edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14558] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am delighted to help the member who is clearly having a senior moment or two. The need to remove clause 65 has arisen because of the wording of the split-out motion adopted by the Primary Production Committee which he seems to have forgotten he chairs. It was the inclusion of the new clause 1A in the select committee’s motion that led to the duplication that this removal corrects.
O'Connor Damien: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21891] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6465] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The question was originally put down to the Prime Minister and I seek leave that it be held over until the Prime Minister is here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Peck Mark: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21491] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tamihere John: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Tamihere John: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:4993] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I hope to clarify this matter to some extent for members opposite. I chaired the committee in respect of this report back. The issue that is confusing some members relates to the final paragraph of the commentary. What we endeavoured to do as one does when dealing with the official language—and with a predominantly Maori-dominated subject—was to get the Maori-language version and the English-language version technically side by side in terms of formatting. That is the first point of clarification with regard to something that may be causing some confusion. 
The second point of clarification is that as is the case with many languages when one endeavours to interpret one cannot get a specific and direct literal translation. That brings me to my third point. The Maori Language Act as the Deputy Leader of the House has indicated makes Maori an official language. The Act does not say that the Maori language must be interpreted for the benefit of English-speaking peoples. It does not say that. So I put it to members that the preamble as stated in Maori is as close as we can possibly get to the English version. It has been done to the best extent possible when comparing totally different languages. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you for your assistance to Mr Hide. If it is debated in the courts that is a matter for the courts. As the member has reiterated Maori is an official language and that is where it stands.
Hughes Darren: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3806] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
Fiordland Marine Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19865] 
Fiordland Marine Management Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill 
name changed to Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Bill 
.
Mark Ron: Tabling of Documents — Violent Crime Committed by Chinese 
Mark Ron: Tabling of Documents — Violent Crime Committed by Chinese 
[Volume:608;Page:5676] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I would like to draw your attention to the fact that today the House kindly gave me leave to table some documents that show from Government statistics that violent crime committed by Chinese people in New Zealand had grown at a rate of 300 percent—I said at the time over 4 years. The documents are over a 5-year period which compares with only 6 percent for some areas of New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Field Taito Phillip: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13357] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 That was a very disappointing speech from a young mother. I would have expected her to support something that is very pro-mother and pro - new baby and very important in supporting families. We know by the sound of that speech that this policy would go—probably by lunchtime—if National were in power. This is a very good bill. It brings us into line with ILO Convention 183. It is good news in terms of the extension of coverage which will give 3400 more parents the opportunity to have paid time with their new babies which is so critical in those first few weeks of a baby’s life. I support the bill.
Sutton Jim: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Sutton Jim: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21410] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 The member John Carter has asked why we have agreed to a bilateral transitional safeguard mechanism. I point out to him that for the mechanism to apply increased imports must result in serious injury or threat of serious injury which is a very significant and relatively strict test. It is not expected that there will be recourse to this provision often if ever. It is a safety net. It was agreed reciprocally. Thailand did press for this provision and New Zealand agreed to it in the context of an overall deal that met New Zealand’s interests. 
I remind the member that under this agreement New Zealand attains over an agreed period of years completely tariff-free entry for amongst other goods our dairy products into the Thai market. If the member believes that the Thais would have agreed to that without putting in place this relatively modest safeguard against what a lot of Thai producers clearly fear will be an absolute torrent of New Zealand product that will destroy their market overnight then the member is dreaming. He is dreaming of a perfect world where he is the Minister and everybody around the world agrees with him. He will have a long wait for that. 
Opposition members have gone on again about the Treaty of Waitangi and what that clause requires the New Zealand Government or the Thai Government to do. They have suggested that the Thai Government would be forced to give preferential access or preferential exemption to products from Maori businesses when it came to applying the safeguard measure. [ 
Interruption 
] The member did indeed suggest that and it is no good his claiming now that he did not. All I can say is that that is a ludicrous suggestion. I point out to him that the Treaty of Waitangi clause does not require the New Zealand Government to favour Maori but it does mean that if we do something for Maori—such as assisting Maori language broadcasting—we do not have to do it for Thailand. Does the member want to commit the New Zealand taxpayer to pay subsidies for the production of Thai language TV broadcasting in New Zealand? Will those members say yes or no? Do they know what they are talking about? No they do not.
