edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7929] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During that vote there were two interjections from Ms Kedgley alleging that United Future members supporting that vote were the hand of the tobacco industry and in the pocket of the tobacco industry. I make the point to you that that firstly is grossly untrue and without any foundation whatsoever and secondly has been the subject of a matter raised when a group outside this Parliament made a similar allegation that went before the Privileges Committee because a breach of privilege was held to be established. The member is grossly out of order and I request that she be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the remark. Did the member make that remark? 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I asked whether the member made those remarks. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I made one of those remarks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In that case the member will withdraw and apologise for any such communication. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I did not say what he said but I will withdraw and apologise. I did not say exactly what he suggested. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member just says: “I withdraw and apologise.” Please say that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Brownlee Gerry: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8996] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I did not call you back lightly or for any reason other than just to getclarification on this matter. I listened to the general debate this afternoon and it was a vigorous debate. I think it was one of those occasions when we see parliamentarians cut loose and they say the things they are thinking. I personally was described in all sorts of different ways during that debate as were numerous colleagues on this side of the House. There were accusations made about the motives that some of us may or may not have. In those accusations there were descriptions of personalities as well and the  
Hansard 
 record will show that very clearly. 
 In the course of this afternoon we have had a little bit of trouble around this term “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” being applied to the seven Maori MPs from across the Chamber. I do not believe that in any of those circumstances it was meant as a derogatory term. It was meant as a bit of provocation to get them to speak. Provocations to get members on their feet to declare a position are surely part of the debate that one would expect in a Parliament. I chose not to use that descriptive but rather said that the Maori MPs reminded me of seven gnomes at the bottom of Helen Clark’s garden that were made of concrete and seemingly unable to speak. I do not think that was a personal comment on any one of them. It was a reference to the fact that in this bill there are issues that are of concern to the wider Maori community and there is an expectation that those concerns would be represented by those members or if they cannot be represented that there would be at least some explanation from those members as to why they cannot represent that view. The real underlying point here— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please come to the point of order quickly? I am ready to rule. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The real underlying point is that if we are to be constrained simply to a formal style of address from one member of Parliament to the other then this House is most likely to lose a considerable amount of colour. The thick skins that we are all known to have will become incredibly thin and the quality of the work that we do in here would suffer.
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12361] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 7; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 6 
New Zealand National 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21144] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I should have brought this up at the end of question No. 10 which was directed to the Coordinating Minister Race Relations. It relates to some comments the Minister made during his answers. I seek now to table a job advertisement—just one of many—from today’s newspaper that requires a health-welfare services manager to have a specific understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi in order to be employed by the Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is.
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20253] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I deliberately paused before taking this call because I was hoping that the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui would take a call. I think that my colleague Mr Brownlee has raised some very important issues. Some Ministers who sit in the chair frankly do not know anything about the bills they are in charge of. I do not believe however that that could be the case in this instance. The Hon Mita Ririnui knows in detail the nature of the settlement—he comes from the area even though I appreciate that he is not Ngati Tuwharetoa. Nevertheless he has an understanding of the issues in the area. I think he owes it to Parliament to answer the questions. 
I was also concerned about clause 121 which refers to the Minister of Conservation granting easements. That is a procedure whereby the claimants will get an easement over publicly owned land—land held on behalf of all New Zealanders which presumably therefore all New Zealanders have access to as a matter of course. Nevertheless the claimants will get an access easement. Members can see the dilemma that I am faced with. People have access as of right anyway by virtue of it being Department of Conservation land. But in this particular instance the claimants will get a special easement. I raise that as a question because I am assuming as I noted at the outset that the Minister knows the answer to this question. I believe he owes it to the House to give an answer. As my colleague said this part of the bill is quite conventional and I do not have any other issues with it. But I do ask that question and I think the Minister owes us an answer.
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11449] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Police—Former Commissioner National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Police—Former Commissioner National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship 
[Volume:625;Page:20370] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received four letters seeking debates under Standing Order 373. A letter from Rodney Hide seeks to debate the Prime Minister’s actions relating to Peter Doone. The Prime Minister’s actions occurred over 5 years ago but this application results from the release of statements of evidence concerning the recent defamation action. I am not persuaded that the release of the statements overcomes the requirement that for an urgent debate the matter be a particular case of recent occurrence. That is not to say that with an existing situation there may not be a new development of sufficient importance to justify a debate—see Speaker’s ruling 153/5. But that is not the case here. In these circumstances I cannot accept this application.
