edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13159] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: A further amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 is out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the State Monopoly of Prison Management Act”.
Benson-Pope David: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8298] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Queensland Australia—Hon Gordon Nuttall MP and Delegation  from Legislative Assembly 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Queensland Australia—Hon Gordon Nuttall MP and Delegation  from Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:619;Page:14875] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Gordon Nuttall MP Minister for Health Queensland Australia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. We also welcome members of his delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Queensland who are present in the gallery.
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3668] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and that the committee be instructed to report back to this House by 8 May 2003 
. referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee
Fairbrother Russell: Budget Debate 
Fairbrother Russell: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:20925] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8946] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; 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 section 11(2) in clause 7 be agreed to.
Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Ewen-Street Ian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14549] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 Superficially I am tempted to agree with the Hon David Carter’s suggestion that this bill be renamed the “Scampi Bill” but I think that is a little too simplistic. Perhaps we should really look behind what the bill actually means. Perhaps it should be called the “Scampi Mismanagement Bill”. 
Hon David Carter 
: The what? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
:”. The “Scampi Mismanagement Bill”. The scampi industry has a history of mismanagement by the ministry. It has a history of overfishing by some of the major players in the industry. If one looks no further than areas 1 and 2 one will find that there is no mature fishery left in those areas. They have been overfished. Perhaps we could call this bill the “Maybe this isn’t very democratic but hey let’s not worry; it’s only a few scampi fishermen Bill”. 
Janet Mackey 
: That’s a Green title. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: It is a very appropriate title. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s a bit long. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Members may very well laugh at it but people have identified this as being a situation where they have been unfairly treated. They have been to court on several occasions and they have been found to be right. They have instituted two inquiries and again they have been found to be right. But what is happening to them? The Government is just riding roughshod over justice and putting this bill into a permanent quota allocation for the sake of convenience. We members may well laugh but this is the thin end of the wedge. It could be the scampi fishers today but people can bet their bottom dollar that it will be them tomorrow. 
I join David Carter in asking the Minister to take a call and say why this bill should not be called the “Scampi Bill” because that is clearly what it is. The title Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) is quite meaningless really to the general public. I do take issue though with what Mr Carter said about putting the scampi issue to bed. I would like to think that this would be the end of it but I rather feel that when the full truth of the matter comes out his National Government—for I presume at some stage National will become the Government—will revisit this issue. Hopefully it will put a fair allocation of scampi quota into place because I think even the most radical the most enthusiastic member of this Parliament who wants this bill to go through would have to concede that the allocation is unfair. We would also have to look at court cases and say that it is not only unfair but also unreasonable and it is unlawful. We are putting into law something that has been shown by the courts to be unreasonable unfair and unlawful and we should not go there. I support David Carter in renaming this bill the “Scampi Bill”.
Hawkins George: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hawkins George: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8506] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The Government Supplementary Order Paper includes amendments to allow the health levy for problem gamblers to be set at 3-yearly intervals. Not only will that reduce the costs of setting it each year but more important it will provide certainty about funding. It will be very good for the providers of those services which unfortunately are needed in our communities. Problem gamblers might account for as much as 1 to 3 percent of the people involved in gambling so that funding is important. 
Clauses 271 to 284 include provisions that allow casino and gaming-machine operators to exclude people who appear to be having problems. They also allow those people to exclude themselves. It is not a matter of whether they happen to be fancy blackjack players. At the moment casinos have the power to do those sorts of things. They can trespass people so it is no big deal. There is no major change in respect of people— 
Judith Collins 
: It is a big deal. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think that member knows that casinos can trespass people at the moment and that is very important. 
Part 4 sets age limits for people playing various games. The age of 18 is the limit we are using except for casinos where it will be 20. We used to have different ages for different sorts of games. That rule has now been simplified and that is fairly important. Part 4 also includes regulation-making powers that focus on harm prevention. Clauses 281 to 284 provide regulations relating to problem gambling awareness training for venue staff and the provision of consumer information on the odds. That is very important. Some people think they can go into casinos and clean up. I have yet to meet people who can go into casinos and clean up. I suppose there is always the hope that one will do well and some people do day after day. But we need to give operators these powers to make sure that certain people are protected from themselves. 