Jones Dail: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Jones Dail: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6322] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: You may recall that I am seeking leave to alter the vote of New Zealand First on the last vote in the House. I ask for the number in the vote to be increased from 12 to 13. I apologise for the oversight. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. Leave is granted. The Ayes are now 71 and the Noes are 47.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:607;Page:4209] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The speaker who has just resumed his seat has expressed a degree of outrage about the lack of work apparently by some MPs. As a $160000 MP he has spoken only once in the House this year. I seek leave for an extension of time for him. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a matter for a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I sought leave for there to be an extension of time granted to that very expensive Minister who has contributed very little to the House in the last 4 years. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: As the member knows he cannot seek leave for that on behalf of someone else.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19878] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am raising this point of order at the first available opportunity. I think that your ruling with respect to having me ejected from the House was grossly wrong particularly as there was no attempt to feel for the circumstance in which the event happened. The plain fact is that the Minister was not insulted by my colleague Peter Brown but she sought to fling an insult back to this side of the House. Naturally that sort of reaction would occur in any such circumstance. Not to take that into consideration and not to treat her the same as me with respect to that was I think wrong and unfair. I want to make it very clear that if people—including you—want cooperation in this House they will get it but not when I get a ruling like that. I want to make it very clear that I do not think Jonathan Hunt or any other past Speaker would have done anything like that. 
It was simply not an interjection. I did not interrupt the questioner. I did not interrupt the Speaker or the Minister. I was speaking to someone else as many people have been doing in the last 10 minutes in this House. None of them have been ejected from this House at all. I heard colleagues speaking to each other as I walked back into the Chamber. I think that that sort of ruling might be attempting to set some sort of standard but it is not a standard we will tolerate or live with. We want fairness in this House and I think that that ruling was grossly unfair given that the Minister made that allegation which was a lie in itself—not true—and you almost allowed her to get away with it. I want to make it very clear that if you want disorder in this House let that happen one more time and then some members will find out how rough the game can get when it comes to things that are personal.
Ewen-Street Ian: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19788] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I rise to make a brief contribution on behalf of my colleague Keith Locke. The Greens will support this bill. 
It replaces the 1999 legislation and amends the Arms Act 1983. Some of the amendments will enable New Zealand to comply with the Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms their Parts and Components and Ammunition. It supplements the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and I think we should be able to support that. 
The bill also makes other amendments. It provides for restrictions to be placed on powerful air guns and for the importation of firearms parts to require police approval. It also gives the police wider powers including search powers to deal with the unlawful possession of firearms and the ability to suspend firearms licences. The bill extends the list of agents and employees of the Crown that are exempt from aspects of the legislation by adding “a visiting member of an overseas police or law enforcement agency who is operating under the direction of the Commissioner”—Commissioner of Police—and “an officer or agent of the New Zealand Customs Service.” to the list. There is no provision for the introduction of a universal firearms registry. This is a very poor thing. I think we lost control of arms as soon as we went to registering owners rather than firearms. 
The bill establishes three new offences. First is the illicit manufacture of firearms and their parts. Second is the illicit trafficking of firearms their parts and ammunition. Third is the removal or altering of firearms’ markings without lawful excuse. These offences have maximum penalties of 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $10000 or both. 
Both the extension of the list of those exempt from the bill and the widening of police search powers should be viewed with some apprehension. The exemption for customs officers is arguably to fill a gap in the current law that leaves them in breach whenever they have possession of any firearms they are confiscating. The extension of search without warrant powers seems superfluous given that police can already enter a property without a warrant in order to make an arrest if they have reason to suspect someone of committing a crime on the premises or if they have found someone committing an offence and are freshly pursuing that person. They can also enter to prevent an offence if they suspect an offence that is likely to cause immediate and serious injury to any person or property is about to be committed. These powers already allow police to exercise their discretion in order to protect people. 
