
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:15309] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of the Holidays Bill and the remaining stages of the Maori Fisheries Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:625;Page:20303] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could tell us of his proposals for the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill which was on the Order Paper a wee while ago but appears to have slipped off it or to have gone so far away that we cannot see it. That bill deals with police superannuation in particular and it has relevance to some 2000 police at the moment who would like to plan their future and to have that bill dealt with by the House by 1 July.
Peters Winston: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
Peters Winston: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
[Volume:620;Page:15361] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The aftermath of this terrible assault on innocent victims in Beslan mostly children has left a chilling reminder that terrorism does not distinguish between the blood of innocents. Fighting terrorism is one of the biggest challenges facing the international community and New Zealand First supports the Government’s move to stand united with any country with a shared commitment to fight terrorism resolutely. Sowing terror is a despicable and deplorable act. 
New Zealand First would like to convey its sincerest sympathy to the Russian Government to the people of Beslan and most especially to the families of the victims of this terrorism as they mourn the loss of their loved ones. We urge this Parliament to stand united in its condemnation of such acts and to do all it can to assist in stamping out such abhorrent activity whenever and wherever it may take place.
Chadwick Steve: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19760] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on this bill. I am appalled actually at the rather arrogant attitude of the Opposition spokesman on health. The moratorium in this bill is very clear. If the member had listened to the Minister he would know that the provisions that allow for the extension of the moratorium for 1 year are for two reasons—and the member needs to listen to this. The provisions here for xenotransplantation will be covered under the Human Tissue Bill which is yet to be referred to the Health Committee. Also we want to conclude the consultation from the Bioethics Council. It is for those two reasons alone that we seek an extension to the current moratorium. 
I support this bill and I know that the member for the Opposition realises that it was incredibly important that we set up the Bioethics Council. It would be disgusting to pre-empt any decision just because they are scientists and just because this technology is sorely needed and not go through the consultation under the Bioethics Council. We are a Government that is prepared to wait. The scientific research is going on overseas and for that reason I support this bill.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8810] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6486] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15625] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member moved the closure motion wrongly and therefore I cannot accept it.
Franks Stephen: Standing Orders 
Franks Stephen: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10734] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to commend this review to the House. The report properly reflects a precedent that could well be followed by other committees. A number of matters were exhaustively investigated certainly with enough detail for a sense of what might be and opportunities there might be to further improve the Standing Orders. They have been recorded in this committee report notwithstanding the eventual decision not to recommend them. The committee operates by consensus or by a form of majority that recognises the undesirability as the Hon Dr Michael Cullen said of a Government using its majority to force through changes to the Standing Orders. I therefore was pleased as a relatively new member to see that the discussion foreshadows changes that might well come when the mood of caucuses might have changed. 
I look for example at the areas of functions of select committees the recognition of the position of smaller parties in allowing for non-voting members on a more routine basis—I am sorry that is actually a recommendation which I welcome for ACT. Mr Rod Donald spoke on the provisions for treaty review and treaty examination. The ACT party endorses the position that the Green Party took on that matter. We believe that the view that anything that looks like a treaty is a matter for Crown prerogative is a dated view. That position has been taken on domestic treaties—that is settlements of treaty grievances. It draws on the precedent of a Crown prerogative to enter into foreign treaties. For Parliament to simply approve or not approve is inappropriate. I hope that the next time the Standing Orders are substantively reviewed this is addressed by this House in a way that properly reflects that Parliament should be sovereign. The effect of international treaties these days on domestic law is very much greater than when the convention was laid down. it was a matter of executive prerogative. 
We have I understand more than 200 treaties that are now directly incorporated. The courts are seeking to interpret law including statute law in accordance with international treaties even where that is a strained interpretation. Parliament should not allow the examination of treaties to be as confined as it has been in the past. 
It would be presumptuous for me to comment too exhaustively onother aspects of the committee’s work. It was obvious on the couple of occasions when I was pleased to be able to sit on the committee as a substitute that the experience that was being brought to play on the Standing Orders was very necessary and considerably more than the experience I had and I too wish to add the appreciation of the role played by Mr McGee as a very experienced Clerk in guiding MPs away from temporary enthusiasms and rushes of blood to the head. He made sure it looked at some of the things that from his perspective as a manager of business and a manager of committees should be looked at even though members were not necessarily particularly interested in them. I commend his role in that committee.
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6953] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10181] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 agreed to.