Connell Brian: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4363] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a challenge and a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill. I understand why the Government has separated out Part 5 from the Wine Bill in order to drive this legislation through the House. It is because these provisions are required to ensure New Zealand’s wine exports meet the labelling regimes in overseas markets especially those in the European Union. 
One has only to travel around New Zealand to understand the importance of winemaking and wine exports to our economy. But I am not certain that we have captured that importance in the title of this bill. I think we have probably exercised a lack of flair. In fact I would go as far as to say I am a little saddened by the title. The title “Wine Makers Amendment Bill” lacks a certain elegance does it not? Although I hasten to add that this is not National’s position surely we could have exercised a certain flair. After all no winemaker has ever sold his or her clarets or Sauvignon Blancs under the exciting description of “pressed and fermented grape squeezings in a glass container”. I am sure that if we use the present title for this legislation it probably will not grip the winemaking industry and I do not think it will grip the wider New Zealand public. 
I think we have missed an opportunity here to capture the exciting allure—a little mystery perhaps—of winemaking and wine taking. I do not think that members of the Committee who have participated in an evening of wine sampling with a few friends in the middle of winter around a fire with a big juicy red in the hand would say that this title captures that excitement and pleasure. We could probably try a more appropriate title like “New Zealand’s Exotic Wines Amendment Bill” or “Wine Exporters Amendment Bill” because I think those titles would probably be more accurate descriptions of what we are trying to capture. The “New Zealand Wine Exporters Amendment Bill” might in fact be a better way of branding not only our industry but our place in the sun when it comes to winemaking. 
As an aside though if we can work together to hasten the passage of this amendment bill through the House I wonder why it is that the Government cannot use its powers to speed other important legislation through the House like the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill or the Resource Management Amendment Bill for example. When it comes to passing those pieces of legislation the Government is dragging its feet. The Wine Makers Amendment Bill is probably setting a precedent—I hope it is—in how the Government might want to conduct its business through this House. If that is the case I am sure that on other occasions it would be a real pleasure to speak about legislation of this quality.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:616;Page:12098] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill the first reading of the Charities Bill and the passing through the remaining stages of the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) the Maritime Security Bill the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill and the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) and of any bills into which those bills may be divided. 
 This motion is moved first of all to enable the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill to proceed to its first reading and to a select committee without the standard 3-day separation. In relation to the other matters the motion is moved to ensure that they are dealt with before the House rises for the Easter adjournment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Burton Mark: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7328] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 18 September 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 18 September 
[Volume:612;Page:8886] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Although that is not a point of order I can tell the member that I discussed the matter just before the House sat. The member has been discussing the matter with the Clerk and if necessary he will be making a statement to the House.
Cunliffe David: Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Cunliffe David: Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4562] 
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise to speak as the chair of Labour’s Auckland caucus committee to support this bill and to recognise the member who has brought it forward. This is the very model of how a member’s bill can work. I compliment the Government on giving it the priority to get through all its stages today. I am fascinated to see that curious combination of ACT and the Greens confused with some perverted sense of liberalism. 
Before the election when this bill was topical the Hon Ken Shirley said as follows: “The ACT party supports the introduction of this bill. We welcome tougher measures to deal with illegal street drag racing. Indeed this bill is in keeping with ACT’s campaign for zero tolerance in crime.” Or is that something they say before an election? Now “Deborah Mollycoddlingthem” has changed their view. Nandor Tanczos always stands up for the criminal and never the victim. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member should use the correct name of the member. 
DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do apologise. Mr Tanczos has defended the criminal and not the victim. The argument here is in favour of the families who have lost family members and the people of Endeavour Street Taunton Avenue Halsey Drive and The Avenue Lynfield who cannot sleep whose babies are woken in the middle of the night because of hoon cars running up and down their street. I have news for those “better than thou” ACT folks. My west Auckland constituents want to get beyond the reputation of black jeans and mullets. They want neighbourhoods where they can sleep at night. They are sick to death of hoons on their streets. Seventy-five of them met in Blockhouse Bay to call for this bill to be expedited and that has been done.