However overall this is a move to tighten up arms control and to comply with international agreements. Therefore we believe that it should be endorsed.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5103] 
11.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What if anything was paid for the domain name newzealand.com now registered to the New Zealand Way Ltd and who approved the purchase? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 The newzealand.com domain name was purchased by New Zealand Way Ltd on behalf of its member organisations for US$500000. As far as that relates to my ministerial responsibility I say the board of Tourism New Zealand approved its share of the purchase. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister think that this dot.com purchase costing roughly NZ$1 million was a good buy especially since other Governments such as the United States Government do not own domain names like usa.com or WhiteHouse.com; if so why does he think it is a good buy? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes it was a good buy. There is no question that this domain will provide an invaluable commercial entry portal into New Zealand for those interested in tourism commerce and industry. It has been reported that for instance an offer of US$1 million was turned down by the owners of switzerland.com and the South African Government offered Virtual Countries US$10 million for southafrica.com. It has also been reported that korea.com was sold for US$5 million to Thrunet Korea’s largest Internet service provider. On the evidence and certainly given the function that newzealand.com will perform for New Zealand commerce and industry it was a sound investment. 
Dianne Yates 
: Would the Minister reaffirm why the newzealand.com address was purchased? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes the newzealand.com address is as I indicated the obvious single point of entry for anyone online who has an interest in New Zealand for the purposes of tourism trade or investment. That portal is an important global marketing tool for us and ownership will ensure that it contains up-to-date and accurate information. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did the Government or New Zealand Way Ltd give any thought to buying nz.com gonewzealand.com newzealand.co.nz or a host of other domain names used and unused—some of which are owned by New Zealanders—that could have been picked up for much less than newzealand.com; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: My understanding of the decision taken—and I believe it was a sound one—is that it recognises that newzealand.com reflects the clearly understood and recognised first port of call as similar domain names do for the countries that I referred to previously. 
Rodney Hide 
: Rubbish! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Clearly the member is not a regular Internet user but many millions of other people are.
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6558] 
10.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made on the Ministry of Health inquiry into the human health consequences of the painted apple moth aerial spray campaign and how much funding will this inquiry receive? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 A contract with the Wellington school of medicine will be signed within 2 weeks for a study into the health effects of the painted apple moth spray programme. It has taken longer than anticipated to get the study under way because of delays by the Wellington school of medicine. The cost of the study is estimated to be about $160000. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can she confirm that the inquiry intends to look only at the health concerns of those claiming to be affected by spraying rather than at the actual health effects of the spray; if so does she agree that those concerns are already well known and what is needed is some sort of clinical assessment of the actual effects of spraying since that was surely the reason that her ministry became involved in the first place? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The first part of this project to be undertaken is to collect the health concerns of people but then the school of medicine that is looking at them will review existing scientific knowledge relevant to those health concerns and recommend scientifically robust methods of further study. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given the previous questions why will the Minister not direct that study to look at the clinical effects on the residents of Auckland instead of looking just at theoretical researches of literature and so forth? Why will they not talk with meet with and undertake clinical studies of the residents involved? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because they have not been asked to look at theoretical issues; they have been asked to look at the health issues that are raised and then review them in the light of existing scientific knowledge not theoretical theories. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is she aware that the delay in getting this inquiry under way is already the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman and that the community is still being denied the opportunity to voice its concerns for a widespread and well-publicised submission process? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is concern at the delay. As I said to the member I am pleased that the contract will be commencing in 2 weeks. However I am informed that the completion date of September is expected to remain the same. Submissions from the public and meetings of other mechanisms will enable a wide range of people to have an input. 
Larry Baldock 
: If the inquiry finds that the concerns of those claiming to be affected by the spraying have some validity what actions will she recommend to the Minister for Biosecurity to assist or compensate those people who have suffered in the national interest? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I could not answer that question at this stage.
Franks Stephen: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10180] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The first amendment I proposed was an amendment to the preceding clause to clause 5. I have subsequent amendments that would omit the protocols that purport to influence the Government.
