edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sowry Roger: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Sowry Roger: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5436] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 With most bills the schedules are passed over relatively easily but it is not so with tax bills. It is not so with a bill that has not been to a select committee and contains some substantial tax increases for people who wish to drink things such as dessert wine port and sherry. 
I want to raise some issues that occur in schedule 2 concerning a range of categories which I will read out so that the Minister and his officials can follow: 2208.90.56 2208.90.60 and 2208.90.67. These three categories relate to categories of alcohol. The first is drinks containing more than 1.15 percent alcohol by volume but not more than 2.5 percent. That is a very low alcohol volume and I am told that those are commonly called alcopops. The next one is drinks containing more than 2.5 percent alcohol by volume but no more than 6 percent and that is mixed ready-to-drink alcohol which is vodka and orange juice or whatever. The next section is drinks containing more than 6 percent alcohol by volume but no more than 9 percent and those are also ready-to-drinks but are stronger than the previous category. Those are the three commonly used drinks of choice of young people. 
The schedule shows that those three items—young people’s drinks; young people over 18—are to go up by the rate of inflation. Item 2208.20.29 which is drinks that contain more than 23 percent alcohol by volume—rum whisky bourbon vodka etc.—is being held at the same rate but adjusted for inflation. The explanatory note of the bill states that it will deal with those drinks with an alcohol content of between 14 and 23 percent yet those drinks do not appear in schedule 2. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I have already answered that. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I would be keen for him to answer it again even if he takes just a short call because I must have popped out of the House. 
Darren Hughes 
: His  
Hansard 
 will be available tomorrow. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Members can laugh about it but let me tell them that when the bill was faxed to one of the largest liquor stores in New Zealand and the owner went through the schedules he could not determine where the drinks that are supposedly being targeted were in this schedule. He went through schedule 2 and said that they were not there. I want an assurance that they are there because the explanatory note of the bill states that that is where they are being targeted. They certainly do not appear in schedule 2. I understand that some appear in schedule 1. The issue there I am led to believe is that schedule 1 covers drinks with 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume that are New Zealand – made. What was put to me tonight by that person in the industry—
Hunt Jonathan: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7723] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I did not say that. I said that had a Labour member taken the second call last night the Labour Party member would have got it.
Sowry Roger: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15650] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not trying to be difficult but I would hate that ruling to stand. I ask that you think about that because often in the Committee of the whole House as you would know from your long experience we end up debating all parts of a bill as one question. There could be amendments to parts and all sorts of things and we go through and vote at the end but the voting is separate for each part. 
If your indication becomes a ruling and is allowed to stand it would mean that all the voting would effectively be done at the end regardless of the time. That has never been the case. Yes the part must be dealt with and also the amendments to that part but we have done that and we are now moving on to a separate vote. That is what I ask you to consider seriously because this circumstance is not like one in which we are continuing with something we started on. This is a separate clause.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments amended agreed to.
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Written Answer 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:608;Page:5105] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Written Answer 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to reply to Mr Hide. There were four questions mentioned. Two were answered yesterday one was answered this afternoon and the fourth is awaiting the Minister’s signature hopefully to be done very soon.
Hughes Darren: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21694] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4495] 
8.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What recent initiatives has the Government taken to deliver on the biodiversity strategy goal to secure the protection of a full range of indigenous habitats and ecosystems? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 On Saturday I will be opening the Te Papanui Conservation Park. It is the first tussock grassland conservation park in Otago and only the second in the country. It is a priority of this Government to improve the protection of tussock grassland ecosystems and the Te Papanui park has been warmly welcomed by the people of Otago. 
David Parker 
: What other initiatives has the Government taken to improve the protection of indigenous habitats? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In the last 4 months two important coastal areas have been purchased to protect them—on the Karekare Peninsula in Northland and the other at Waikawau Bay on the Coromandel Peninsula—and an outstanding area of native forest in west Southland and 1600 hectares of Maori-owned forest in the Waikato have been covenanted. The area features many ancient trees. 