Hartley Ann: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18919] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question is— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Madam Chair—
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 June 2004. Volume:618;Page:13633. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What is the total updated taxpayer cost to date for all legal costs prison costs court costs and any other costs associated with Ahmed Zaoui since his arrival in December 2002? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I have not been able to update the figures in the time available. The latest estimated cost that was provided to the House last month was $725679.89. I will undertake to update this figure as soon as possible and provide the member with the information as soon as it is available. I will also update this information on a monthly basis. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister is able to do that on a monthly basis henceforth why has he not been able to do it today and why is he hiding behind the defence of inadequate time when he has had—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Mr Prebble knows he should not be doing that. I will be generous to him today but he is the only person in this House to whom I will be generous. Please Mr Peters has the right to ask his question in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister says he will update this expenditure on a monthly basis why is he hiding behind the defence that he had inadequate time today given that this question has been asked regularly and that his department knows full well what we are after in respect of an updated expenditure cost; and seeing as I have had to waste my time on that can I ask the Minister the simple question whether the total outlay on this matter so far would not have helped 40 poor New Zealand families into homes? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly an attempt was made to update the figures but in the time available it was not possible. There is no interest on my part in concealing the figures. The member will have access to the accurate figures as soon as I am able to get them and I will make a commitment that we will then have an ongoing monthly update so that the member does not have to spend time asking questions in the House. As far as the second figure is concerned I cannot confirm the actual amount and the number of homes that the member referred to but it is clear that this issue needs to be reviewed and that is part of the review process that will be under way once this situation has been resolved.
Vote: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7873] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by majority by the Government Administration Committee be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19829] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Personal Explanations — Question No. 3 to Minister 2 November—Authentication 
Personal Explanations — Question No. 3 to Minister 2 November—Authentication 
[Volume:621;Page:16859] 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 3 to Minister 2 November—Authentication 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just received in my tray a letter from the Speaker of the House—and my point of order concerns putting the record straight—relating to a breach of privilege allegation that the Hon George Hawkins tried to bring against me on a matter concerning misrepresentation of an issue in the House. The issue relates to a question I asked in the House last week in which I quoted something from specifically the May edition of the  
Police News. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
RON MARK 
: I am in a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I say to Ron Mark that what I am hearing is more in the nature of a personal explanation. He is quite free to seek leave to make that personal explanation if he wishes but what he is saying is not a point of order at this stage. 
RON MARK 
: Before I do that can I just read out specifically what the letter said; I will then be guided by your ruling based on the content of that letter. “While I have determined that no question of a breach of privilege is involved in this case it is of course incumbent on any member who feels that he or she might have given inaccurate information to the House to clear the matter up.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member can do that by personal explanation. The member should seek leave to do that. 
RON MARK 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
RON MARK 
: The explanation relates to a question that I put to the Minister of Police last week. In the content of the actual primary question I quoted something and said it had come from the May edition of the  
Police News 
. The Minister in his answer commented that the quotation in fact had come from the June edition of the  
Police News. 
 Not being used to the Minister being right I took umbrage at his challenge and I challenged him in return. Subsequently we found that despite authentication having been done by the Clerk’s Office there indeed had been an error between our staff the Clerk’s Office and the actual question being accepted and tabled in the House. So I am just seeking to say that in actual fact on this occasion the Hon George Hawkins was correct but there was no deliberate attempt on my part to mislead the House. The question had been lodged with the Clerk of the House and the relevant copies of the  
Police News 
 had been attached to it but unfortunately the authentication quoted May instead of June.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10320] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to.
Hawkins George: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hawkins George: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8454] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The title of this bill is the Gambling Bill. The bill is the result of a very comprehensive review of gaming conducted in the year 2001. At the moment the sector is governed by several different pieces of legislation each with its own objectives. The Gambling Bill brings together all the different parts of the sector. It repeals the Gaming and Lotteries Act and the Casino Control Act. It also includes aspects of racing so it is fair to say the bill creates a fairly complete regulatory framework for gambling in New Zealand. It is truly a gaming bill. 
Gaming is a complex issue. It will always generate debate—and some of that is fairly heated debate—because people have such widely differing views on it. Some people enjoy a little flutter and see gambling as a harmless leisure activity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate on the title clause in the Committee is limited strictly to the elements of that clause—that is whether the proposed title adequately describes the bill. It is not an opportunity to debate the general principles of the bill its intent or anything else. It is a very narrow debate unless members seek leave to widen the debate. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: What I am doing is saying why the bill is called the “Gambling Bill” and not the “Responsible Gambling Bill” which is what it was previously called. 