Carter John: General Debates 
Carter John: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6571] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? I will not tolerate continual points of order on this. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Of course it is a new point of order. Since you asked the Minister Mr Trevor Mallard to withdraw which he did by way of a whisper he has since uttered the same remarks which I have heard and which I find grossly offensive. I have taken offence and I ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise. While I am on my feet on this issue— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask Mr Mallard whether that is correct. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No I haven’t. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s word is accepted here. He said he has not uttered them.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Delegation from Malaysia 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Delegation from Malaysia 
[Volume:610;Page:7895] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from Malaysia led by the Hon Datuk Muhammad Abdullah Deputy Speaker to the House of Representatives is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7089] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 107 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15590] 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has he received any reports from police on offending rates while on bail; if so what do those reports say? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: I am advised that the police have not provided any recent reports on offending rates while on bail. The most comprehensive report that I am aware of is a report prepared by the Ministry of Justice which was published in January 2003. The report showed that the number of violent cases that involved a remand on bail almost doubled between 1990 and 1999. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has he sought any background or other briefing on the Jesse Moore case to assist him in the House this afternoon; if so what does that information detail? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have not had time to have a specific briefing on the Jesse Moore case in any form of detail. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does he think that the Bail Act is putting public safety first in light of the reported incident and does he think any amendments are needed to the Bail Act when bail can be granted to a man in an obvious acute psychotic state? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the purpose of the Bail Act is quite clear in that regard. As I indicated in an answer to a previous question the decision was made by the court. The police opposed bail—backed by the family in that instance. If there was any problem clearly it was in terms of the mental health elements. It is doubtful therefore that any different result would have occurred unless there had been a different judgment by mental health professionals. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: On what basis does the Minister draw that information about the performance of the mental health authorities in this case and does he fear that further action may be needed to investigate this case to prevent another Burton situation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The only information I have to hand is the comments by a senior police officer in the newspaper in this instance. I have no other information to hand.
Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
[Volume:618;Page:14294] 
Points of Order 
Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise what I think is a serious point for the ACT party and indeed for this House. We would like you to give it your due consideration perhaps consult with the Business Committee and report back to us. 
You will be aware that the Court of Appeal has recently put down a judgment which found that the ACT party was wrong to have the belief that: “Our proportionality has been distorted.” But what we find is that you have made a decision that we no longer have nine MPs as we were elected with; we have eight MPs. So accordingly our seating has been adjusted for eight members our parliamentary resourcing has been adjusted for eight members the number of calls we get in any speaking slot on any bill or at question time is as if we have eight members and our representation on select committees is as if we have eight members. 
We are considering what our response should be in light of this judgment. Although I do not ask for your consideration now I ask you to consider whether you are correct in assigning us as having only eight MPs in this House and allocating the proportion accordingly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I thank the other member of his party who raised this issue for the advice that I received from him. I will give this matter serious consideration and report back as the member has requested.
Tamihere John: Corrections Bill — Third Reading 
Tamihere John: Corrections Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13339] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 If that is as good as it gets from the Opposition spokesperson on justice and corrections then that is about as good as it gets I guess. I understand that the member is a specialist in porridge—particularly after having watched what he gets up to in Bellamy’s! I understand also that he is one of those MPs who has visited corrections facilities—more often than any other MP in this House. It has nothing to do with strip-searches they tell me! 
There are two issues here and we want to make our position very clear as to what defines this Government from that mob on the opposite side of the House. The first issue is whether to grant any institution the power of the State to take away one of the greatest rights of any democracy—that is the ability to imprison to take away freedom. We say that power must be vested solely in the right of Parliament and the Government. Privatisation is what the Opposition wants. We do not stand for privatisation. Privatisation is the true agenda of the National Party which would even sell the prisons. It would even sell the right to lock up Kiwis which is one of the greatest constitutional rights of any Parliament to the private sector. That is the litmus test that clearly separates us from them. 