Shane Ardern 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer has he taken advice on the likely effects on ecosystems of such recent immigrants as the painted apple moth the gum leaf skeletoniser the fall web worm and the crazy ants that were discovered in Tauranga port; if not how can he claim success with biosecurity strategy goals? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I was talking about biodiversity rather than biosecurity but all pests in this country are a threat to our native ecosystem. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What exactly were the threats to the special ecosystems at Waikawau Bay in the Coromandel and why were they not adequately protected by the Resource Management Act which makes inappropriate subdivision use and development of the coastline a no-no under matters of national importance? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Government regards the preservation and protection of coastal land as a high priority which is why we were prepared to expend so much money to buy the 150 hectares at Waikawau Bay. 
Larry Baldock 
: Given the threat that pests like possums pose to the New Zealand biosecurity strategy does the Minister encourage the Department of Conservation to work closely with all recreational and commercial hunters to explore all the opportunities for possible pest eradication; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Department of Conservation actively seeks partnership in the management of pest control. Indeed recently I met wapiti hunters in Southland to discuss that very issue.
Cullen Michael: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6178] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe it is appropriate for the Chair to give a brief explanation in these circumstances not for members to explain their own amendments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: What I will do when I go through the amendments is explain them clearly and concisely.
Jones Dail: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3653] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support the forwarding of this legislation to the select committee. However I do take the point raised by the previous speaker and I am confident that I will be followed in this debate by Keith Locke who will speak at great length on the international treaties contained in this legislation. He will tell the House how important it is for us to consider all treaties legislation and will take his full 10 minutes to explain each one of those particular conventions which most of us have very little idea of whatsoever.  
However looking at this from an analytical viewpoint we have before us a bill that is 18 pages long. The first 12 pages are an introduction. I am just trying to understand this legislation. The first page tells us nothing and the second and third pages are all interpretation. By the time we get to the fourth page we discover that all the bill does is state that it entitles the Government to do things by way of Order in Council. It does not tell us anything else about what is in the bill. I am trying to find out what it is we are sending to the select committee but this bill does not tell us. All it states is that the Government can do all sorts of things by Order in Council.  
I have a great dislike of things being done by Order in Council. It goes against anyone’s legal training. It goes against anyone’s support for parliamentary democracy that we leave things to be done by some bureaucrat somewhere who puts a piece of paper under a Minister’s nose and says: “This is fine. Nothing controversial here.” The Minister sends it on and then we have a long debate on it in the House when something does go wrong. This bill does not tell us anything and I will not waste the time of the House on it any further. I wish the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee good luck and perhaps when the bill comes back we will all know something more about it.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
[Volume:615;Page:10999] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I do not believe that the matter should rest there because there is an honourable course of action. Mr Speaker you may not be able to order it but the House knows that. What the chief Government whip should now do is not send in a breach of privilege but rise this time give a genuine apology and say that he does accept that a racial slur was not made across this House. One of the reasons he should do it is that allowing it to stand gives the public the impression that we in this House have no standards. The racial slur did not happen I think Mr Benson-Pope now knows that it did not happen and the honourable thing for him to do is to get up and acknowledge that. Then perhaps we can proceed to the business in a more civilised way.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
[Volume:615;Page:11007] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I now wish to return to question No. 3. Statements of facts and questions must be authenticated as per Standing Order 364(1)(a). Questions Nos 2 and 4 contained statements of fact that therefore had to be authenticated and they were. Question No. 3 puts a suggestion to the Minister and asks for a reaction. Provided the suggestion relates to a matter for which the Minister has responsibility—in this case tax cuts—there is nothing wrong with that. If the Minister has not received any such suggestions he can say so. With regard to the second part of the question about how any hypothetical tax cuts are to be paid for I think there could be a legitimate objection that it is put colloquially. In so far as there is an assumption that tax cuts must be paid for—whatever that means—there is an assumption of fact involved and I think that I should rule the second part of the question out of order. The first part of the question can be asked and will be asked now.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8159] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — Hemana Waaka—Commentary 
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — Hemana Waaka—Commentary 
[Volume:609;Page:6329] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I thank the House for allowing me this opportunity to make a personal explanation. I feel a little like Jonny Wilkinson after having missed a kick from halfway. Yesterday I stated that Hemana Waaka did not commentate the game between Australia and New Zealand Maori in Perth on 15 June 2002. I understand through the media that Sky Network Television has confirmed that the commentary did take place on that day. I apologise for my error.
