edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Swain Paul: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5152] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Associate Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Methinks the Opposition doth protest too much. Basically it is the old whinge whine grizzle and groan. What happened when the Government adjusted the adult minimum wage? We heard that it would be the end of civilisation as we know it and that dole queues would increase. What actually happened? Unemployment went down. Then the Government adjusted the youth minimum wage. Again we heard that it would mean the end of civilisation and increase the dole queues. What happened? Again the dole queues went down—to their lowest level in decades. The reason was that a progressive Government was working in partnership with business to ensure that people’s potential was realised. 
This bill says that those aged between 16 and 17 who are doing more than 60 credits or more for a recognised training programme will be able to receive the official youth minimum rate which stands at $6.80 per hour. Those members on the other side of the Chamber are saying that the 16 or 17-year-old who goes into training and does 60 credits should get less than the person who is going out and doing an ordinary old job. That argument is totally fatuous and anti-training. Those members are anti-growth and anti-business. 
This bill will lead to the improvement of skills training in this country which is what we need. Those members opposite abolished the apprenticeships system. The single biggest thing this Government has done for the Labour market is to reintroduce the apprenticeship system whereas the previous National Government abolished apprenticeships. This bill will lead to important advantages in training. We have heard it all before from the Opposition—the crocodile tears the whingeing the whining the wailing about the increase in the dole queues. What we have seen is the reverse. This is an example of a good Government doing another good thing for the progress and development of the New Zealand economy.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15733] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 22 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a).
Pillay Lynne: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5433] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 4 be agreed to.
Hughes Darren: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7364] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise in support of the third reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill the reasons for which were outlined by the Minister of State Services when he began the third reading debate and went through the bill’s implications. Currently when there are mergers of Government departments it is necessary to come back to Parliament for a legislation change which does not seem so appropriate when it is a case of two existing Government agencies being brought together and when the opportunity for Parliament to question that is through parliamentary questions to Ministers in the estimates debate. It does seem that it takes a long time to bring in special legislation in that regard so I support the bill and I look forward to its being passed.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9623] 
2.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Police; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister’s idea of a police force sufficiently resourced to deal with all facets of crime in this country the new multilingual handbook that now enables police to arrest people in 40 different languages and how is a police officer expected to hold a baton handcuffs and a handbook at the same time whilst trying to find the correct language of 40 languages to shout: “Stop you’re under arrest!”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think it is admirable that the police are being responsive to a range of communities. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Police when under his watch violent crime has risen 3.6 percent in the 2002-03 year while he has done nothing except bluster in this House? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My confidence in the Minister is well founded particularly when I see that for the 2002-03 year there was the highest police resolution rate for recorded crime for 20 years. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence that the Minister of Police is adequately monitoring how the police apply the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions on free speech when launching prosecutions under the Telecommunications Act with regard to the content of emails and are there any recent instances that give her cause for concern in this regard? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I assume the member is referring to a matter that appeared on television news last night in respect of an email sent by an Aucklander to the American Embassy. I assume the American Embassy exercised its rights as anyone can to lay a complaint. The matter is before the courts and it would not be appropriate to comment further. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does she expect the country to believe her on the issue of the resourcing of police when in a recent boy-racer riot in Tauranga the police arrested no one at all nor did they confiscate any cars because they said that they simply did not have the resources? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not seen that report but I do know that at the initiative of a member of this House Clayton Cosgrove the law was tightened on boy racers and the police will enforce that law.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 94 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of Dr Lynda Scott to clause 114(i) be agreed to.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16922] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 5 be agreed to.
Key John: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Key John: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10113] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I rise to comment briefly on the importance of the zero rating of GST in financial services and just to say this: the financial services sector has produced some of the finest people in New Zealand! Their contribution has been absolutely incredible. It has been wonderful to see the way they have been distributed throughout sport culture arts and of course politics although I know not many! I believe that zero rating of GST will make this industry even more successful and more profitable and will add to the woes of the Green Party—that is their worries about New Zealand’s savings ratio. Even if we had the same savings ratio as Australia I do accept that reliance on foreign capital is an issue. The National Party will be supporting Part 4 of this very important bill. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20211] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 12 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Speaker’s Rulings — Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
Speaker’s Rulings — Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
[Volume:625;Page:20303] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the recent adjournment I undertook to report back to the House following points of order concerning the media’s positioning within the buildings especially when members are making their way to the Chamber. I wish to outline some of the steps I have initiated as a result of the concerns that were expressed and the new situation arising from the building work that is going on. 