The other issue that the honourable member raised was the treatment of prisoners. Either we have a prison system that allows us to conduct ourselves with some humanity dignity humility and ability to allow the rehabilitation of prisoners back into our communities or we continue to build more prisons more prisons and more prisons. There is a range of issues in this bill to cut down on recidivism. This bill looks at providing some form of restorative opportunity for people as they come back into our communities. I commend it to the House.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14182] 
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 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15633] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6998] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9372] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 200B(2)(a) of the principal Act by inserting before the word “offence” the word “serious”.
Power Simon: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16060] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That was just remarkable! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is not a point of order. 
SIMON POWER 
: I am about to seek leave. I seek leave that the member be given an extension— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member seeing that he is now a whip might like to look at Speakers’ rulings 1/5 and 1/6. He cannot seek leave for someone else.
Vote: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4450] 
A personal vote was called for on the question That the Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill  
be now read a second time. 
Ayes 55 
Alexander 
Collins 
Hutchison (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Awatere Huata 
Connell (P) 
Jones 
Roy 
Benson-Pope 
Cullen 
Key (P) 
Ryall (P) 
Beyer 
Donnelly 
King (P) 
Shirley 
Brash (P) 
Dunne 
Maharey (P) 
Simich 
Brown 
Eckhoff 
Mallard (P) 
Stewart 
Burton 
Fairbrother 
Mark (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Franks 
McNair 
Tizard (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Goff 
Newman 
Turia 
Catchpole 
Hawkins (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Williamson 
Chadwick 
Hide 
Paraone 
Wilson (P) 
Choudhary 
Hobbs (P) 
Perry 
Woolerton (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters J 
Teller: 
Coddington 
Hunt 
Peters W 
Tamihere 
Noes 63 
Adams 
English 
Locke 
Scott 
Arden 
Ewen-Street 
Mackey 
Smith L 
Baldock 
Field (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Barker 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mapp (P) 
Smith N 
Barnett 
Gallagher (P) 
McCully 
Sowry (P) 
Bradford 
Gosche (P) 
Ogilvy 
Swain (P) 
Brownlee 
Goudie 
Okeroa 
Tanczos 
Carter J 
Gudgeon 
Parker (P) 
te Heuheu 
Copeland (P) 
Hartley (P) 
Peck (P) 
Turei 
Cosgrove 
Heatley (P) 
Pillay 
Turner (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hereora 
Power (P) 
Ward 
Dalziel 
Horomia (P) 
Rich (P) 
Wong 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Ririnui 
Worth 
Duncan 
Kedgley (P) 
Robertson (P) 
Yates 
Duynhoven 
Kelly (P) 
Robson 
Teller: 
Dyson 
Laban (P) 
Samuels 
Pettis 
Motion not agreed to.
English Bill: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
English Bill: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7895] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday there was a debate held on the report of the Privileges Committee which was held according to a process set down by you some weeks ago. That process included a statutory obligation on your part to declare whether a vacancy had been caused as a result of the circumstances relating to the MP for New Plymouth Mr Harry Duynhoven. Earlier on you had said you wanted to listen to that debate before you made any declaration. The debate has occurred and is completed. As I understand it the record of the House shows that you have not commented in any way on the situation. I think it would be useful to the House if you could explain whether you intend to make any such declaration and if you do not intend to make a declaration what the reasons are for that. That is the first issue. 
The second issue relates to a number of legitimate questions that were raised in the debate regarding a matter that is at the core of the privilege of sitting in this Parliament. They included questions about advice given to you and judgments made by you and I would appreciate it if you could give some indication to the House as to whether you intend to answer any of the questions that were raised as part of yesterday’s debate bearing in mind the fact that it was a debate you had sought and one which you said you wanted to listen to before making any decisions.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5083] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12 ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:614;Page:10762] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 10 February 2004 and that the sitting days in 2004 be as follows: 
February 10 11 12 17 18 19 24 25 and 26; 
March 2 3 4 16 17 18 23 24 25 30 and 31; 
April 1 6 7 and 8; 
May 4 5 6 11 12 13 18 19 20 Monday 24 May 2-5 p.m. for 150th anniversary of Parliament sitting 25 26 and 27; 
June 15 16 17 22 23 24 29 and 30; 
July 1 27 28 and 29; 
August 3 4 5 10 11 12 24 25 26 and 31; 
September 1 2 7 8 9 14 15 and 16; 
October 5 6 7 12 13 14 19 20 and 21; 
November 2 3 4 9 10 11 16 17 and 18; 
and that the House do at its rising on Thursday 18 November 2004 adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 30 November 2004.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14183] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 37 the following new clause: 
37ASection 34 of the principal Act is amended by adding the following new subsection: 
(4)Under no circumstances will an offender be regarded as suitable for home detention if the offender has committed a violent offence or sexual offence.