O'Connor Damien: Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 
O'Connor Damien: Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 
[Volume:612;Page:9034] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 In response to question No. 5 today my wording was that the Accident Compensation Corporation has a contract with Federated Farmers and that may have implied that there is direct payment to them. In fact the situation is that there is a strategic partnership between the Accident Compensation Corporation and Federated Farmers. No direct payment goes to them.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12998] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 1 be agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20273] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on Part 1 in order to specifically address an amendment raised by Pansy Wong. I want to address it specifically because I think that her intention is very genuine and I understand where she is headed with her amendment. I regret that I am not able to support it for very similar reasons to those that Judy Turner from United Future has outlined. 
I think the process that the Health Committee and the warring parts of our acupuncturist sector went through has made some progress in terms of ensuring that when we fund services through the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) or the health system we can have some quality assurance. That is our primary consideration. We will not put taxpayers’ money provided through any system into a health service that we do not have some confidence in so we have to have that standard. We also wanted to make sure that people had better choice in the type of acupuncture services that they were entitled to receive. The committee put a huge amount of effort into the issue of acupuncture. From the comments that I have heard back it seemed to be the No. 1 issue. The progress that we have made in that area is I believe the right step at the moment. That does not rule out anything in the future but I think we should just wait and see how far that progress enables us to go. 
I also draw the attention of Pansy Wong and the rest of the Committee to clause 43 which outlines the procedure for defining and changing future health providers. That is where the accident compensation system has finally come entirely into line with the health system through the recently passed Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. That is the way that we should progress so that regardless of the system that patients or claimants use to access health services we can be assured of quality services. 
It is with some regret that I do not feel able to recommend to my colleagues that we support Pansy Wong’s amendment. I think she has done it with a lot of understanding of the situation that acupuncture— 
Sandra Goudie 
: What about the failure to identify cost issues? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There is some noise coming from the other side of the House. It may be interference in the speaker system. Although I think that Pansy Wong has prepared the amendment with a genuine intention I cannot support it at the moment. I hope she is able to support the process and encourage her colleagues in the wider acupuncture sector to use the processes available through the health legislation in order to progress their access to more claimant support.
Chadwick Steve: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5013] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
O'Connor Damien: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8263] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Immigration Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Chadwick Steve: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17079] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question 
—.
Anderton Jim: Motions — Tsunami Boxing Day—Expression of Condolence 
Anderton Jim: Motions — Tsunami Boxing Day—Expression of Condolence 
[Volume:623;Page:18150] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Progressive Party as part of the coalition endorses and strongly supports the words of the Prime Minister to the House this afternoon and the actions that the Government has taken on behalf of all New Zealanders to assist the victims of this terrible tragedy. 
Motion agreed to. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Tizard Judith: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Tizard Judith: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:611;Page:8691] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
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:6288] 
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 amend the definition of  
NZTE  
by adding the following paragraph: 
(c)includes an agency as gazetted from time to time in accord with the Act.
Power Simon: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20557] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not take this point of order at the start of the delivery of the Minister’s speech as I did not want to interrupt his speech. An issue has arisen with respect to the report back that I have raised with one other bill in this House and I will ask you for a considered ruling on this. 
Standing Order 244 refers to minority views and states: “A select committee may in its report indicate the differing views of its members.” This is further borne out in Speaker’s rulings 81/3 and 81/4 which refer to minority or differing views of members. Speaker’s ruling 81/3 states: “… These differing views” referring to those in the minority report. A further context is provided for my point of order in Speaker’s ruling 81(4) which relates further to minority views as being “diverging views” both in the first line and the last line. 
The point of that contextual background is that the commentary on the bill on page 2 just prior to the heading “International obligations” quite clearly states: “In this commentary ‘most of us’ refers to Labour and United Future members.” That being the case we can assume that United Future has indicated that it is part of the majority in the report back indicating that “most of us” refers naturally enough to the Government—to Labour—but also to United Future. Then extraordinarily we have a minority report from United Future contained in the same commentary. 
The Standing Orders and Speaker’s rulings make quite clear in the context I have outlined that minority views relate to differing or diverging views from those of the majority whereas the commentary indicates that United Future considers itself by definition in fact—not by implication but by express definition—to be part of the majority by including itself in the commentary under the quote “most of us”. 
Unfortunately when it comes to reporting back political parties do not get to have a buck each way. The Standing Orders and Speaker’s rulings make very clear that minority reports refer to diverging or different views. In this case the Justice and Electoral Committee has through its commentary indicated that United Future sits with most of us in this report. It sits with the majority. At the same time it is trying to have a dollar the other way by indicating a minority report. 
