edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13757] 
1. TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What decisions has the Government taken to replace the Army’s light operational vehicle fleet? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 In March I signed the contract for the purchase of 188 Pinzgauer light operational vehicles as the first stage of replacing the Army’s ageing Land Rovers. Yesterday Cabinet approved the purchase of a further 133 Pinzgauers 60 of which will be armoured completing this Defence Long-term Development Plan project. These light operational vehicles will significantly upgrade the Army’s mobility and support capability. 
Tim Barnett 
: Why does the Defence Long-term Development Plan provide for the modernisation of the Defence Force across all three services? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I quote: “The National-led Governments did not allow defence spending to keep pace in the 1990s.” and further: “Nine years of neglect have seen the NZDF perilously low in capability and short of funds to correct this.” These honest and insightful comments were made by National’s spokesperson on defence Simon Power and the man who wants his job—Richard Worth. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the right purchase decision has been made given Official Information Act papers that show the other option considered—the high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle—was more battle proven than the Pinzgauer; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes because on an overall assessment the vehicles chosen both the non-armoured and the armoured variant have been proven to be better value for money and provide better long-term serviceability and a better long-term through-life structure. 
Simon Power 
: I seek leave to table a set of Official Information Act documents showing that the HMMWV was assessed as superior. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: Will the 60 armoured Pinzgauers come complete with the new birdcage-style slatted armour of the type that the Americans are now having to bolt on to their light armoured vehicles or is the New Zealand Government not going to get the improved light armoured vehicle armour because it simply does not believe our soldiers deserve that sort of protection? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Obviously I would take technical advice but I doubt that the clip-on armour designed for light armoured vehicles would be able to be attached to a light operational vehicle like the Pinzgauer.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:617;Page:12926] 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to the consultation that I understand Tim Barnett chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee has undertaken with whips and following a resolution of the select committee I seek leave of the House to extend the date the committee must report the Sex Offenders Registry Bill to Thursday 18 November 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9025] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought that those Minister’s amendments be taken— 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Be revoted.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15186] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of Larry Baldock to Part 1 be agreed to 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. [ 
Interruption 
]
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11643] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation relating to an answer given by the Attorney-General that attributes to me statements about the Chief Justice. The Attorney-General attributed to me a statement that I believe was to the effect that I had accused the Chief Justice of bias. I have been very careful to avoid that for two reasons. 
 I have no knowledge of whether there was foundation for bias. I have always been concerned about the appearance of bias which is a matter that has been in debate in various English or common law countries around the world. I would not accuse the Chief Justice of bias. That would be a criminal contempt. I would ask regarding the statements attributed to me that if the Attorney-General has such a foundation she draw it to my attention because I would wish to rebut it or to make a correction if they have been wrongly reported.
Copeland Gordon: Obituaries — Pope John Paul II 
Copeland Gordon: Obituaries — Pope John Paul II 
[Volume:624;Page:19549] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am honoured to pay tribute today on behalf of United Future to Pope John Paul II whom I was privileged to meet here in Wellington in 1986. 
It is reported that the communist tyrant Joseph Stalin once asked in scorn how many divisions the Pope had yet in 1978 Karol Wojtyla the first pope from the so-called workers’ paradise of Communist Poland began to wield weapons that Stalin would not have comprehended. After the Pope’s first visit to Poland in 1979 the workers of the Gdansk shipyards buoyed by his example began to rise up against the Government—and Solidarity was born. 
So began a tide of change that captured the hearts and minds of millions until in 1989 the “evil empire” that had long dominated Eastern Europe was gone in a bloodless revolution. Love conquered hate peace conquered war and freedom and democracy banished oppression and dictatorship. Pope John Paul II ignited those flames not by the might of arms but through the power of his message which was based on the truth about humankind and its deepest yearnings. 
There was however more—much more—to his life. The cross the central symbol of Christianity has both a vertical and a horizontal axis. For Pope John Paul II the vertical was his love and total abandonment to God and the horizontal was his love and total service to the whole of humanity. He loved everyone—men and women—regardless of their race or religion but he especially loved the poor the sick and the disadvantaged. 