From next week the Beehive refurbishment project will mean that access from the executive wing to Parliament House will be affected by the construction of a safe way across the bridge to level 1. That will restrict alternate access routes and increase the bridge’s use as a thoroughfare compared with its present use. Discussions have been held with the press gallery on interim arrangements to operate for the next few months while that situation continues. 
In outline I envisage that a clearway free of media will be maintained across the bridge at all times and that no interviews will be permitted on it. Rather on House sitting days the media position will be in the Parliament House foyer outside the doors to the Grand Hall except when the Grand Hall is being used for a major function. If the Grand Hall is in use ad hoc arrangements will be made for corridor interviews to be carried out elsewhere. In regard to the Bills Office I propose to establish a clear access way on one side of the corridor leading to that room. The precise details of those arrangements will be discussed further with the press gallery by the Manager Security and Operations. 
When the Beehive renovations are completed I will review those arrangements in the light of the new configuration and use patterns of the buildings. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Those arrangements seem to me to be rather complex. I am wondering whether we will have pointsmen in place to ensure the smooth flow of traffic across that particular bridge and whether there might be a proposal at some point to walk members of Parliament through the area in order to point out the various parts where they can expect not to be interviewed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his observation. I have had several complaints from members of several different parties on this matter. In terms of the refurbishment of the building the primary considerations are health and safety issues and the accommodation of the media to be able to have access for interviews. Copies of this ruling will be available to all members.
Chadwick Steve: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16198] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech from a member of the Opposition who does know a bit about universities in New Zealand. But I clearly heard in the Minister of Education’s first reading speech that this bill does not have a mechanism to close down universities or foreclose on opportunities for new universities. I heard that there is a need for a national strategy for the tertiary sector—a proper strategic approach within the national interest—and an efficient decision-making process. Those priorities need to be set. This bill is a minor refinement of our current tertiary reforms. I support this bill.
Carter John: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter John: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9691] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am seeking clarification Madam Chairperson because I think this is an important matter. Peter Brown has asked whether the number of speaking slots for each party could be indicated. You have said we cannot— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I did not say that; I said they were available to members. What I said was they were given proportionally and the member’s proportion was correct. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It would be useful perhaps if we could be told the number of speaking slots we got so that each of the parties could know. Given that the Greens have also expressed an interest it might move this along if the Clerk could give us an indication of the number of speaking slots that each party got and then we can judge for ourselves. I am unsure. I think the National Party got four slots—Gerry Brownlee got one John Key got two and Maurice Williamson got one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: To clarify the proportionality was correct in terms of the numbers in the Chamber. The National Party received four calls New Zealand First two United Future one ACT two and the Greens one.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14606] 
7.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on possible changes to school ownership and governance arrangements? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen reports from people arguing that parents are not the best people to govern schools. I have also seen reports advocating for most State schools to be privatised. This kind of reform goes against the views of the vast majority of New Zealanders who believe that building the best possible education system is a core Government responsibility. It ignores the fact that in OECD studies New Zealanders ranked third in literacy fourth in numeracy and seventh in science. These loopy suggestions came from Bill English and the part-time Leader of the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last word is out of order and will be withdrawn. The member knows which word. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What other comments has he seen on a privatised voucher-based education system? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have reports that: “The flaw in the voucher scheme is that parental choice would depend on wallet size. Schools would rapidly become stratified based on fee size and free public education would be dead.” and “Traditionally education has been the great equaliser. Voucher education puts that at risk and would result in class and wealth-based education that characterised pre - World War I Europe. This is not just an education issue; it goes to the core of what society you want New Zealand to be in the 21st century.” Those comments were from Nick Smith. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister concentrate on his own job of running New Zealand schools for instance by giving a name to the new secondary school in south Invercargill that he has set up so that Invercargill parents who want to enrol children in that school will know what school they are meant to be enrolling in? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have suggested a name—[ 
Interruption 
] I have suggested a name for the school I say to the member who has not taken his pills. That name is Tweedsmuir High School but I understand that the board would like to consider another name. That is the board’s right and when it makes representations to me I will consider them.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8947] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 91 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to omit new section 38E(1) in clause 18 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15613] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister did not actually put the closure motion. You said that you would accept it but he did not actually put it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry; I thought he had put it. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Before he spoke I brought up a point of order because I knew what he was going to say. Then you overruled me but at the same time you accepted the closure motion which he did not actually put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I again thank the honourable member. It is my recollection that the Minister did actually move the motion but I did not put the question because the member took a point of order. I can make mistakes like anybody else but I am of the opinion that the Minister did move the motion. As the member says he did not then I have to ask the Minister whether he did. Did the Minister move the motion?
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15128] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10352] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to.
Cunliffe David: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17795. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a very short call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). A bill sufficient to overshadow the Budget? A bill sufficient to wake up Ron Mark? This bill is none of those things. However the public can sleep easier in their beds knowing that Richard Worth is alive well and leading the Regulations Review Committee through its intrepid journey to ensure that none of those amendments or regulations are outside the Standing Orders. This is a process that we go through every year where we do not delay from doing the little tinkering and fixing jobs that occasionally the law requires. On that basis I am happy to support the bill.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17619] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett  
Fairbrother  
Locke(P) 
Simich  
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton  
Beyer (P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley  
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Chadwick  
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen  
Hodgson  
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia  
Rich(P) 
Dalziel  
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 56 
Adams(P) 
Dunne(P) 
McNair  
Sowry(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
O'Connor  
Tamihere(P) 
Baldock(P) 
English(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brash(P) 
Field(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Brown  
Franks  
Perry(P) 
Turner  
Brownlee(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters J 
Wang(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Power  
Woolerton(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Worth(P) 
Collins(P) 
Jones  
Ryall  
Connell(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Copeland(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Mark  
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly  
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch  
Clause 2 agreed to.
Parker David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Parker David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12395] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 The quota management system has served New Zealand well in terms of managing our fisheries resources in the last decade or two. The objectives of this bill are to improve upon that system by emphasising that it will be the preferred framework for managing the fisheries resource but also by introducing some improvements to allocation of quota when a new species is introduced into the quota management system. 
The bill is also intended to begin to try to regulate the overfishing of some highly migratory species and for New Zealand to do what it can as part of the international community. I am happy to support the reference of this legislation to the select committee.
Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Supreme Court Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:8902] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the course of her speech the Attorney-General mentioned she would lodge a Supplementary Order Paper. It is very important for the House to know just when we can see that. It is unfortunate that so soon after hearing submissions and reporting back to the House we are faced with a Supplementary Order Paper. I ask the Attorney-General while she is still in the House to give us some indication whether we will see the Supplementary Order Paper today or perhaps later this week. I know that this may technically not be a point of order but it is raised to help progress the debate in a proper manner.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19972] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7601] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 96 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time.
Simich Clem: Voting — Correction 
Simich Clem: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:625;Page:20731] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next member I would like to announce a correction to a vote. The vote on the first reading of the Oaths Modernisation Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 83 Noes 36. The correct result is Ayes 84 Noes 35.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Nick: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6781] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: I want to speak on the commencement clause because issues concerning the reputation of our country and the reputation of this Parliament are at stake. When people want to migrate to this country they are quite entitled to know whether dirty tricks of this sort will be pulled on them. When this Minister of Immigration pulls the sort of trick that she has pulled over the last 2 days—with a commencement clause that rides roughshod over the rights of others—this country’s reputation is damaged and we look like a Mickey Mouse outfit. I accept that it is absolutely the right of the Government of New Zealand to set the immigration policy of this country. But what is not right is for the Minister to do that in such a way that it rides roughshod over the life plans that are made by thousands of people. If we have laws of that sort people will look to New Zealand and say we are a Mickey Mouse banana-type State. It will mean that the words of Ministers of the Crown of New Zealand cannot be trusted.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
[Volume:610;Page:7425] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Rod Donald to be a member of the Commerce Committee for the purpose of its consideration of the Business Law Reform Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I presume there is no objection to that course being followed. There appears to be none.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees 
[Volume:608;Page:5163] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Sue Kedgley to be a member of the Regulations Review Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Animal Welfare Codes and for Mike Ward to be a member of the Government Administration Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill but in each case without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Adams Paul: Third Readings 
Adams Paul: Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6923] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: On behalf of United Future I am glad to rise and support the third readings of the bills. United Future is always pleased and happy to support sensible legislation. Unlike the previous speaker I am very glad that if a power company inadvertently sends a huge spike down the lines to my computer and blows it all up it will have a responsibility for it. That in itself can be a very expensive exercise for businesses. 
The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the Consumer Guarantees Act applies to all goods and services that are ordinarily required for personal domestic or household use or consumption. The legislation as we have heard covers the Commerce Act the Fair Trading Act and the Sale of Goods Act and specifically amends the definitions of goods and services in those Acts to ensure that computer software electricity gas telecommunications water and services related to their supply are included within the scope of the legislation. 
The Commerce Committee made a number of technical changes to the original legislation. Notably those changes included the removal of telecommunication signals from the proposed new definition of goods in the Consumer Guarantees Act Fair Trading Act and the Commerce Act. The reason for the removal of “telecommunications signals” is that the definition in the legislation was deemed by several submitters to be wide enough to cover the actual content of telecommunications. This caused controversy and unease within the industry. For example Internet service providers were concerned that they would be liable for emails that did not get through for reasons beyond their control such as a problem on an overseas network. The committee agreed that it was never intended that suppliers of telecommunications signals should be liable for the content of those signals and therefore recommended removing them from the definition of goods but left them in the definition of services. 
One widely publicised aspect of the legislation is that it will give consumers the right to claim compensation from electricity companies when spikes or power surges damage computers or other equipment. Electricity suppliers will become liable for direct losses and reasonably foreseeable consequential losses to domestic consumers caused by problems for which the suppliers are responsible. 
The legislation was originally designed to clear up an anomaly caused by a 1998 court ruling in a case between the Electricity Supply Association and the Consumers Institute which held that electricity network services were neither goods nor services. The legislation also closes a legal loophole that has meant that companies or individuals selling computer software packages who misrepresent their products have not necessarily been obligated to offer refunds or replacements to unhappy customers. United Future is very happy to support the legislation.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17248] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:19844] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 4) the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Health Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bills read a third time.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13030] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 104 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 104.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:606;Page:4059] 
Thursday 6 March 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 18 March the business for that week will include the Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill debate which is a 4-hour debate and progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2). 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting the list of business that the Leader of the House has suggested will be progressed when we get back and noting also that this Opposition party the National Party has talked—indeed today—about facilitating Government business to make extra time available to Parliament I am wondering whether the Leader of the House might now consider the possibility of our having a debate on the situation in Iraq this afternoon at the conclusion of question time. That of course would be a matter of leave for the House which I now seek. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to have that debate. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker you will recall that last Tuesday night this House ran out of work and rose at 9.30 p.m. Therefore I ask the Leader of the House whether we are going to see for example the Responsible Gambling Bill—which is way down the Order Paper—and the Maori Television Service Bill come up the Order Paper and whether the longstanding guardianship review will materialise into some sort of bill before this House as undertaken by the Attorney-General to the leadership of New Zealand First. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am grateful for the cooperation of the House. On Tuesday an arrangement was arrived at that enabled the House to rise early after completing a very substantial amount of business that day. If the member is offering to organise support for our dealing with the Committee stage of the Responsible Gambling Bill in say about 2 hours as happened with the Racing Bill I would be extraordinarily grateful. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Further to the point that has been raised by the Leader of the House can he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Please be seated. The procedure for the business statement is that there is entitlement for a statement to be made and entitlement for the shadow leader of the House to make a response. It is not the custom then to carry on with large amounts of requests that can be easily made by way of a phone call.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20524] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The rules also provide as the member has said that Mr McCully could have raised a point of objection. He did not do that at that time. If he wishes to do so now—if he has taken offence—then of course he can ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.
King Annette: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16580] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hartley Ann: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21612] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I agree with the member. Would those who wish to conduct a conversation please go outside.
Benson-Pope David: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9868] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pillay Lynne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21380] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take a short call in support of the bill and also to acknowledge the comments made by previous speakers. I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and quite agree with Paul Adams that Mark Gosche did a great job chairing that committee. We made some very progressive decisions to make this bill very sensible and workable in order to improve safety and security for all road users in New Zealand. I also acknowledge the people who made a submission on courtesy vehicles. We were able to make some really common-sense decisions about the use of courtesy vehicles making sure that the good work being done in that area is not impeded but that safety is ensured. I will not take any more time. I am proud of this bill and I commend it to the House.
Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17497] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I do wish to continue speaking—and I wish for much more. However we will see what happens. We are dealing with the core of the bill at the moment. The concern I raised before we rose last night was that the bill assumes the contract that is represented by civil union and does not state what it is. The objection immediately came up in the Justice and Electoral Committee that the Marriage Act does not do so either. That should have caused a responsible Parliament to decide whether we have so emptied marriage of content that we can no longer assume it is for committed stable relationships—or exclusive relationships—and that we ought to go back and look at both in terms of the policy. What is it we are trying to do? 