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8151] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a short call with regard to clause 116 and in particular to respond to some of the comments made by Mr Prebble. Supplementary Order Paper 122 in my name suggests that all the tribunal or the group should be health professionals. The Minister used the case of Dr Bottrill where some of his colleagues knew of his shortcomings. I suggest to this Committee that Dr Bottrill’s colleagues were not part of a tribunal process. I suggest again that the people who make up the membership of the tribunal should be health professionals. Of course that is in keeping with my earlier comment about being judged by one’s peers. 
If the Minister is to be part of the appointment process then the professions themselves should be invited to submit the names and although that is stated in the bill I think the professions should have a process of election. In some way I support the Green Party’s suggestion in Supplementary Order Paper 114 in the name of Sue Kedgley. But the point I want to make is that all the tribunal should be health professionals with no exceptions. Although I have some difficulty with the authority that lies with the Minister I believe that whoever is to stand in judgment of their peers should be health professionals from those particular health fields.
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9282] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave that when the House goes into Committee of the whole House on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) it takes the bill as a single question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Peters Winston: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Peters Winston: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14318] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I know that you have attempted to but I want to get some clarification. You let Dr Cullen speak after you had said he would the last person to speak. The fact here is that there is no requirement for a party vote if the Chair properly reads the vote that has already been recorded. No one from the Labour Party called for a party vote nor did anyone else for that matter but it is because you said that the sole voice vote was lost that he then called for a party vote. He would not have done so if you had said yes. It is axiomatic for goodness sake. I want to ask you a very simple question: unless you are a soothsayer or a clairvoyant how did you work out the result of that vote given that only one person said no and no one said yes?
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19684] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to think very carefully about the ruling that you have given us today fairly quickly. The first line in Standing Order 38 states that a Minister must be present during all sitting hours of the House. That is not debatable. It is not optional—it is a requirement. The Government deciding that it determines when the House sits—not anybody else not the Speaker not the rest of the members; just the Government—is the point being made here today. The right for members to participate in the parliamentary debate is what is also at stake here today. For you as Speaker simply to say that if we do not like this we should send it to the Standing Orders Committee—and we know what a long procedure that is—is I think letting down this House and letting down members in this House. 
Dr Cullen shows absolutely no remorse for taking the course he did yesterday. We already know that most members were not invited to the dinner last night so there is no reason why there had to be that so-called traipsing in and out and there were only a few Ministers there so there is no reason why Ministers could not have been here. What we are faced with is a Leader of the House who simply says to you that he will decide when Parliament is open and when Parliament is closed. I have to say that we are very disappointed at your speedy ruling on this matter and we would ask that you consider firstly asking the Leader of the House to make an apology for using the Standing Order so recklessly and secondly how members’ rights might be better protected by a stronger ruling from the Chair.
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8758] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three orders of the Maori Land Court: two on 21 September 1999 and one on 14 April 2000. 
Document not tabled.
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17047] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. We have spoken about this a couple of times during the debate and say to Mr Tisch that points of order on this have been answered.