Clauses 294 to 309 deal with the powers and functions of gambling inspectors. Their principal role is to inspect audit and investigate the conduct of gambling and that is a very important job. They may also prosecute those who have breached the bill’s requirements. There are various measures to support their roles such as the power to obtain information and to apply for search warrants. The Government Supplementary Order Paper tidies up a number of those powers and includes appropriate safeguards. People generally support the harm minimisation we are now talking about. In terms of this debate it is a matter of degree. We have tried to make sure that people are protected from themselves and that operators cannot take advantage of them.
Smith Nick: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17986] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I wish to confirm that I listened very carefully to the contribution by Mr David Benson-Pope the new Minister because I would have made a contribution in the debate had I known of the motion the Minister is now attempting to put to the House contrary to the Standing Orders with the Minister not notifying the House. As my colleague Simon Power has correctly put to members the motion from the Minister is out of order and the select committee cannot include any instruction because the Minister did not include in his first reading speech any indication that he would do so.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13520] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Retirement Villages Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Vote: Retirement Villages Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:610;Page:7875] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Burton Mark: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Burton Mark: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11542] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was seeking clarification before but it was quite inappropriate that I did not rise to my feet. I was working on some papers on my desk and I should have put them aside stood properly and sought to get your attention in the appropriate manner. I apologise to you. You did not raise it with me as is your right rather than the right of another member from the floor but I happily apologise to you and indeed to the House for not showing proper respect.
Points of Order — Lobby Doors—Ringing of the Bell 
Points of Order — Lobby Doors—Ringing of the Bell 
[Volume:618;Page:13950] 
Points of Order 
Lobby Doors—Ringing of the Bell 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the ringing of the bells for the vote that we have just had the magnetic locks on the door into the lobbies were engaged. My understanding when we installed those magnetic locks was that during the ringing of the bells the locks would not be applied. Could we have that point clarified please? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will certainly do that and I will report to the House about it. I thank the member for raising that.
Newman Muriel: Urgent Debates — Department of Child Youth and Family Services 
Newman Muriel: Urgent Debates — Department of Child Youth and Family Services 
[Volume:613;Page:9643] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just seek a point of clarification. I know the member rose to her feet but she did not actually call—but I did. Are you not meant to call the member who called? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thought that she had. I would ask the member to call.
Hartley Ann: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16348] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just want to make it clear Mr Brown that if anyone is making an allegation of improper motives that is dealt with as a matter of privilege. It is not a matter on which the Chair can rule.
Hunt Jonathan: Budget Debate 
Hunt Jonathan: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:6026] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call on Heather Roy who has 20 seconds.
Vote: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 97 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 16 
ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Law and Order Committee.
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8803] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am happy to do it again because I have already done it. I seek leave to table the draft unconfirmed minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Fairbrother Russell: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Fairbrother Russell: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17615] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16920] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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. 
Amendment agreed to.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15959] 
8.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What reports has he received on the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 I have received two reports over the weekend containing the welcome news that Russia intends to ratify bringing the protocol into force. Then yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in New Zealand said he wishes to renounce the protocol and that he is uncomfortable even with the underlying science. His language is starting to approach that of a bewildered conspiracy theorist. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen reports regarding what overseas conservative Opposition leaders say on climate change? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have. The Conservative leader in Britain for example said last month with his simple clarity that: “Like the war on terror or the drive for responsible free trade no one can opt out of the fight against global warming.” 