Hon David Carter 
: Seek leave and we will give it to you. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I bet you will! I think it is very important that people realise that gambling is something that most people in New Zealand some time or another will do—have a bit of a flutter. The bill deals with such things as Melbourne Cup sweepstakes. As such I believe it is very very important. 
I know that people will possibly look for different names for this bill and I am sure the National Party will suggest lots of different names. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: You would be right there. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes I would be right on that. It looks as though someone wants to bet that I will be right. Well that just shows us how bad it is around this place. The name of this bill clearly signifies what it is about. Originally it was introduced as the “Responsible Gambling Bill” but when people looked at the titles of Acts later on and wanted to look at gambling they might not have thought of looking under the term “Responsible Gambling Act”. So the bill is now called the Gambling Bill and I think that is most appropriate.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20361] 
4.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What is the Government doing to increase investment in health research and strengthen the health research workforce? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I have today announced a $70 million health research package. Sixty-one million dollars more funding over 4 years for health research will provide a major boost to research with the potential to address the specific health needs of New Zealanders. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How many years? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Over 4 years I repeat for Dr Smith’s edification. I know the member is stupid but he should concentrate on the answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That comment was unnecessary. Would the Minister please withdraw that comment. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It was; I agree. I withdraw. Some of that funding will go towards providing more training fellowships for health practitioners who want to get involved in research. It is a $70 million package overall. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How does this increase for health research compare with previous levels of investment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It builds on previous increases put in place by my predecessor Mr Pete Hodgson including $19 million in last year’s Budget. Spending on health research has almost doubled over the last 6 years rising from $27 million to $53 million and that is without counting the new money to strengthen the research workforce. The new money this year is also the single biggest increase in health research since the Health Research Council was established in 1990. It may well be the biggest since the Medical Research Council was put in place. Health researchers have also benefited from the establishment in 2000 of the New Economy Research Fund which now funds about $10 million of health research a year increases in the Marsden Fund and two health-related centres of research excellence. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does this increase bring New Zealand’s expenditure on health research up to the OECD average or has the Government heeded Treasury’s advice that we should not aim to reach the OECD average; if it is the latter why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is the aim of the Government to bring ourselves into line with that particular average and these increases do a great deal to bring us there.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14842] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 241 in the name of the Hon John Tamihere to Part 2 be agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6287] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13 ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit the definition of  
member 
 and insert the following definition: 
director 
 means a member of the board.
Pettis Jill: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9821] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 This is a good bill and I am pleased to support it. I think that in the interests of children whom we all purport to represent and care about we should get on and get the bill passed.
Brown Peter: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5205] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This is a botched-up bill and it should be thrown out. We have amendments by Phil Goff and now we have just heard that they have been withdrawn and replaced by others. We have an amendment by Lianne Dalziel that bans people on temporary visas from sex work. We have an amendment from Stephen Franks wanting to discriminate against landlords who want to rent accommodation to sex workers. We have amendments by Dianne Yates who wants to turn the bill into a Swedish model and amendments by Gordon Copeland who wants to have a prohibition on advertising for sex. Sue Bradford wants to drop all that; she wants an inquiry into advertising. Wayne Mapp wants to bring in restrictions to say what the status quo is. 
This bill is so mixed up and so full of holes and loopholes that nobody in this Committee really agrees with it as it is. Despite the rumour that the Prime Minister has given an edict that all Cabinet Ministers must vote for it— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Oh rubbish! Absolute rubbish! 
PETER BROWN 
: That rumour is circulating. Maybe the member could take a call and explain that to us but that rumour is certainly making the rounds. This bill should be dumped. If we want to address this industry we should draw the New Zealand First bill out of the ballot and bring in legislation that protects women along the lines of the Swedish model.
Hughes Darren: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7460] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. This is a very important piece of legislation that has come before the House and it is worthy of the support of all members. I want to pay tribute briefly to my predecessor Judy Keall who shepherded the bill through the select committee stage. I think the Health Committee’s report is a very good one. It has picked up on a number of the points that submitters raised about making sure there was a level playing field. 
