edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeChadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11350. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to theMinister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What reports if any has he received on the establishment of a new contestable fund to help bring forward the use of alternative energy sources?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Last night the Prime Minister launched a Low Carbon Energy Technologies Fund of $4 million per year. This will help bring forward the use of further renewable energysources such as bio-diesel from algae and sewage biomass and deep geothermal. There is no doubt that this Government is taking many significant steps towards carbon neutrality.Steve Chadwick: Is the Minister able to confirm that the Low Carbon Energy Technologies Fund is additional to the marine energy fund launched with the Government’s draft energy policy?Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes I can. The low carbon fund is additional to the $8 million marine energy contestable fund. The $800 million worth of sustainability initiatives foreshadowed in the Budget are making a real difference. Yesterday’s announcement also added $2.5 million for dealing with the impacts of climate change on our primary sector and infrastructure—yet more progress towards carbon neutrality—and there are more announcements to come.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is months behind on its work in developing an emissions trading system and that far from introducing legislation in October as promised we are again going to get another discussion document; and is not his reason for manufacturing these minor announcements to try to hide the nakedness of any comprehensive policy around climate change after 8 years in Government?Hon DAVID PARKER: No I cannot confirm the tenor of those comments. I can confirm in response to the concern expressed by some including the Greens that what is going to be produced in respect of emissions trading was only going to be a shell that the Prime Minister quipped that if it is a shell then it is the heaviest shell she has ever seen. There are complex technical papers that lie behind it that would weigh down a truck.
Hartley Ann: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHartley Ann: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11337. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1. ANN HARTLEY (Labour) to theMinister of Health: Has he received any recent reports on the cost of providing healthy drinking-water?Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes I have. I have seen a copy of a speech by the Leader of the Opposition Mr Key to the AGM of Local Government New Zealand in which he said that the cost of providing healthy water to the community of Ōwaka in the Catlins would be $500000. He is wrong; the highest estimated cost is about $50000. I doubt whether Mr Key would have added the extra zero by mistake given his career as a global money trader. Therefore I invite him not to deal in irresponsible scaremongering around publicly funded essential services. Mr Key should try to stick with the truth.Ann Hartley: Is there agreement on the policies for the provision of healthy drinking-water?Hon PETE HODGSON: No; there is not agreement across the parties in this House on that matter. The reason for that is that there is not agreement within the National Party. One view is that no action is required at all in this area as it is “a totally non-existent problem”. Another view is that 24 percent of our water fails to meet bacteriological standards and “a coordinated plan with local government is required to progressively upgrade water supplies”. The first statement is from Jonathan Coleman from the National Party; the second statement is from the National Party’s Nick Smith.Nandor Tanczos: Is the Minister concerned that the growth of irrigated dairy farming in Canterbury is posing a risk to water quality and to public health in light of the warning from the Canterbury medical officer of health about the potential for significant health effects from the proposed Central Plains Water irrigation scheme to irrigate 60000 hectares of farmland in Canterbury?Hon PETE HODGSON: There are many causes of poor quality or insufficient quality in New Zealand’s drinking-water—dairying being amongst them but by no means the only one. New Zealanders enjoy good drinking-water standards in cities and often nowhere near good enough standards out in the countryside. We have a lot of water-borne illnesses as a result of that.Nandor Tanczos: In that case can the Minister tell the House what he makes of a report from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research that proves a link between intensive dairying and drinking-water contamination by campylobacter cryptosporidium and E. coli; and is that the result of a 4-year Government sustainable water programme of inaction?Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not sure where the member is coming from. I thought we were on roughly the same page with the only difference being that I thought not all substandard water was due to dairying and some of it was due to other causes.