Gordon Copeland 
: How does the Minister reconcile the Government’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and the tax on carbon with the necessity to generate much-needed electricity through projects such as that of Mighty River Power to retrofit the Marsden Point power station using coal; and does the Government have plans to overcome that conflict so that the project can proceed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The idea of a carbon charge is so that anyone who emits carbon dioxide pays for it. The end result of any carbon charge would be that renewable energies would be preferred over thermal energies all other things being equal. It will not stop thermal generation. It will just mean that the people who undertake it will pay for their pollution. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What risks does he see to business and consumer certainty and long term to the economy from threats to cancel a carbon charge and welsh on international responsibilities; and given the grave threat of climate change to our economy is it not time for a bipartisan or even multipartisan approach in the interests of New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One would hope so. Given that the person who signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was one Rob Storey from the National Party and that the person who signed the Kyoto Protocol was one Simon Upton one would have hoped for some consistency from the Opposition.
Carter Chris: Overseas Investment Bill — First Reading 
Carter Chris: Overseas Investment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18026] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I rise to support this legislation.
Robertson H V Ross: Third Readings 
Robertson H V Ross: Third Readings 
[Volume:616;Page:12426] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I say to members that I heard a cellphone during Mr Connell’s speech. I urge restraint on honourable members to respect the contributions of another. It is good conduct common sense and good form in this Chamber. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 16/2. 
I also urge members to give their full attention to the proceedings of the House. We should eliminate all unnecessary distractions from our duty. Cellphones should be switched off within the hearing of the debating chamber. All members can be alerted to urgent messages by messengers or via the party whips.
Hughes Darren: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hughes Darren: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18860] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
House resumed.
Carter Chris: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8726] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19041] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It has long been a tradition in this House that the Government indicates which of its Ministers on a particular day is taking responsibility for a particular issue. This one is quite clear; the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport have been working on it together. The Acting Minister of Finance has not been involved and we thought it better that there were informed answers especially to supplementary questions from a Minister who has had much more involvement in the issue than the Acting Minister of Finance.
Goff Phil: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Goff Phil: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22261] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I will just comment briefly on the previous speaker’s valedictory comments about crime. Everybody in this House is aware that the crime rate is down 22 percent since it peaked under the National - New Zealand First Government. Everybody in this country is aware that four new prisons are being built because of a much tougher stance on law and order. Everyone in this country is aware that people like William Bell get a life sentence and serve 30 years before they can even be considered for parole. Everybody in this country knows that the Parole Board now cannot release offenders where there is undue risk to the public. Everybody in this country knows that the police have raised crime resolution rates to the point where the rates are doing better than at any time since the 1980s. There are now more police than ever before with a budget of over $1 billion. This Labour-led Government has responded to the referendum. 
But I have one question for Lockwood Smith. What did he mean when he asked senators “whether it would be worthwhile for the United States think tank to assist with a public campaign following the National Party study review” on nuclear-free New Zealand? What did he mean? Why was it that the United States senators said he was being inappropriate in asking the United States to intervene in something it should not and they would not intervene in.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17375] 
2.  
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: Will the Government be making a decision on public access to waterways on private land before Christmas; if not when exactly will this decision be made? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 The Government is giving ongoing consideration to this issue and it is not possible to say whether decisions will be made before Christmas. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Will the Minister rule out legislating for any right of the public to access private property before the next election; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: It is not for me to rule in or rule out anything that is the prerogative of Cabinet. 
Mark Peck 
: Has the Minister heard any pronouncements on the introduction of legislation on public access to waterways? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Yes. Mr Eckhoff MP has been attempting to foment public tumult and inciting rural people by falsely claiming legislation is to be introduced today. Mr Eckhoff and ACT must surely be embarrassed as it is clear that no legislation is being introduced by the Government today. Mr Eckhoff should apologise to rural people for those spurious allegations. 
Shane Ardern 
: Will the Minister today in the light of his answer rule out the possibility of landowners’ property rights being compromised in any way at any time in the future by this Government? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The answer is as before. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Government take any steps to ensure that public access over paper roads that are public property is protected and that adjoining landowners are prevented from fencing out the public and treating those roads as private property; if so what steps will it take? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Public access to road reserves whether they are so-called paper roads or formed roads is absolutely protected by law already. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What is the Minister’s view of the widespread belief that all Maori land will be exempt from any proposed legislation? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I suppose the member would consider it a triumph that that completely false assertion—often made by him—is now accepted by many people as being authoritative. They are quite wrong.
Hodgson Pete: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15730] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I think the member raised some good points but I think he has also told an incomplete story and I would like to finish the other half if I may. The issue of whether we should allow generation capacity of above 50 megawatts is of course something that people have talked about. It is a matter of fact that with new renewables there is no limit—there has not been one for 3 years. It is a matter of fact that new renewables are defined in the 2001 legislation and that in that legislation reserve generation can be built without limit. 
Notwithstanding those changes and notwithstanding the fact that the without limit provision for new renewables has been in place for nearly 3 years there has not been a lot built. That raises the question of why. Because that answer is not yet known to me in the past few weeks I have asked the Ministry of Economic Development to go and find out. In fact after discussions with Gordon Copeland and other members—and with myself one might say—I have asked the ministry to go away and consider whether we should remove that threshold altogether. That work is now under way. 
If we were to remove the threshold we would of course allow all retailers to buy lines companies. That means we would have the prospect of some sort of regional concentration. There might be one Auckland power company or one Wellington power company that would have part of its obligations regulated etc.—OK? So we will take a look at that and see whether it is the right thing to do. 
In the course of the Commerce Committee hearings one lines company decided that it wanted that to happen now without the public policy analysis—if we did not mind. Well we do. That company did not want to build new generation; it wanted to buy other people’s. If only its trustees—or the National Party members amongst them—could stop taking one another to court then maybe we would see that particular lines company get into the gas business. It did not want to build new generation; it wanted to buy existing assets—and that is a very interesting distinction. 
The member asked why we did not release capital for new generation. The answer is that we just did somewhat—not that much has been built. If we removed the threshold entirely the capital may not go to new generation for indeed the largest lines company in the land has decided that it wants to buy other people’s assets.
Vote: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7706] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to omit all the words after the word “That” and substitute the following words: “this House cannot express confidence in this Labour Progressive Government and their United supporters because they are determined to promote the release into our farms fields and environment of unpredictable genetically engineered organisms despite strong opposition from consumers growers food manufacturers exporters economists environmentalists health workers local authorities churches and ordinary people with common sense.” be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11281] 
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 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of Sue Kedgley to section 112U(1) in clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8945] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 143 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to clause 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 150 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 6A be agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12606] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections Bill be now read a second time. 
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. 
Bill read a second time.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18737] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of where things are heading. If I may I will refer to some difficulties the House got itself into over the last couple of evenings relating to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. I want to make it clear that the bill is unique insomuch as it is one of the first to have an extensive preamble printed in both English and te reo Maori. Certainly members on the Opposition side of the House think that in these types of bills that is a good and an appropriate thing. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us an indication that some of the difficulties that were experienced through the desire to have some translations and indeed interpretations which was impinged upon by current Standing Orders may be subject to discussion at the next Business Committee meeting in order that some of those things can be put aside the bill can be allowed to progress at a reasonable pace and Ngati Awa representatives to be accommodated in their desire to be in the Chamber for the bill’s third reading.
Prebble Richard: General Debate 
Prebble Richard: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16335] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do object to that. I think that you should listen carefully because you have to listen to the will of the House. The will of the House is that if Mr Clayton Cosgrove wants to get up and give a 5-minute defence of Mr Tamihere when members all know that Mr Tamihere cannot be here then there is no member who will object. I thought that I heard Mr Clayton Cosgrove then give members his word that that is what he wants to do. On that point I will not object.
Tisch Lindsay: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4363] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on this bill. An important part of any debate of course is the title and as other speakers have said this bill takes out Part 5 from the Wine Bill. As my colleague John Key has suggested the words “Part 5” should be in the title. That would clearly reflect or crystallise what the bill is about. We support this bill which is about allowing New Zealand wine to have access into overseas countries. The European Union is very important in terms of labelling and access. 
I had the opportunity just as the junior Labour whip had to be able to sample some New Zealand wine recently in Madrid. 
Brian Connell 
: As business? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It was part of business. It was at the ambassador’s home in Madrid. There were people there who were importing New Zealand wine into Spain and it is a growing and exciting market. I was unaware that that market had such potential through Spain and into Portugal. When one has New Zealanders involved in the export of New Zealand wine to that part of the world then that is something to be encouraged. We want to make sure as this bill allows that they have access to that market. Of course the European Union is very strict in its regulations and licensing and our overseas exports are growing. They have doubled between 1990 and 2000 and the value of wine exports has increased from $34.7 million in 1992 through to $246 million in 2002. So in a 10-year period our wine exports have gone up by $200 million. That is significant and we want to make sure that our exporters are able to compete in the marketplace internationally. 
Having sampled that wine and been privileged to meet importers of New Zealand wine while visiting Spain I certainly support as National does the progress of this bill. As I said probably the title should reflect what the bill is about and the words “Part 5” should be part of the title. National will be supporting that amendment. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
Sowry Roger: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5702] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During that speech the senior Government whip Mr Benson-Pope yelled out across the House: “You are nothing but a bunch of crooks!”. I think it was directed at the member who was on his feet but it was said in a way that reflected directly on you. I believe that is grossly offensive and he should be required to withdraw and apologise.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17182] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Mark Ron: General Debates 
Mark Ron: General Debates 
[Volume:617;Page:12650] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I have to say that I actually came into the House to talk about ongoing debacles in the Department of Corrections but on the back of the debate here today that speech is off to one side. I am going to address some of the comments I simply cannot ignore from the now virtually totally absent National Party—the comments about the wonderful bumbling Don Brash raised by Gerry Brownlee—that Don Brash is a man who brought a message to New Zealand that everyone else was afraid to bring.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10001] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15411] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Sittings of the House 
Hughes Darren: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:622;Page:17419] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 In light of the progress the House has made during the week and recognising the fact that today is our Speaker’s 66th birthday it might be appropriate for the House to rise 6½ minutes early. I seek leave for you Madam Deputy Speaker to leave the Chair. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9160] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Counter-Terrorism Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Shirley Ken: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22071] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 Likewise the ACT party will be supporting this bill. I do not intend to speak for long. There are some very key bills to get to tonight and I would hate to think the two main parties were filibustering in an attempt to avoid getting to them. 
But I ask why this Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill should even come to the Parliament. That is the real question. Time is being wasted here. It is a very small matter a very local matter. In fact the deed of trust states that only buildings for the entertainment convenience or amusement of the public can be erected. Well if an information centre is not for the convenience of the public what is? I agree with the executive of the council who actually said that the bill does not need to come to Parliament anyway. Other than that he referred it here nevertheless. 
Let us not waste any more time. Everyone who has spoken supports the bill. No more long-winded speeches are necessary. Let us get on to the real business that we have on the Order Paper later on this evening. Let us pass this bill and get it out of the way.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Socialist Republic of Viet Nam—Delegation from the Economic and Budget Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Socialist Republic of Viet Nam—Delegation from the Economic and Budget Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18863] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the Economic and Budget Committee of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Worth Richard: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9608] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention—and it may be that the Hon George Hawkins has not noticed it—that he was keen to take a call on this issue and deliver an important policy contribution to the debate. I would not like the fact to be overlooked by you that he has not risen to seek the call. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order.
Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18810] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise for the New Zealand First Party and again reiterate the point that we are the only non-aligned political party in this House. In speaking to the preamble I acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton for the course that has been taken in presenting this Supplementary Order Paper given that the Government has tried to work the bill through this part of its process for a number of days now but it has been held up because of the concerns of members—and I think they are correct concerns—in terms of how the original bill was presented to the House. 
I want to say also that both the Maori and English versions of the preamble—rightly or wrongly—refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
During the course of the earlier debate ACT member Stephen Franks suggested that New Zealand First had come to some arrangement with the Government given that our Supplementary Order Paper to be dealt with later on did not make reference to the deletion of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi included in the preamble. I point out to that member for his information and for the information of this Committee that I am advised quite correctly that those clauses refer to the deed of settlement already signed between the Crown and Ngati Awa which is a document separate from this bill. We were led to believe that either the Speaker or the Chairperson would rule the Supplementary Order Paper out of order in that regard. 