I am particularly interested in the provisions that I believe provide safeguards for young people both as patrons of pubs clubs and cafes and as workers in those venues. Often young people work for very low wages and for very long hours in conditions that are very smoky. There is no doubt that that has an impact on their health. I think this bill is an important way of safeguarding young workers in the economy. That is one of the reasons that I will be supporting the bill. The other of course is that pubs clubs bars and cafes are often frequented by lots of young people and young people generally get addicted to cigarette smoking during their teenage years or when they are under 18 and putting people into venues where it is very smoky of course has an impact on their health. When I go to such venues see that they are very smoky and look around and count the number of people who are smoking I see that it is actually very few and the point is that a very few people at those venues have a huge impact on the rest of the people there. I believe that this bill is about making sure that those venues are enjoyable for all New Zealanders and about making sure there is clean air for all people who want to have fun recreation time in New Zealand.
Burton Mark: Personal Explanations — Trevor Mallard—Statement Made About Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Burton Mark: Personal Explanations — Trevor Mallard—Statement Made About Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:625;Page:20525] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 If the suggestion made is indeed followed then in the interests of making progress and of allowing the member to make his comment—with the assurance that it will be made strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders—I do not think there will be a problem. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave to make a personal statement. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15201] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7223] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 Could you please clarify what exactly he said that was rude? I can understand that he was frustrated because he stood his ground— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I keep a record of each day’s question time. I would be able to point out to the member occasions here here here and here. It is obvious to most members of the House.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19532] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member has a conflict of interest in any matter at all then it is up to the member to declare the conflict of interest he or she may have. But I think the matter listening to the debate on the point of order is about declaring an interest as opposed to a conflict of interest—if I have understood that clearly. Standing Order 165 does not affect the validity of any question in such circumstances though the MP may commit a breach of privilege if he or she does not declare an interest in those circumstances. Given that would the member proceed.
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4590] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I caution members that there is no need for the House to become disorderly. I think that everyone has had a fair go at making his or her point.
Hereora Dave: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hereora Dave: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6570] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is it a new point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes it is. Just a few moments ago in taking a point of order the Hon Trevor Mallard made strong suggestions that my speech was in some way influenced by factors outside the House. I never mentioned the family that he spoke of. I made no reference to any other New Zealanders and most certainly did not indicate— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I will take a personal statement if we cannot deal with it this way because I have taken offence and on that basis there is a requirement on the Chair to listen. I think it is highly offensive for Mr Mallard to suggest that simply because I go into bat for the thousands of New Zealanders who want to retain ownership of the foreshore I am in some way advocating an impingement of rights that might properly belong to the Maori people. My record is most certainly not consistent with that and I ask that the Minister be required to withdraw and apologise for the insult. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Minister certainly when he spoke to that point of order was making a debatable point. I ask the Minister to stand and withdraw that remark about the point that the member has taken offence 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:6493] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Dalziel Lianne: Evidence Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Evidence Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20423] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call to say how pleased I am to see the Evidence Bill finally in front of the House with the recommendations of the Law Commission picked up. The Minister gave a clear message that the Law and Order Committee has a task before it: it can look at the issues and address them based on the evidence presented to it. 
I will speak briefly about a matter of particular concern to me—spousal immunity. Anyone who was at my wedding will know that my husband’s wedding speech was predicated on the basis that the only reason he was marrying me was because of spousal immunity—and of course this legislation does away with that. He knew that he would be able to come home weary from being on his motorbike and be able to share his guilt with me in the knowledge that I could never be compelled to give evidence against him. This legislation allows for the removal of spousal immunity. 
When I spent a period of time as Associate Minister of Justice I managed to persuade officials to come up with an alternative that would allow spouses and other partners very close to the individual concerned to be excused by a judge from giving evidence. So the bill still allows for a little bit of immunity in order to ensure that the relationship is protected and more important that the veracity of the information being given to the court is protected because that is what evidence law is all about. 
I welcome the bill. I look forward to its coming to our select committee and to the very hard work that we will do on it.
Duncan Helen: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Duncan Helen: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10686] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I support this excellent bill which will correct a very difficult situation for New Zealand.