The media have said that at the hour of his death a bright light was extinguished but I hope rather that it has been diffused and will continue to shine in the lives of the hundreds of millions who heard his messages especially the young people who came in their millions to World Youth Days. It is a light that please God will never go out so that freedom from want and fear no less than from moral chains becomes a reality for all. 
This I believe will be the lasting legacy of the greatest leader of the second half of the 20th century: Pope John II Vicar of Christ a man for our times sent from God.
Jones Dail: Voting — Correction 
Jones Dail: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:616;Page:12125] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 On the last vote on the Charities Bill the New Zealand First vote should have been 13 and not 12. I seek leave of the House to amend the vote.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4336] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt the time of the House. In question No. 2 I was accused of misleading the House in regard to UN-related missions. I seek the leave of the House to table a list of six operations mentioned by Mr Prebble five of which have a UN link. The sixth was the exception that I mentioned in relation to the Sinai. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19686] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I advise you that yesterday I had the benefit of seeing a delayed broadcast of Parliament’s question time. I want to put New Zealand First’s position very very clearly. Frankly I believe that some members of this House are wasting question time seriously. Although the issue today is very very important nevertheless it is 35 minutes since the House was called and it means that some of us are having our right to put our issues seriously compromised. I believe Madam Speaker that if you look at  
Hansard  
over a long period of time you will know who the main offenders are. 
With the greatest respect we are getting frightfully sick and tired of it. If members cannot make their points of order succinctly then we should move on with parliamentary business. Around the country hundreds of thousands of people are waiting on New Zealand First’s questions and I think they should have an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. I have reviewed  
Hansard. 
 As the member well knows last week he made three spurious points of order that occupied some time in this House. But as I indicated yesterday the rules will now be applied rigidly.
Cullen Michael: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17924] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I would hope that tertiary institutions do not come up with that argument because I would hope they would use their law faculties before they did that. Schedule 6B includes those things that do apply. If it is not in schedule 6B it does not apply and the power of direction is not in schedule 6B. In other words the power of direction is not in the schedule that applies to tertiary institutions. The power to direct is outside this schedule and therefore does not apply to tertiary institutions so the Minister has no power to direct tertiary institutions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why is there not an exclusion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It does not need an exclusion. Schedule 6B is an inclusive clause of what the powers are. It does not include the part of the bill that gives the power to direct. The fact that the interpretation clause is included is irrelevant. The interpretation clause does not relate to the power to direct; it only defines what direction means should the power be in there. But the power is not in there. One would not go through the interpretation clause and take out every little word that is not included in the rest. This is an inclusive statement in schedule 6B not an exclusive statement. If it is not in there it does not exist. The power of direction is not included in schedule 6B. It is absolutely clear.
Tanczos Nandor: Points of Order — Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill—Procedure Request for Apology—“Rope-head” Comments Made in House 
Tanczos Nandor: Points of Order — Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill—Procedure Request for Apology—“Rope-head” Comments Made in House 
[Volume:620;Page:15946] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While we are on the subject of apologies I want to say that yesterday in the House my colleague Rod Donald raised a point of order in which he asked the Rt Hon Winston Peters to withdraw his “rope-head” comment if it had been intended in a derogatory manner and you asked Mr Peters to withdraw that comment if that had been the case. The Rt Hon Winston Peters responded with: “I asked the Minister as to which parties are out there supporting rope-heads which clearly suggests that they are not in this Parliament.” I have subsequently examined the  
Hansard  
and have found that Mr Peters said: “ … and which parties support the rope-head view expressed by a certain member of this Parliament?”. I am raising this point of order in the House to allow Winston Peters the opportunity to withdraw his comment and apologise; otherwise I do intend to take this further as a matter of privilege by way of his deliberately misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I get any letter to that effect of course I will rule on that matter then. That is nothing to do with me at this stage.