Document removedDocument removed
Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBusiness Statement[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12287. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 11 October 2007Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the third readings of the bills that arose out of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and the first readings of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) the Public Transport Management Bill the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill the Biofuel Bill and the Evidence Amendment Bill (No 2). Wednesday of course is a members’ day next week.GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I wonder whether the Leader of the House could tell us why the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) was discharged from the Order Paper on 20 September; are any other bills currently on the Order Paper likely to get the same treatment?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): That bill was discharged. I understand that some matters will be revisited in a later piece of legislation. At the present time I am not planning to suggest to colleagues that we withdraw any other bills on the Government’s Order Paper. I would be quite happy to suggest withdrawing one or two members’ bills but of course that is not within my province.
Wagner Nicky: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12285. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NICKY WAGNER (National): National like all other parties in the House supports the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. We agreed with the Law Commission when it concluded in its report earlier this year that seditious offences should be repealed and it gave good reasons to repeal sedition. The meaning of the word “sedition” has changed over time and the current legal profile of seditious offences is overly broad and uncertain. Because of this there is a real danger of abuse of the principle of freedom of speech that New Zealanders quite rightly hold dear. We also believe that the law is not in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Finally we believe there are other offences that can cover any areas of the law on sedition that should be retained.There have been times in our history—as we have heard from Tariana Turia—that this bill has been used in ways that today we would consider grossly inappropriate. It has been used in the past to impose political censorship to stifle political discussion and to suppress individual opinion. That is not the sort of behaviour that we want to see in New Zealand in 2007.A number of sedition charges were laid in the late 19th century and they continued to be laid until the early 1920s. It is true that most were laid in times of political unrest or war. They included charges againstMāori in land disputes cases—as we have also heard from Tariana Turia; against striking workers; against people opposing conscription in World War I; and even against people possessing Communist literature.The law then fell into disuse until 2006 when Timothy Selwyn was prosecuted for sedition—we have heard this story too from Tariana Turia. His crime was to disagree with the Government about the foreshore and seabed legislation. He threw an axe through the window of the Prime Minister’s electorate office and he left pamphlets around urging the public to take similar action. There have been only two other recent cases.Debate interrupted.
Locke Keith: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLocke Keith: Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEITH LOCKE: They were getting a bit worried about that and some people in this Chamber might think that too. They might think some of my advocacy in that respect is a little bit beyond the pale but there we are. If we pass this legislation I might be safe.The Republican Movement made the point in its submission that there are a lot of other provisions and sections of the Crimes Act that can handle actions that are injurious to the public good without the need for the sedition sections. They are treason attempted treason inciting mutiny—I did not know about that one—sabotage unlawful assembly riot criminal nuisance threatening to destroy property threats of harm to people or property threatening acts and conspiracy to prevent collection of rates or taxes. I think Mr Hide might come under that one. It was a good submission by the Republican Movement and it showed the importance of passing this legislation.Actually I thought this legislation could be a little bit broader. I mentioned that in my first reading speech. It could cover the offence of blasphemy. That offence seems a bit archaic really but perhaps we will get on to that at a particular time in the future. But the Green Party is very strongly for this legislation. We have been advocating against these offences for some years. It is great when although we started off in Parliament apparently in a minority on this change in our legislation because of debate discussion in Parliament and discussion in the community we end up with a situation where we have support right across the House. I think that is fantastic. Thank you.
Yates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12272. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DIANNE YATES (Labour): I just remind the Committee that we are discussing the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill.Dr Wayne Mapp: An opportunity to think more broadly Dianne.DIANNE YATES: I thank Dr Mapp and I notice that he has been speaking very broadly on what he seems to define as bipartisan foreign and defence policy. As has been said we have seen the road to Damascus conversion of the National Party. I think it is almost a little bit sad that Keith Locke has not taken part in this debate. I think he suggested that the National Party might achieve world peace by lunchtime.Darren Hughes: Now that TimGroser’s in Parliament that’s possible I guess.DIANNE YATES: Did the member say that with Mr Groser in Parliament that might be achievable?Darren Hughes: Oh yes.DIANNE YATES: Especially as he has changed over the last 20 years as he has confessed to doing during the debate.We are here to discuss clauses 1 and 2. The purpose of the bill is to establish an effective and fair system of military justice. There has been a 4-year review before this legislation came through the House and the whole legislative process has taken a year. So the bill is the culmination of 5 years’ work. It is the modernisation of the justice system within the military in New Zealand.I want to compliment everyone who has worked on this bill. We note that the Supplementary Order Paper will divide the bill into four bills: the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill (No 2) the Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Court Martial Bill. That will be done as we progress through to the final reading of the bill.Once again I thank all parties and the Independent member on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for their work on the bill. I thank everybody for working on the close detail which as I said was about the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and not about the foreign policy of New Zealand. I commend the committee for concentrating very much on the detailed content of the bill and I thank the committee for the way in which everybody worked so well together.Once again we look forward to the legislation coming into force once it has been signed by the Governor-General.