I have raised this issue before. In that case there was no specific reference in the report back to who was included in the majority. I was rightly told to sit down and get over it. In this case there is a specific reference to the fact that United Future considers itself to be in the majority. The context I have provided from the Standing Orders and Speaker’s rulings indicate that this is inappropriate and I would seek a considered ruling from you on this issue.
Tizard Judith: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
Tizard Judith: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:18993] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to rise to support the second reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and I say I am truly astonished at the flip-flops from the Opposition side of the Chamber. I listened for 9 long years as the previous National Government justified passing Act after Act where the definition of “spouse” included people in de facto relationships and I would like to point out to the ludicrous Opposition members particularly to the one who preceded me that Parliament has frequently defined relationships that people may not have been comfortable with. I would take him back to 1966 when illegitimacy was outlawed and regardless of the fact that a father ignored his child that child could still inherit. It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that human rights should be determined by what a few people in Parliament think will get them a few votes because that is what the opposition to this bill is about. 
I would take the Opposition members back to the 1977 Human Rights Commission Act which did indeed outlaw discrimination on the grounds of marital status. I would take them back to the fine words that people like Doug Graham said in 1993 when the Human Rights Act was passed. This bill is about doing what Doug Graham and the previous National Government said they would do for most of the 1990s. What the Opposition is now saying is outrageous when we consider the Consistency 2000 project. Doug Graham kept telling us during those 9 long years that he would see the discrimination against in particular women and children in de facto relationships but also against gay and lesbian New Zealanders taken out of our law. 
I am proud of the work the Justice and Electoral Committee has done. I am proud of the work this Parliament is doing. I tell Opposition members to stop scrabbling like rats in a cupboard for a few votes and to start thinking about people’s lives.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9358] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15612] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14188] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11860] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Loosely that is the situation. In the course of the debate Dr Smith made a comment for which he was required to withdraw and apologise. He withdrew and apologised for that remark. Rather than question the decision by the Chair of the Committee he asked a question that I would say was no more than a debating point and in fact a statement of fact. What he said was “Is the member no longer a member of the Labour Party?”. I have looked at pages 17 and 18 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 which relate generally to criticism of the Speaker. I cannot see anything there to suggest that this was a criticism of the Chairperson. The member complied immediately with the requirement to withdraw and apologise for the remark. That is consistent with Speaker’s ruling 17/6. In continuing a speech as it happens it is quite frequent that comments are made that are of a debating nature. While it is not appropriate to bring the Speaker into the debate I do not believe for one minute that that is what Dr Nick Smith was doing. 
Perhaps it is not coincidental that this incident occurred during what has been quite a spirited debate and a much-anticipated debate also and I would suggest that there has been a degree of oversensitivity on the part of the Chair. The conduct for this afternoon has been perfectly civil and inside the Standing Orders. Again I cite that Dr Smith complied with Speaker’s ruling 17/6 immediately and in no way was his comment intended nor do I believe it could be construed to be as any sort of attack or for that matter reflection upon the Chair.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Toll Holdings—Tranz Rail Report of Environmental Risk Management Authority 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Toll Holdings—Tranz Rail Report of Environmental Risk Management Authority 
[Volume:610;Page:7148] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Jeanette Fitzsimons seeking to debate the release on 2 July of a report by the Environmental Risk Management Authority on the risk management of new organisms. Given that the sitting on 1 July was the last sitting of the House this is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. While the release of a report may warrant an urgent debate this must be exceptional especially where working through a report’s recommendations will take some time and an urgent debate will usually not be justified. Under these circumstances I do not consider that the release of this report requires the business of the House to be set aside for a debate today.
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6636] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ruled on that and in fact I will ask the Clerk to give the member the copy of my rather extensive ruling on that very matter just recently. 
Question time resumed.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20953] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
6A 
(1)No payment may be made to any prisoner for any breach or omission made by or on behalf of the Crown.
Catchpole Brent: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6911] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I would just like to take a short call on this bill on behalf of New Zealand First to support the expanded provisions dealing with pyramid selling. The provisions under the original Act were reasonable for the pyramid-selling schemes that existed at the time but as new and innovative ideas have come into being those provisions have become inadequate. Therefore this bill tightens them up and captures a lot more of them. We are confident that the bill does not affect existing legitimate franchise operators. With that we hope this bill is not used to try to close down any of the legitimate franchise operators and we are confident that it will not. 