Beyer Georgina: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8374] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20233] 
10.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What response has the Government had to its announcement on carbon tax? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 The announcement has received broad support so far from for example Contact Energy the Sustainable Business Network the Business Council for Sustainable Development Meridian Energy the Tindall Foundation TrustPower the Waitakere City Council the New Zealand Wind Energy Association New Zealand Refining Shell—both here and in Australia—IAG Honda Fletcher’s Fisher and Paykel and so on. Of those who oppose it some think we are doing too much. That includes the Greenhouse Policy Coalition and a number of MPs in this House. Of those who think we are doing too little I instance Greenpeace the Environmental Defence Society and Toyota. 
David Parker 
: Why do those New Zealand businesses think that having a carbon tax is a good thing rather than a bad thing? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are all sorts of reasons. Sustainable Business Network companies such as Honda IAG and Fisher and Paykel say that much more needs to be done to protect our climate. TrustPower and Meridian Energy say that it will cause us to better value our renewable resources. Contact Energy and TrustPower say that it will improve certainty. The Wind Energy Association and the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development say that it will lay the path for the future of emissions trading. The Tindall Foundation notes that New Zealanders occupy a wonderfully privileged position in the world and that the Government’s leadership in protecting that is to be supported. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is this not just another blatant Labour tax grab that will cost jobs push up the price of electricity and fuel and further erode our international competitiveness given that three out of our four largest trading partners—Australia the United States and China—have no intention at all of putting in place a similar tax? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer is the same as when Dr Brash’s offsider the National spokesperson on finance asked the same question in question No 4: there is no disadvantage to New Zealanders’ competitiveness. I want to know why the Leader of the Opposition said recently that the Bluegreens are the best thing since sliced bread when they are in favour of the carbon tax that he now opposes.
Speaker’s Rulings — Order of Calls 
Speaker’s Rulings — Order of Calls 
[Volume:612;Page:9122] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Order of Calls 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I carry on I can say that as a result of a Business Committee determination I have now ruled as Speaker the order in which I am calling first second and third reading debates and that is at the table here. However let me say that if a person does not take his or her call then another party can get the call.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4271] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer to both the comments made by Dr Cullen and those made by yourself in your ruling. My point is that I do not believe it is proper for Parliament to debate this but I just want to make clear that the bill did receive its second reading according to the  
Parliamentary Bulletin 
. According to that official document of Parliament the bill has had its second reading. The bill that is currently before Parliament is described as 313-2 and has been deemed by the Government’s own admission to be “virtually identical” to the other bill. So my question to you again is how this Parliament can debate a second bill that by the Government’s own admission is virtually identical to an item that is already on the Order Paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second reading debate was 4 years ago and the bill was amended thereafter. The bill was introduced under the old Standing Orders before the new Standing Orders came in. It is a different bill now. I have no difficulty at all with the first part of the ruling and that is that the first reading can proceed and will.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17562] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander (P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos (P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 24A be agreed to.
Barker Rick: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15649] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3267] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition I want to say that the 14-hour debate starts when he commences his speech and points of order are included in that 14 hours. So I would ask members to allow as many members to speak as possible so that we do have a full debate.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7818] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Bill read a third time.
Hobbs Marian: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19064] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11656] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
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 following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(e)provide Regional Councils further time to collate and understand information for designating Aquaculture Management Areas.
Connell Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Connell Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14303] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that the Minister of Police is not in the House. I believe that only he would have the information to answer the questions that I would pose. I seek the leave of the House to have my questions carried over until the Minister of Police is in the House to answer my questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first comment is irrelevant because it is not a point of order. Leave is sought to postpone this question. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Vote: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13104] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 6; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5452] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill.
Williamson Maurice: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19906] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This might be a sneaky little trick but I hope it is not. I have made it clear that the Opposition will cooperate. All we are asking for is a very brief explanation as to why this Supplementary Order Paper is back here at the last minute. Members might remember that this bill was reported back in August 2004 after extreme cooperation from the parties. A brief explanation is all that I am asking for which is a very reasonable request. 
If we have to start voting on the Minister’s amendments not only will we vote them down—probably unsuccessfully because of our numbers—but we will also start speaking on them and haul down a team from all the other busy operations and we will take this bill through every damn clause and part that we can. But I am sure that the Minister will have a good explanation for us. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Perhaps I can help. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask whether the Committee wants to deal with Parts 1 to 4 as one question.