Shirley Ken: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10616] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there may have been a misreporting here. You will recall the speech from the co-leader of the Greens who gave a passionate plea for an extended reporting date. I notice that she is not in the House now. Perhaps Mr Locke has not received the right instructions from his party leader. The party leader clearly said her party wanted a later reporting date and now it is abstaining on that issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising the issue but the party concerned has a representative in the House and I have no doubt he has been fully briefed; otherwise he would have jumped to his feet and changed the vote himself.
Kedgley Sue: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20073] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 For the record I want to express the Green Party’s support for this bill. We think that it was long overdue for the rape laws to be updated. The bill does as many members have said strengthen children’s protections in that area. As many have said it is a complex area and the bill is certainly not perfect. We are disappointed that Sue Bradford’s amendment was not supported by the Government. Nevertheless we will be supporting the bill and we are very pleased that it does have quite wide support in the House.
Points of Order — Debate on Iraq 
Points of Order — Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3919] 
Points of Order 
Debate on Iraq 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Noting that the Prime Minister has in recent days talked of a likely conflict in Iraq beginning on 17 March I seek leave for the House to set aside time for an unlimited debate on the situation in Iraq on Thursday of qthis week after question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Chadwick Steve: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7929] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Having heard Mr Prebble’s concern I share it myself. We have a serious breakdown in democratic institutions in this country—namely Parliament and its question time and the ability of members of Parliament to hold the executive accountable. If that is not a matter of serious public urgency I do not know what is. It is the first time in my career in Parliament that I have seen such an investigation come up with that sort of result.
Pettis Jill: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18406] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Nga Rauru Kitahi is situated in South Taranaki between Patea and Wanganui which is part of the electorate of Whanganui that I am privileged to represent. I am very pleased to know a significant number of Nga Rauru people who live within the Whanganui electorate. They are fine hard-working and forward-looking people who do an awful lot within their community. The iwi has approximately 3000 members which is a significant grouping of people within the geographical area. 
This bill is important because it settles all the historical claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi and gives effect to the third treaty settlement in the Taranaki region. The historical claims of Nga Rauru Kitahi relate mainly to the Crown’s raging of war in the Taranaki area in the 1860s and a fascinating history that is. Many events of the 1860s and the land confiscation remain at the forefront of many people’s memories. The Crown acknowledged the objective of Nga Rauru Kitahi to revitalise their own values their tikanga through this settlement process and redress. 
I look forward to this bill progressing through the House. I also look forward to the magnanimous statements that have been made by the Opposition this afternoon continuing during the further stages of the bill as it progresses through the House. I wish all those associated with Nga Rauru Kitahi well. I know that they too are very keen to get on and with the forward-looking attitude they have today continue to assist their people particularly the young people who are so important to the continuation of Nga Rauru Kitahi within our area.
Shirley Ken: Prime Minister’s Statement 
Shirley Ken: Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18159] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mine is a point of order. During that debate in response to several somewhat restrained interjections from the ACT benches you invoked Standing Order 115(2)— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No Speaker’s ruling. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I beg your pardon; Speaker’s ruling 115/2. I draw to your attention that it states: “Therefore a greater degree of restraint is required [on the part of members interjecting] …”. You implied Mr Speaker that because it was a statement and not a debate it should be heard in silence whereas  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 is quite clear that it actually anticipates and expects some interjection. That is in the ruling before us. In conclusion I contrast your actions with regard to the sycophantic barracking from the Labour Party back benches when you chose not to take any action. It could be seen by the House that you are actually protecting the Prime Minister by misinterpreting this Speaker’s ruling.
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9020] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is all very well for you to say that that is done as a matter of convenience but it is a clear breach of the second sentence of the Standing Order and that is what I ask you to focus on. Matters of convenience are fine but the rules of the House are another matter. Unless you suspend the Standing Orders then I ask that we follow the regular processes of the Committee as recorded in the Standing Orders. Why is that unreasonable?
Parker David: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Parker David: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6281] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Sowry Roger: General Debates 
Sowry Roger: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8760] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is interesting that you are making New Zealand First come to the Chair to discuss that when Mr Cunliffe who was removed during question time has freely come back into the Chamber and sat down. I presume that we have the same rules for everybody. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is a slight difference in that case Mr Sowry. The respective whips did come to discuss the matter with the Chair as Mr Brown is doing now.
Robertson H V Ross: Sittings of the House 
Robertson H V Ross: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:14157] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It will be done later? 
Hon Members 
: Yes.