Goudie Sandra: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoudie Sandra: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12272. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am looking at Speaker’s ruling 36/4. I want to correct a claim made by the previous speaker Ron Mark. My husband is a dairy farmer not a fisherman.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That was not a point of order.
Yates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DIANNE YATES (Labour): I rise to speak briefly on Part 6 which once again deals with rather miscellaneous and administrative matters. It deals with some of the powers of the Chief Justice to delegate matters to the registrar. It deals with the responsibility of the registrar in the role of inspector to service penal establishments and points out that in that role he or she will be responsible for ensuring there is no potential for torture or ill treatment to occur or go undetected in New Zealand’s service penal establishments. The matters that are included in Part 6 deal once again with fairness justice and administrative matters and clear up matters around delegation. Thank you.Part 6 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12261. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DIANNE YATES (Labour): Part 3 is a very very small part of the bill and it is basically about the redress of complaints. It is barely half a page long but once again it is one of those things that is very important in terms of the working of the bill. It amends the Defence Act of 1990. That is a significant change; it is a very small one but nevertheless it is significant.Part 3 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12261. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DIANNE YATES (Labour): I thank the previous speaker John Hayes for actually addressing Part 2 of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill which is what this part of the Committee stage of the bill is about. As he said the bill is very adequately explained in its explanatory note: “The Bill will for the first time in New Zealand military law provide for a common system of summary discipline that is more efficient than the status quo while complying with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and combining the best elements of the current naval army and air force disciplinary regimes. Following developments in the United Kingdom and elsewhere the Bill will also establish a permanent Court Martial of New Zealand to replace the current ad hoc courts-martial. The Court Martial will try those cases that are too serious for summary trial.”When we look at Part 2 we see that just one letter is changed in clauses 87 88 and 89. We have moved from “Courts Martial” to the “Court Martial”. It is a very simple change but very significant. The other points of Part 2 that we are concerned with are that we have moved to the “Chief High Court Judge” rather than the “Chief Justice” in section 4 of the Armed Forces Discipline Act through an amendment made by clause 92 and matters relating to bail and bail conditions and matters relating to appeal are outlined in new provisions listed in clause 93. We also have provisions on the rights of appeal against conviction or sentence. Part 2 is quite detailed and very significant in terms of the changes made.There are also provisions on the powers and supplementary powers of the court. Very few changes were made by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in that regard. Part 2 gives the details that are significant in the establishment of the Court Martial of New Zealand as opposed to the ad hoc courts martial which is the major change and is very significant in terms of the bill as a whole. The details are there. I say for the benefit of those who are listening that one of the important things to know about legislation is that quite often a very small change in the wording has a very significant change in terms of how justice is actually carried out.Once again we thank those who worked on the bill. We thank the committee for its unanimity in its approach to this particular area. The fact is that this is not bipartisan legislation. As Mr Mark pointed out we are now in an MMP environment. We have multi-parties on the select committee including an independent member and for the sake of legislation around this area we have also co-opted New Zealand First whose members have contributed although they are not voting in matters dealing with the armed forces. I keep reiterating that we are in an MMP environment. It is a multiparty decision. Thank you.Part 2 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12264. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DIANNE YATES (Labour): I wish to speak to Part 4 “Preliminary provisions relating to Court Martial” which contains the interpretation and the definitions. I want to refer to clause 146(1) which states: “The senior military member must submit a written report on any command issues that arise in the course of any proceedings before the Court Martial to the superior commander who referred the charges that are the subject of those proceedings to the Director of Military Prosecutions.”Also very important is clause 147 which prohibits the taking into account of the manner in which a military member performed his or her judicial duties in that person’s career management. Clause 147 is a very very important clause that relates to the promotion of people involved in the forces. So I just draw the attention of the Committee to the provision on taking into account information about the conduct of military members and that aspect relating to conditions of service and promotion in clauses 146 and 147.Part 4 agreed to.
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to theChairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters were invited to give oral evidence to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Electoral Finance Bill on Monday 17 September 2007?LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): None. On 17 September the committee heard from submitters who had requested to be heard. The committee heard from 23 submitters who had requested to be heard at that meeting.Christopher Finlayson: Why was it that those submitters who requested to be heard were rushed through their evidence on Monday 17 September and the committee has had to meet outside normal sittings hours including during the adjournment yet only 15 minutes have been set aside to consider this matter at tomorrow’s meeting?LYNNE PILLAY: The member who is the deputy chair of the committee has misinformed the House and is either confused or deliberately being misleading. However the issue is committee business and those decisions will be made by the committee.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am seeking your advice. In your comments to me on the point of order I took you suggested that I should refer to the Standing Orders and understand them a little better. I am looking at Standing Orders 115 and 116 in respect of offensive and disorderly words and personal reflections. Paragraph 115 states: “If any offensive or disorderly words are used whether by a member who is speaking or by a member who is present the Speaker intervenes.” The next one paragraph 116 “Personal reflections” states: “A member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs or a personal reflection against a member.” There is no further statement there giving a caveat as you had suggested. I have looked atSpeakers’ Rulings and I cannot find the statement that the offence must be taken by the member to whom the comment was aimed. All I can read is that the Speaker intervenes. If you can help me and steer me to the right Speaker’s ruling or the rightStanding Order then I might better understand these Standing Orders going forward. I would be extremely grateful.Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments. There are no vicarious objections that can be taken on a personal reflection by others. I am happy to speak and give the member some guidance outside the Chamber on Standing Orders and of course Speakers’ rulings.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not querying your decision because I would like to know what your explanation to Mr Mark is in due course but it did concern me at the time. However I do have a written proposal to the National Party that if its members stop telling lies about me I will stop telling the truth about them.Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeChadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12213. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to theMinister of Local Government: What reports if any has he received on the uptake of the Rates Rebate Scheme for the new financial year?Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): I can advise that by the end of this week for the 2007-08 financial year ratepaying Kiwi households will have been rebated approximately $29.5 million. That is a promising increase over the equivalent stage last year showing that the expanded scheme has become better known and is popular for tens of thousands of low-income New Zealanders particularly those on fixed incomes.Steve Chadwick: The Minister referred to the uptake of the Rates Rebate Scheme last year; what was the final uptake for the whole of the 2006-07 financial year?Hon MARK BURTON: I am pleased to tell the House that the total for the 2006-07 financial year is almost $50 million paid to over 111000 households. As I indicated in response to the primary question rebates for this year are already running well ahead of the total for the same time last year.
Yates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYates Dianne: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12265. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DIANNE YATES (Labour): I want to re-emphasise the points that have been made by Dr Mapp and refer to the importance of the commentary on the bill. Under the heading “Media freedom” the commentary states: “We were concerned that the bill as introduced removed the current provision in the Armed Forces Discipline Act that allows media access to courts-martial under section 131(4). We”—that is the committee—“therefore recommend that this right be included in the bill. We recommend that a new clause 151”—which is in the part we are discussing—“be inserted providing that an order to exclude an accredited news media reporter under clause 151(2)(c) may be made only on the grounds set out in clause 151(1)(a) specifically that the disclosure of the information would or might be ‘directly or indirectly useful to the enemy or any foreign country’ or ‘might otherwise be harmful to New Zealand’.”I think Dr Mapp is perfectly correct in the way in which he has spelt out the importance of that particular clause that the committee had included. Once again we thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its attention to that matter in relation to the media.
Worth Richard: Trustee Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWorth Richard: Trustee Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12338. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): We are debating important legislation in the Trustee Amendment Bill but I would not be as quick as the previous speaker Charles Chauvel to give unstinting praise for the Government’s speed in implementing Law Commission reports—for as we have heard this is not one of those instances. It was in April 2002 that the Law Commission reported onSome Problems in the Law of Trusts and now 5½ years later we see this bill introduced into Parliament. If these were as the previous speaker has said important changes then clearly they were deserving of some greater expedition than that. But that said the legislation comes to the House tonight and a number—in fact most—of the Law Commission’s recommendations are picked up in it.I see that time rapidly advances and it may be that at a later opportunity I will be able to talk in detail about some of the changes that are made. Just in the order they appear in the bill the first issue that arises in a substantive way relates to the power to insure so perhaps I will take up that issue first. It is of course an important issue. As Georgina te Heuheu said the Trustee Act 1956—Debate interrupted.
Mahuta Nanaia: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12334. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I moveThat the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be considered bythe Regulations Review Committee and that the bill be reported back to the House by 12 November.Motion agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Appointments — OmbudsmanText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilson Margaret: Appointments — Ombudsman[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12320. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Madam SPEAKER: I thank members. On another occasion I will make my own tribute to the Clerk.Motion agreed to.
Simich Clem: Appointments — OmbudsmanText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimich Clem: Appointments — Ombudsman[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12318. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLEM SIMICH (National): I am pleased to support the motion that seeks to recommend that David McGee be appointed an Ombudsman. Most things that need to be said have been said. There have been some wonderful tributes to David; I of course endorse them all. He has been here as the Clerk of the House for longer than just three or four of the members of this House and he has of course been a servant of this Parliament for far longer than any of the members whom we have in the current Parliament.I remember him from his early days. I have worked with him as a member as a Minister and as a presiding officer of the House. I know that all members would agree that he has been invaluable. He is the most helpful person one could wish to have in the position he has held. His advice his encouragement and his counsel have been invaluable to all members.From the position of a presiding officer I would just like to say—if I may be so presumptuous—on behalf of the eight Speakers whom he has served under and on behalf of the many deputy speakers and assistant speakers whom he has served with we say thank you to him. Our job has been much easier and we have been able to perform our tasks much better because of his presence. Over all the turmoil that is this place the ups and downs of politics the highs and lows David McGee has been the one constant and we have all relied on him in that position. On behalf of the presiding officers DavidMcGee I say there is no one better qualified to be an Ombudsman. We thank you for your service and we say that we will miss you.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12305. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (NZ First): I apologise—I should have done this earlier—but I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the Controller and Auditor-General regarding a request for an inquiry into the purchase of stab-resistant body armour.Document  by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12308. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to theChairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: When were the persons who provided oral evidence to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Electoral Finance Bill on 17 September 2007 told of the time that they would be appearing before the committee?LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): When they were contacted by committee staff.Christopher Finlayson: Can she confirm that on the morning of 17 September a submitter was phoned told he had to give oral evidence that morning but was not advised of the time he had to do so and then was phoned back 30 minutes later by the committee clerk who asked that his oral evidence be presented immediately; and how is such shambolic organisation fair to members of the public who want to make a submission to a select committee?LYNNE PILLAY: No I cannot confirm that. If Mr Finlayson had any concerns about that he should have raised them in the committee. I find the committee staff are extremely hard-working and efficient and I really take issue with political point-scoring by that member in this House.Madam SPEAKER: We have a supplementary question. This is the last one. The normal practice is there are only two.Martin Gallagher: Can the chairperson confirm that the questioner is indeed the deputy chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee; if he is why has he not raised these issues personally with staff and other members of the committee instead of wasting the time of this House?Madam SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order but the second is not.LYNNE PILLAY: I can confirm that the member is the deputy chairperson of the select committee.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12300. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to theMinister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What steps will New Zealand be taking at the United Nations this month to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation?Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): Over the next 4 weeks at the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly New Zealand will lead a number of initiatives promoting disarmament. The key initiatives include resolutions calling for the removal of nuclear weapons from high alert or launch-on-warning status the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty support for a Southern Hemisphere nuclear-weapon-free zone and a broad resolution with our New Agenda Coalition partners calling for progress towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.H V Ross Robertson: Which countries will be co-sponsoring calling for the removal of nuclear weapons currently on high alert and why is the resolution important?Hon PHIL GOFF: Sweden Chile Switzerland and Nigeria have so far joined with New Zealand as lead co-sponsors of that particular resolution. The resolution is important because as disclosed by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission last year one of the greatest risks of nuclear catastrophe comes from the estimated thousands of nuclear weapons on high alert. Such weapons could be launched in minutes in response to the perception of an attack which might in fact be the result of something caused by technical malfunction accident or act of terrorism. De-alerting would certainly reduce the risk of nuclear conflict by allowing more time for communication and avoidance of misunderstanding or miscalculation. I think that is important and I hope New Zealand is able to attract very strong support for that resolution.H V Ross Robertson: What progress has been made towards disarmament and non-proliferation at the UN and elsewhere over recent years?Hon PHIL GOFF: Despite the overwhelming support across the international community for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction—for example the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty gets supported at the UN by 175 votes for to just two against—it is disappointing that progress towards disarmament has been very slow. Certainly we can welcome the fact that there has been a sharp reduction in nuclear weapons from their peak at the time of the Cold War of around 70000. The estimated 27000 nuclear warheads that remain still pose the risk of catastrophic consequences if used. That risk is increased with the proliferation of nuclear weapons control to further countries. That is why New Zealand will continue its efforts to promote not simply non-proliferation but also disarmament. To be successful however will require a change in attitude on the part of the nuclear weapons States.
Cullen Michael: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCullen Michael: Business Statement[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12287. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): That bill was discharged. I understand that some matters will be revisited in a later piece of legislation. At the present time I am not planning to suggest to colleagues that we withdraw any other bills on the Government’s Order Paper. I would be quite happy to suggest withdrawing one or two members’ bills but of course that is not within my province.
Brownlee Gerry: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Business Statement[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12287. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I wonder whether the Leader of the House could tell us why the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) was discharged from the Order Paper on 20 September; are any other bills currently on the Order Paper likely to get the same treatment?
Cullen Michael: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCullen Michael: Business Statement[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12287. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the third readings of the bills that arose out of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and the first readings of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) the Public Transport Management Bill the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill the Biofuel Bill and the Evidence Amendment Bill (No 2). Wednesday of course is a members’ day next week.
Barker Rick: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barker Rick: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17096. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee 
 consider the bill and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 September 2008. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17095. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 5; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a first time.
Hobbs Marian: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hobbs Marian: Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17090. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Mr Locke I will just make a comment. There are a number of conversations that occur and I always am conscious of the members from the parties at the end of the Chamber having to speak through long conversations and fairly loud conversations because I can hear them here. I notice also members of those parties at that end of the Chamber becoming agitated sometimes. Thank you.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17084. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17083. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17083. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17083. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 2 be agreed to.
Peters Winston: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17078. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 In the interests of totally refuting that last speech I wish to table a letter dated 30 June 2008 from the Mayor of Tauranga Stuart Crosby on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill seeking my support for the legislation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17075. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17075. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17074. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17074. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17074. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17073. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17073. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to add new clause 41 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17073. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17073. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.