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12138] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on this part of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill. During the second reading United Future pointed out that we supported this bill and we still do support it. But one of the things we had to overcome was clause 2—that is the commencement criteria. Like others on the Education and Science Committee we have been concerned about the timing of this bill and how it got into place. It seems to me—and the Minister of Education might be able to correct me on this—that as I recall the intended change was to be incorporated in a State Sector Amendment Bill but the Clerk ruled that it was outside the scope of that bill at that time and therefore it has been dealt with as this separate bill. Nevertheless the actual disestablishment occurred way before the enactment of this legislation which was intended to take place on 1 October 2003—the initial commencement date in Part 1. 
As the select committee pointed out that raises constitutional issues about the ability of the executive to implement policy requiring legislation before actually passing that legislation. We in this Committee are aware that in certain circumstances or even in the same circumstances with a more contentious bill that practice could attract some legal action to halt its progress. This is not the first time we have heard of that practice but it is certainly a surprise to me that this matter has taken place in the way that it has. 
As United Future has said we are happy to see this bill passed into legislation. It is a very practical bill and requires passing in order to inaugurate what has already taken place. So with that proviso on Part 1 we are happy for this bill to continue.
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6801] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22221] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I had requested that perhaps the leave could be put again as your decision was unclear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already made a decision. The leave has been denied. All the remaining votes will be taken together. 
The question was put that Vote Environment Vote National Archives Vote National Library Vote Official Development Assistance Vote ACC Vote Child Youth and Family Services Vote Senior Citizens Vote Women’s Affairs Vote Conservation Vote Local Government Vote Community and Voluntary Sector Vote Courts Vote Customs Vote Fisheries Vote Consumer Affairs Vote Racing Vote Communications the preamble clauses 1 to 13 and schedules 5 to 7 be agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8377] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Hawkins George: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hawkins George: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16447] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I refer to oral question No. 3 today where authentication was supplied by reference to the May 2004 issue of  
Police News 
. My staff and I have spent considerable time looking through the May 2004 issue and the matter was not mentioned in it. It was mentioned in the June issue. I think authentication needs to be accurate in order for people to answer questions properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well so what! That is not a point of order.
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12573] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11262] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d) of section 10D(2) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(d)Article 48(4) of the Rome Statute or articles 18 to 22 or both to ensure counsel witnesses victims experts and any other persons required to be present at the seat of the ICC so that they be accorded such treatment as is necessary for the proper functioning of the Court:
Donald Rod: Election of Speaker 
Donald Rod: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18949] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Madam Speaker-Elect on behalf of the Green Party I would like to add our congratulations to those of other party leaders. Your election as this Parliament’s first woman Speaker is a milestone in our evolution as a democracy and will I hope encourage even more women to participate in the democratic process. 
Although Jonathan Hunt has been a list MP in recent years your election also marks the beginning of a new era as you are our first truly MMP Speaker. We look forward to your bringing your sharp legal mind your sense of humour and your strong commitment to good parliamentary process to the job at hand. 
You have some big challenges ahead of you. I hope you will help MPs to significantly improve our standard of behaviour in this Chamber and lead us in restoring respect for Parliament to the level this institution deserves. I am confident that as a former university lecturer and as president of the Labour Party during turbulent times you will keep us under control and focused on debating the substance of the issues before us instead of indulging in personality politics. 
I also look forward to your energetic chairing of the Business Committee the Standing Orders Committee and the Parliamentary Service Commission all vital roles that ensure Parliament effectively represents the people of New Zealand. May you do well in your time as Speaker. 
Thank you also to the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt for his time as Speaker. As I have said publicly he was very helpful to us as a new political party in 1999 with many new MPs and we are forever grateful for that.