 New Zealand First does have some reservations about the wording in clause 14 of paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 47(2) of the principal Act particularly the use of the words “may constitute”. I would like to give an example of where those words are used. Subsection (2)(a)(ii) states: “the nature or extent of any conduct that constitutes or may constitute a contravention of this Act;’’. We feel that those words are too loose and they should be tightened up along the lines of the Crimes Act—particularly the sections of that Act beginning with section 312A which are very specific about the reasons for interception warrants and the way that they can be applied for. This particular area of the bill should be tightened up so that it does not capture people who are undertaking legitimate activities that may well be assumed to be outside the law or to constitute an act outside the law. In that case we feel that the way the bill has been worded is too loose. It could capture some of those people and inconvenience them to some considerable extent. When the Commerce Commission does inconvenience people often the result for those people ends up being a major financial loss without any compensation for their loss. We feel that particular part of the bill should have been tightened up and we are disappointed that we were unable to do that with our Supplementary Order Paper. 
But in essence we support the bill because we feel it is far better to have the law tightened in respect of pyramid selling—particularly the new forms of pyramid selling. Therefore we support the bill.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14468] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a serious point of order in relation to the tabling of documents and claims that were made by the Minister of Local Government. He said in answer to the very first question of the day that I had said that National would abolish regional councils. When challenged he said he would table a document from the  
New Zealand Herald  
that would show that. I now have the document he tabled. It says no such thing and I wish to know from you Mr Speaker what way it is possible for members to hold Ministers to account for misleading the House in that way.
Brown Peter: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13039] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Earlier on in this debate on Part 3 I asked you about my colleague Ron Mark getting a call and you told me you were sticking to proportional party representation. I draw your attention to the fact that New Zealand First has had one call and the National Party who I think is guiding your proportions has had four calls. There has been no call from Mr Marc Alexander and he has several amendments. We took you at your word. We have been waiting to keep things in proportion and now you have closed the debate. I ask how fair that is. 
The ASSISTANT CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I have been looking for some time and most of the calls have been coming from my left. There has been no movement at all from the back. I point out Speaker’s ruling 59/2 and that is that Committee proportionality applies principally to fixed-time debates. I try to be as fair as I can but there does not appear to me to be enough support for continuing the debate. The reality is that I have now taken the closure and the Chair is the sole judge under Speaker’s ruling 58/8.
Tisch Lindsay: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9392] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hear the point you are making. If we look at Government orders of the day under this bill it states that this is an interrupted debate on the second reading. In my view that means that 11 speeches remain—that is what it states—and because Mr Ryall had started to speak in the previous debate the Speaker should have offered him the opportunity to continue with his debate. In fact Mr Ryall was never given that opportunity to continue with his debate. The Speaker went straight to the Minister and that is where it progressed. Because Mr Ryall had already spoken and not taken up his allotted time the first call should have gone directly to him. That is the issue that the Opposition feels aggrieved about. Mr Ryall was only a minute or so into a 10-minute speech and he was not given the first call today. That is the issue. 
Jill Pettis 
: He wasn’t even called. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The junior Government whip might say that the member was not called. She is also interjecting on a point of order while I am bringing forward a very important point. The Speaker should have given the call to Mr Ryall because he had started his debate. Although you have said it is too late to do that it is our view that the correct process was not followed and Mr Ryall should have been given the call not the Minister.
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8552] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I table the document. [ 
Interruption 
] No I do not have to seek leave. I am a Minister. 
Document not tabled.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21013] 
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 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9817] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a third time.
Duynhoven Harry: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6803] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Roy Heather: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20283] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I wish to take a very brief call. Part 2 cannot pass without the ACT party having a say about competition and choice in terms of premiums. We did see some very positive changes for a very brief period—for 9 months I think it was—when the former National Government at the urging of ACT for 2½ years opened the Accident Compensation Corporation out to competition. It did that I understand when New Zealand First left the coalition. But as Judith Collins has just outlined we saw some very positive changes. Employers around the country were very happy with the changes to accident compensation around that time. As we have heard many employers noticed quite a significant drop in their premiums because competition was available. People were still able to insure themselves with the State provider if they so chose but competition did drive down many of the premiums. A small number increased in price but those were very few. I remember talking to a bookseller at the time. He complained that his premiums had gone up. It is a bit difficult to see how injuries in the workplace in a bookshop might have occurred but presumably competition meant that his premiums needed to be higher than they were. 
Katherine Rich 
: Paper cuts. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Perhaps it was paper cuts. Now with the provisions in this bill I suppose those will be covered by “infection”. However the cost of premiums did in fact go down. At the same time the number of accidents also decreased which also tells a story. It seems that personal responsibility was involved there. Employers recognised that providing safe workplace practices and having safeguards in the workplace were of benefit both to themselves and to their employees. It also seems that the employees took some responsibility for themselves as well. It was an ideal partnership—employees and employers working well together to achieve mutual benefit. It would be nice to see a little more encouragement from this Government for this sort of thing in the workplace because at the moment I do not think that that attitude exists. 
I would also like to support my colleagues in the National Party. They have made some very valid points on Part 2 particularly in relation to competition. Choice and competition are what make business successful in this country. If the Government does change after the election then I am sure that one of the first things to happen will be that competition is reintroduced into the area of accident compensation and that we can at that time expect to see lower premiums again for most employers employees individuals and business people and a further drop in the number of accidents.
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7886] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Fairbrother Russell: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Fairbrother Russell: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18825] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
.
Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8586] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was always my understanding that the protocol on speaking slots at the second reading meant that the chairperson of the select committee followed the Minister. Am I incorrect on that? 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I have often thought that that would be an excellent thing to do. As a chair of a select committee I have always had to wait until slot 6 before I got to speak on the work my committee had done over the previous year so I think it would be a very good idea to move in that direction. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I would be delighted if the chair of the select committee spoke first. I think that he did an excellent job during a very difficult time and I concede to him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I am pleased too. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very magnanimous of Dr Hutchison to make that call but you had called him. He had risen and commenced his speech and a member cannot yield to another member other than to clarify a question. He cannot yield his whole speech. We need to comply with the Standing Orders so I raise this matter and ask you to reflect on it. 
John Carter 
: I may well be able to help the House merely by seeking leave given the comments that have been made. You have called Dr Paul Hutchison nevertheless I seek leave for Dr Hutchison’s speech not to be recognised at the moment in order to allow you to call Mr Donnelly and then for Dr Hutchison to take a call at a later stage. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Electronic Format 
Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Electronic Format 
[Volume:617;Page:13233] 
Points of Order 
Replies to Written Questions—Electronic Format 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a procedural issue around parliamentary questions. When I have submitted a written parliamentary question to the Minister of Education in the past I have received replies where extensive data has been supplied in an electronic form. That practice has now ceased and the Minister now supplies any extensive data in paper form which is often hundreds of pages of printouts of spreadsheets. This is a practice he complained about when he was in Opposition. 
So my question is whether there is a practice followed by the House in respect of receiving appropriate answers in electronic format and furthermore if there is not a practice whether members could establish one. Given that our whole system is now electronically based it would seem rather odd that the very information most suited to that medium—large-scale data—can be answered in only a paper format. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will look at that issue. It is quite a complex one and I will come back to the member.
Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill — Third Readings 
Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:626;Page:21300] 
Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 8 
Green Party 8. 
Bills read a third time.
Peters Winston: Motions — Terrorism—Madrid Bombings 
Peters Winston: Motions — Terrorism—Madrid Bombings 
[Volume:616;Page:11627] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First endorses the Prime Minister’s comments in their entirety and we pass on our deepest sympathy to the Spanish people.
[Volume:615;Page:11260] 
My understanding is that if an amendment has been tabled we can speak to it and it is only at the time of voting when you come to put the vote on a particular part or clause that you then rule it out of order and we do not get to vote on it. To my knowledge that is how we have handled amendments in the past and I think that when Dr Mapp spoke to the amendment he was right to do so just as Mr Locke has just spoken to his amendment as well without any interference from the Chair.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
[Volume:615;Page:10998] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not my point I am afraid. In the newspaper the chief Government whip questioned your authority. That is what he was doing. He said that the Speaker was wrong to accept an MP’s word. That is openly defying you and openly defying this Parliament and I suggest that David Benson-Pope be asked to withdraw and apologise.
King Annette: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
King Annette: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3952] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Racing Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to.