When the French Pacte Civil de Solidarité came in in 1999 their Parliament debated for 120 hours. That is more than 7 weeks of our full-time sitting time. It came up with a regime that has some real substance. For example the contract can stipulate how household items are required to be divided and what welfare and work benefits there are—things like taking annual holidays together. It excludes automatic descent or succession rules. The tax treatment which equates to marriage arises only after 3 years of successful living together in a civil union. In other words the French Parliament took seriously the questions that have been completely ducked here in the effort to get a great symbolic victory—something to whack around the ears of all the people whom the Government likes to call homophobes. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Not the Government. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: This is a Government bill I say to Mr Duynhoven which he is voting for because he has probably been whipped to do so but will not admit it. The Government calls homophobes people who raise legitimate questions such as why we are debating a civil union bill without defining “civil union”. Why is the State engaged in so-called recognising a relationship when it does not have any interest in what that relationship is? There is absolutely no reason why a civil union could not exist for one day and expressly qualify.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18655] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that they are actually procedural matters. I have in front of me a preamble which is part of the main body of the bill that has a Maori text and an English text. The Supplementary Order Paper the Minister wants to introduce has a new recital that is provided only in Maori. I would like to know why there is not an English text to go with that and whether you will allow this Supplementary Order Paper to stand. I think it would also be helpful at this point before we begin to have an interpretation of the Supplementary Order Paper on the table. 
What is usually the case in these situations is that although we start out in a different part of the bill we do have the opportunity to read a Supplementary Order Paper—remembering that this bill has been introduced to the House has had its first reading and has been to the Maori Affairs Committee where it had its full 6 months consideration. But today as we are about to debate the bill in Committee we get a new Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to want to know what the Supplementary Order Paper is about so that I can think about it over the ensuing hours of debate and so that I can give a reasonable view to the House on its content when we arrive at that point.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17055] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5908] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you might want to reconsider that—I am not sure whether repairing a carburettor would be silent but it would be messy. I am asking whether you could reconsider your ruling on knitting—I am not asking for a ruling now—because I think that particularly during question time a time of a lot of importance when the gallery is full for the member for Hamilton East Dianne Yates to sit there and knit brings the House into disrepute. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Put it this way. I would be very happy for any member of the House to write to me about that matter or any other matter and it will get immediate consideration. As far as Mr Mark is concerned I am not an engineer and I do not quite know what he was meaning but if he is reasonable and fair then of course we will allow his request.
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5572] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I am not going to doubt whether the Minister whispered “No”. The issue is— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I said “No”. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Minister should not interject while points of order are being heard. From where we were sitting—from where I was sitting—I did not hear anyone call “No”. But that is irrelevant. You called “The Ayes have it.” It is not my responsibility or my whip’s responsibility when you have called “The Ayes have it.” to call for a party vote. You said “The Ayes have it.” No one called for a party vote. From my angle that means the vote was passed. If you had said “The Noes have it.” my whip would have called for a party vote. I am sure the other parties would have done the same.
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:9025] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 My point is that if the Minister’s amendments are being taken together then that is an impossibility because we would therefore have to have those amendments moved separately and moved forward in terms of the amendments to clause 2 for the Minister and other amendments to clause 2 clause 3 and so on. So it would actually negate the entire purpose of the Minister’s amendments being taken together. The practice has actually been to take the Minister’s amendments together at the end. From an Opposition’s perspective that is actually an improvement because if the Minister’s amendments are taken together at the start that may well actually render out of order a whole sequence of Opposition amendments later on. Of course if that is what the Opposition prefers I am sure we would be happy to oblige.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3759] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 67 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander tonew clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (xi) of subclause (2)(b) the words “that addresses the level and nature of advertising to which children are exposed” and substitute the words “that ensures the protection of children from advertising of an exploitative nature”.
Personal Explanations — Prime Minister's Statement—UnparliamentaryLanguage 
Personal Explanations — Prime Minister's Statement—UnparliamentaryLanguage 
[Volume:615;Page:10861] 
Personal Explanations 
Prime Minister's Statement—UnparliamentaryLanguage 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 During the course of the debate following the Prime Minister’s statement to the House yesterday afternoon I raised a series of points of order with the Speaker at the time and in so doing I consider that I used language that was unparliamentary and put the Speaker in a position that I would consider to be somewhat invidious and unacceptable. I have apologised to the Hon John Tamihere who was speaking in the debate at the time and I now apologise to the House for any poor reflection that that comment and the raising of that question may have brought on other members of Parliament. I have apologised to my own caucus. I wish to assure the House that in no way does the questioning line that I pursued yesterday indicate my usual intent on those matters. It is out of character for me to resort to that sort of behaviour. Once again I sincerely apologise particularly to the Maori members of the House who could easily be in a position of taking offence and indeed to all members on whom that matter could reflect poorly.
Swain Paul: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7319] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7185] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Social Development be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Vote agreed to.