Pettis Jill: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5121] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 After listening to that speech all I can suggest is that the bats are a bit loose in the belfry. Winston Peters is the conspiracy theorist around this place and Mr Prebble does himself a disservice in trying to emulate him. I have had the pleasure of speaking on this bill before and the pleasure of sitting on the Education and Science Committee. We listened to very good submissions and advice we received on the bill. I know that the New Zealand library community is looking forward to this bill receiving its royal assent. I think the best thing we can do as members of Parliament is shut up sit down and get on with it.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9390] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10642] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be considered by the Education and Science Committee and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 19 March 2004 
.
Hutchison Paul: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6798] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: In context Part 2 has huge importance in terms of issues of reputation for New Zealand the Parliament and the Minister. In speaking on clause 5 I can only but agree with Dail Jones that there are some very great worries about it. That is the provision where validation of processing and lapsing of applications is dealt with. It does seem absolutely extraordinary that it states: “Past order and manner of processing applications deemed valid (1) Any—(a) failure by a visa officer or an immigration officer or the Minister to process an application for a visa or permit. …; or (b) decision by a visa officer or an immigration officer or the Minister to process or not to process an application for a visa or permit … occurring or made before the commencement of this Act is deemed to have been validly done in accordance with the discretion of a visa officer or immigration officer to determine the order and manner of processing an application.” 
In other words any mistakes that may have been made are valid. It is absolutely unbelievable. If we are to go to first principles in terms of immigration policy we want to make sure that that immigration policy is predictable transparent certain and fair. We have a situation whereby a lawyer has written into legislation: “Any mistakes that have been made are valid.” It is absolutely unbelievable. All wrong decisions are right decisions. This lawyer is putting that into legislation under urgency. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: A trade-union lawyer. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is right. We have to make the description very clear. Subclauses (2) and (3) in clause 5 provide for no appeal. They state that no appeal lies against any decision to process or not to process an application for a visa or permit and that no proceedings may be brought in any court in respect of any failure to process or any decisions to process. 
As a former gynaecologist if I mucked up I would expect my patients to be able to go through a process of appeal. Here the Minister has mucked up really badly—20000 applicants 46000 people and it does not matter. They have no right of appeal and no day in court. As Winston Peters said that touches on the bounds of autocracy and it touches on the bounds of despotism. One wonders whether the true instincts of the Labour Government are really coming to the fore because it is saying in law that any mistakes that have been made are valid all wrong decisions are right and one has no appeal process through the courts. It is absolutely incredible that a union lawyer wants to put this sort of legislation through the New Zealand Parliament under urgency. 
Clause 6 suggests that the cost for application fees that are to be refunded will be about $10.5 million.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
[Volume:620;Page:15444] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think there are a couple of separate issues there. One is the issue of a member asking a question that the Minister does not have complete information on at the time that the question is asked. That is particularly likely to be so where questions to the Prime Minister cover an extraordinary broad range of matters and require a level of detail that the Prime Minister would need specific briefing on before being able to give an answer. But even within specific portfolios it is not an uncommon feature for many members—and the member who has just spoken I think is probably the best at doing this—to ask a broad question and it is not quite clear where the supplementary questions are coming from. Although the Minister may make every best effort to investigate 235 different programmes or 451 different cases that may come to mind the chances are that it is the 452nd case that a supplementary question is on and the Minister would not in fact have the information to answer that question at the time. It is a perfectly legitimate answer to indicate that the information will be made available as soon as possible. Otherwise Ministers would spend their entire time on preparing for question time instead of the considerable amount of time that does go into it in the New Zealand Parliament. 
 Underlying what the Speaker said the New Zealand Parliament has a more robust question time than that in many other democracies. For example in Australia members are often lucky to get one supplementary question in on a principal question and the Minister has 3 minutes or even up to 5 minutes to answer one short question. So the Minister gets a speech in reply to one question and there is often just one supplementary question following that. 