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8736] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for your rulings and your comments. That leaves at least one matter outstanding in respect of Mr Ardern. A notice of motion has been lodged around the issue of the evidence that the police took from Mr Ardern potentially in breach of the privileges of this House. Mr Ardern is now scheduled to appear in court I think on Friday week and the question of privilege of course raises the issue of whether the police obtained that evidence in a proper way. The matter is now left just hanging loose and we are keen to see it clarified. I note that that may involve some degree of retrospectivity if you are to institute procedures from a date in the future that clarify or restate what has long been the tradition of the House. I would not want that suggestion of retrospectivity to cut across the need for a determination of the circumstances around Shane Ardern’s case and the role of the police in collecting that evidence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. As far as that is concerned I am advised that that is a matter for the courts to decide.
Motions — Speaker—No Confidence 
Motions — Speaker—No Confidence 
[Volume:620;Page:15736] 
Motions 
Speaker—No Confidence 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek a point of clarification which concerns the notice of motion that I sought under leave to put to the House. If that is the standard in this House—to vote without hearing the argument from the other side—then on a voice vote no such motion can be put. Pray tell me how one can put such a motion given the fact that we have looked at the Standing Orders and at precedents going back a long way in this country’s history. I want to know how someone who believes the House should have lost confidence—and members have lost confidence—in the Speaker can have such a motion put and voted on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can put down a notice of motion and there are no special rules for notices of motion lodged by the leader of New Zealand First. Notices are lodged between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on any sitting day; I refer to Standing Order 94(1). The member’s notice was lodged between those times this morning. If the notice is in order it is placed on the Table when the House meets—as this one has been. It is then set down as a Government or member’s order of the day in accordance with Standing Order 95. This notice as it comes from a member who is not a Minister will be set down as a member’s order of the day for the next day on which the House sits which is Tuesday 5 October and it will appear on the Order Paper for that day. It will be deleted from the Order Paper 1 week after its first appearance—that is it will appear on the Order Papers for 5 6 and 7 October and will be omitted from the Order Paper for Tuesday 12 October. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a matter of clarification that is my very point. If the motion has not been debated within a certain time it goes off the Order Paper. Given that I believe this is a matter of urgency I want to know how it can be debated in this democracy in which we live. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member needs leave from the House. The member has sought that and it has been declined.
Copeland Gordon: Income Tax Bill — Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Income Tax Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12535] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to add a few comments to those that have been made on the third reading of the Income Tax Bill. Firstly Dr Michael Cullen said that with tax legislation of 2400 pages we should see ourselves as being relatively well off compared with the United States whose legislation is much longer. On the other hand it is my understanding that the United Kingdom’s Income Tax Act is quite slim compared with our volume. Maybe we should ask ourselves a few questions about why that is. I think the basic difference is the way in which tax has evolved in the two different jurisdictions. 
That is one point. The second and more important point is probably to do with the fact that we keep on writing more and more income tax legislation to try to keep up with the increasing propensity of some sections of our society to try to avoid their tax liabilities. I think the real long-term answer is for us as a nation to give a high priority to the teaching of ethics in our school system. United Future feels quite passionately about the forming of good character in our citizens and I am thinking of the simple advice written by St Paul a couple of thousand years ago which was simply: “Pay tax to whom tax is due.” If we could introduce that concept into our school system I think we could really bring into the consciousness of all our citizens that we do have obligations to take our full share of the tax burden. 
I am not suggesting for a moment that any New Zealanders should pay one more cent of tax than they are liable to pay but they should not endeavour to dodge paying tax either. If this country could achieve better standards of honesty in that regard we could stop writing more and more tax law to try to block the loopholes that all the smart people seem to find in order to dodge tax. Then we would all be better off and compliance costs would come down all round. 
I would like to suggest to all New Zealanders that they do not spend their Easter season reading the National Party manifesto because if they think that by reading it all their problems are over they would be wrong. I can only suggest they find a different creed because I am sure they will find that manifesto to be barren in the extreme. 
I conclude by once again thanking the officials who have worked hard not just for months but for years to frame this new legislation. I wish the new generation of university students in New Zealand who will have to learn this tax law as part of their professional formation all the very best. Compared with the experience I had in trying to get through single paragraphs that went on for 14 lines I think their learning task will be simpler as a result of all the work that has been done on this bill. I take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy Easter.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9690] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 2 be agreed to.