One of the earlier speakers made reference to his concern about the level of threshold for approval that has been accepted by the Office of Treaty Settlements with regard to this particular claim. I think that is a valid point because I believe that the threshold for approval ought to be higher than that accepted by the Office of Treaty Settlements for this bill and that there ought to be some consistency with other legislation. In that regard I refer to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which requires when an alienation is to proceed regarding Maori land that 75 percent of listed owners have to give their approval. I believe that that is the type of consistency that the Office of Treaty Settlements on behalf of the Crown ought to consider when dealing with other claims. 
During my time on my feet I signal to this Committee that New Zealand First will certainly be pushing for the omission or deletion of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Although they are not as liberally dispersed within this bill as they are in other legislation we will certainly be debating that point.
Tisch Lindsay: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6504] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We find ourselves on this side of the Chamber in a predicament about the— 
Jill Pettis 
: With the poll vote that member has I would too. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am speaking on a point of order and the member is interjecting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order while a point of order is going on! The member should know that it is certainly unparliamentary to interject when someone is making a point of order. Would the member please be silent so I can hear. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: We find ourselves in a predicament. The statutes that we rely on in the lobbies are incorrect. The Minister has tabled the correct statutes from the advisers and we accept that but we have to seek out our own definitions and understanding of what the statutes mean. If they are incorrect I am seeking a ruling on whether this debate can continue. Reluctantly the only way is to ask that the Speaker be recalled to rule on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I suggest to the member that the document has been tabled copies have been provided and there is no reason that we should not proceed with the debate. Isuggest to the member that he might like to reconsider. 
Phil Heatley 
: I just want to convey to you the gravity of the situation in the sense that if the highest court in the land—and I believe Parliament is the highest court in the land—has access to incorrect statutes and we take the Minister’s word for that every other court in the land such as district courts and high courts and every legal library might be in the same situation. We want to establish whether the highest court in the land has the correct statutes and if they are incorrect what we are going to do about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. Is he asking that the Speaker be recalled? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I move  
That the Speaker be recalled 
. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed.
Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16854] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is happy to table how our voting record went. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought by Peter Brown for the votes to be recorded in some way. Is there any objection to that? There is.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13162] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; 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 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (Integrated Offender Management and Other Matters) Act”.
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10735] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I will not have any further comment about my ruling on acceptance of a closure motion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.
Fairbrother Russell: Holidays Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Holidays Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10466] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 As someone who has employed staff for about 30 years in small businesses I can say that it is not the number of weeks’ holiday that increases performance; it is the atmosphere of the employment place. All employees deserve a decent holiday. The one regrettable thing about this bill is that it increases their statutory entitlement only to 31 days and still leaves us 7 days behind the Australian statutory entitlement. There is no reason at all to oppose this bill and there is every reason for all of us to support it. I support it wholeheartedly.
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Polish Children—60th Anniversary 
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Polish Children—60th Anniversary 
[Volume:621;Page:16782] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wonder whether I might be permitted from my role as Speaker to make one very brief comment. My late father was the district child welfare officer at the time and Pahiatua was part of his brief. I can remember a lot of the things that he did in that area. I can remember young children coming to our place and being given one of their first meals in New Zealand at our place and I think it is a wonderful thing we are doing today. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6485] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hodgson Pete: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7629] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Lockwood you’ve got it totally wrong! Nothing in Part 1 has anything to do with Part 2. The issue that the member raises is about unitisation where rights are being divided between licences and permits.
Mallard Trevor: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12137] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think we have heard quite a lot of drivel. All that the change that the member is getting so upset about does is give to the Ministry of Education the ability to give grants to small groups around the country. It currently does not have the ability to give grants to non-licensed centres. [ 
Interruption 
] The Early Childhood Development Board has always had the power to make grants to non-licensed centres. There are obviously a lot of playgroups around that we would like to continue to get money. Sometimes they become licensed centres; sometimes they do not. I think the member protests too much.