On the other matter on a number of questions last week we got into all sorts of detail and I do not want to get into some of that. One of the key points is that there are areas where a Minister should not be involved either because it is legally improper—in some cases illegal—or because it is inappropriate. For example a member may ask me as many questions as he or she likes about an individual tax case but he or she will not get an answer out of me in terms of specifics for a very simple reason: the Tax Administration Act provides that the Inland Revenue Department is not allowed to tell me about the details of an individual case. There is no point in asking me about it because I am not allowed to know what in fact those details are. Sometimes I may know that through my hat as Minister of Finance but that is a quite different matter indeed. So there are those circumstances in which Ministers will indicate that it is not appropriate for them to be involved in providing an answer because that in itself would be to get involved in an area that is not appropriate for the Minister to be involved in.
Power Simon: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8859] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 In terms of the Standing Orders I think Mrs Pettis is dead right. However when you took the closure on the title you indicated that you would allow a wide-ranging debate on the remaining parts. I am not sure whether Ms Fitzsimons was in the Chamber then but you did indicate that the remaining parts would be dealt with more liberally in respect of the numbers of calls you would allow.
Simich Clem: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11575] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I report the bill so divided I want to congratulate Mark Peck on taking a member’s bill through the Committee. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20118] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10530] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Part 1 be agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16572] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call in this debate. One of the things in politics is that we cannot get everything done in 5 minutes. Members have principles and things they believe in and we are always trying to improve things for all New Zealanders. This bill is a good example of that. It extends parental leave to another 3500 people in New Zealand. The glass on this issue is half full not half empty. However because we cannot do absolutely everything in this one piece of legislation Opposition parties say “Let’s have none of it.” They will vote down this bill even though we have extended paid parental leave to 3500 people. 
Of course the Government would like to take this further and of course we are open to considering extending paid parental leave into the future. This is not the end of the process. This is the middle part of it. It is another good piece of legislation where we invest in strong public services which the Labour-Progressive Government firmly supports. Don Brash would unwind paid parental leave for all Kiwis. From tonight we are including another 3500 mothers in this provision and we will keep on marching because we believe in keeping this country strong.
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:8778] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think members want to be clear about what is being sought. Could Mr Tim Barnett make it clear; we have been debating it for so long that we are unsure now.
Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18594] 
Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9040] 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still stand by her comments “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and I am confident that the tall poppy syndrome is alive and well in New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can she ever imagine good Prime Ministers—such as Maggie Thatcher Tony Blair Menzies Hawke Howard Seddon Savage Fraser Holyoake Muldoon and Lange—ever being so arrogant and conceited as to make a comment such as that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not recall the late Sir Robert’s name being mentioned. I do think that humility is an important part of public office and I aspire to meet that standard. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Given her statement: “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister.” what particular events made her think she is a victim? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Precisely the false allegations that I had taken personal responsibility for and directed issues around alleged GM contamination of corn when I had not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can she cast her mind over the following matters: the Yelash affair the maltreatment of Dover Samuels the “paintergate” affair and the denials that were patently not true and the “corngate” affair; and can she tell us which of those affairs bespeaks confidence popularity or honesty—or is it a case of “It’s so hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would observe that notwithstanding the so-called mini-scandals the Government was re-elected and the Prime Minister continues to be held in rather high regard.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13972] 
7.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What action has the Government taken to help fix the problem with Lake Rotoiti water quality? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Minister of Health and I announced central government funding of $7.2 million towards improving Lake Rotoiti water quality. We are spending $4 million on urgent remedial engineering works and a further $3.2 million for reticulated sewerage to avoid leaching from septic tanks into the lake. The local and regional councils are sharing the total costs. These short-term measures should result in a marked and quick improvement in the lake’s water quality. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What factors led the Government to approve this funding? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The recent decline in Lake Rotoiti poses a threat to people’s health and New Zealand’s image as a tourist destination. These economic and health effects justify this funding in advance of the Government’s water action programme which will identify waters of national importance and manage the effects of land use on water quality. The final factor was the strong advocacy from my colleagues Mita Ririnui on behalf of Te Arawa and Steve Chadwick on behalf of the Rotorua electorate. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that prevention of water pollution is always easier than restitution of water quality; if so what steps is she taking to limit intensification of dairying in sensitive catchments? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I could not agree more and that is the agreement we have reached with Fonterra to manage water runoff from land into catchment areas such as Lake Taupo Waikato River and lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti.