edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7637] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct.
Alexander Marc: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8818] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 In view of the lateness of the evening and rather than disturb the flow of going on to the next part I seek the leave for the Committee to rise early. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5471] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is not.
Anderton Jim: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5444] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The fact is that Mr Robson was in his room which is exactly where I thought he was. I could not prove it but I would have dealt with that if we had to deal with it. But I come back to the point. Mr Peters accused me of lying. I heard him say it and I suggest that many other members did too. I ask you to ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am going to deal with Mr Peters.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10530] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15650] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I understand that. It was one debate but the votes on the two clauses are to be taken separately.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:14875] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No it is not the intention to extend the time for hearings on that bill. While there seems to be a large number of submissions there also seems to be a large amount of repetition.
Cullen Michael: Motions — America's Cup 
Cullen Michael: Motions — America's Cup 
[Volume:606;Page:3901] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House congratulate the Alinghi syndicate on winning the America’s Cup on 2 March 2003 in Auckland from Team New Zealand; over the course of the challenger and defender series Alinghi proved itself to be the best syndicate; its success was deserved.  
I also move That the House acknowledge the hard work and efforts of the whole team at Team New Zealand; they faced the unenviable task of rebuilding the syndicate in the wake of a successful defence in 2000. While unsuccessful this year a new team has been built that is capable of making a strong challenge to the America’s Cup when the next regatta is held. 
Motions agreed to.
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15425] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to make a point with regard to the part of the preamble that refers to the Maori Land Court. One of the concerns I have is related to an issue that has been in the media and has attracted a lot of attention in this Parliament in terms of the Maori Land Court. 
First I refer to the responsibility that the Maori Land Court will have under this bill particularly in the area of certain disputes that are to be referred to the court. My concern is that nothing in the bill makes reference to the allocation of resources in order for the Maori Land Court to be able to do that work. Already under its present workload the Maori Land Court is running behind. That certainly gives credence to its often-said description: “Taihoa the Maori Land Court!”. I want to make that point. 
Secondly I refer to the attention the Maori Land Court has been given by this Parliament and I note the issue of disputes resolution. If the court is to deal with those issues then what comes into question is who the judge is who sits on the bench to determine them. Given that there are a number of Maori judges the comments that have been made about the recent actions of a particular Maori Land Court judge suggest to me that those same people will have to remove themselves from those deliberations. Therefore the issue of resourcing the Maori Land Court adequately to deal with this issue becomes a matter of concern. 
So I rise just to raise those two issues. Kia ora.
Connell Brian: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15864] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Can I just carry on from where my colleague— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8114] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise two issues. Firstly in putting this question down the Opposition was aware that the Minister was interviewed on radio this morning so the Opposition certainly had no inclination that the Minister would not be able—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I hear anybody making an interjection that member will leave the Chamber on the spot. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Opposition was aware that the Minister was interviewed this morning on the radio. We heard that interview so there was no inclination that he would not be here today. The second point I want to raise is the issue that Dr Cullen raises. He said in his comments that the member who put the question down simply had the option of not asking the question today because the Minister is not here today. That is an option and that is why leave was sought to delay the question until the Minister is here. It is no good the Deputy Prime Minister being part of denying the ability of the Opposition to ask a question of a particular Minister and then getting up by way of a point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Mr Swain will leave the Chamber. He interjected. Please carry on. 
Hon Paul Swain withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: —and then saying that the way to deal with this is not to ask the question today. The Opposition and I seek leave again—following Dr Cullen’s invitation that we should ask the question when the Minister is here—not to ask the question today but to ask it when the Minister next returns to the Chamber. We are happy to wait if it does not get put down tomorrow.
Prebble Richard: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16367] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I think it is quite a good idea to have a discussion on this matter. It raises some quite serious issues. Not all of us are on the Business Committee but if the Business Committee is aware of the situation then it is probably a matter that should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. The point that is being made is quite a good one. It is saying that when we vote by party then we presume that the whole party supports something. When we split the vote at that point it does not support it. Surely the public is entitled to know because the buck stops here where the votes are. That is on the one hand. In that sense I am sympathetic to the point raised by Mr Brown. 
On the other hand we also have another principle. If agreements are reached by parties in the Business Committee they ought to be followed. We have just had a split vote. I can speak with some disinterest in this matter because on this bill the ACT party will not split its vote. Everyone will know how every ACT party MP thinks. But it seems to me that there are two ways out of the present dilemma. One of them is for the senior Government whip to put the leave again in the terms that New Zealand First wants just to test the will of the House. For all we know it would carry but it may not. If it does not carry then my own view is that the Business Committee having reached this view we ought to follow it through. But having said that it has always been my view that the public is entitled to know how members of Parliament vote and that this matter should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. 
Of course if we are doing that we should do something else which we are all aware of but a lot of the public are not and that is when a party like ACT gets up and casts six votes it could mean that there are two members away but it might mean that there is a dissent. That almost never happens in the ACT party but if it did the public is entitled to know. Of course when I first came into this House every member individually had to vote and had to declare that vote in the lobby. I think it is an unfortunate development that the occurrence of secret non-voting is now possible under the Standing Orders. 
My suggestion to the House is that firstly we invite the senior Government whip to put the amended leave. If that is denied perhaps we could then think about whether we want to put the first leave again New Zealand First having eloquently made its case which I personally am sympathetic to.
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:7731] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell the member that I always listen to the points he makes because he is a senior member. Of course I want to say only one thing: I am certainly not colluding with the Government at all on this issue and I make that statement absolutely. I will take note of the member’s point of order as with Mr Brownlee’s and I will report a little later. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have had the point of order and I will go away and reflect on it.
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15185] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a very serious issue. It is a very important resource and I think you should allow some members to make a speech about it. [ 
Interruption 
] It may not concern those Government members down in Auckland but up there and around the coast and the Bay of Plenty and all the way to Kaitaia it is a big big issue. I think you are premature in allowing people who do not take part in the debate who clearly do not want to be part of the debate and have clearly never read the bill and clearly are under marching orders to rise here and say nothing of a constructive nature whatsoever and just move that the debate be shut down. You have to admit that that is a bit premature particularly when one party has not had a chance to say anything on this Supplementary Order Paper whatsoever.
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6611] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 It is quite likely that New Zealand First will want to take a split vote so I seek leave also. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17853. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:14875] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us some indication as to whether the Government would be prepared to extend the time that the special select committee looking at the foreshore and seabed legislation has to report back to the House and assure the House that there is no intention to have that bill reported on its due date in order that it can be rushed through the House under urgency prior to the Privy Council hearing the case in London.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19680] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I am concerned that the Leader of the House has made light of what is a very serious point of order. Standing Order 38 states quite explicitly: “A Minister must be present during all sitting hours of the House.” Yesterday evening we saw the Leader of the House quite blatantly and quite proudly break the Standing Orders of this House. I put it to you Madam Speaker that if the Leader of the House can quite blatantly abuse a Standing Order because it suits the Government to do so then effectively the message to all members of this House is that if a Standing Order does not suit them they should just break it. Equally it sets an appalling example to the people of our country when we as lawmakers say in effect that we break rules when it suits us. 
The more important constitutional point that Mr Prebble rightly raises is that this Standing Order has now been used to set a dangerous precedent which effectively means that the Government can collapse—shut down—the House at any time it wishes. If a confidence vote is coming up that the Government thinks it may lose it just needs to withdraw every Minister and instantly without any points of order the House is shut down. It can do the same if there is an embarrassing bill on members’ day. 
I have a bill in the ballot. My rights have been undermined because members’ ability to advance legislation depends on their bills being drawn in the ballot and only bills drawn in the ballot can be debated. Effectively what the Government did last night through the subversion of the Standing Order was to take away 2½ hours of members’ time. 
This democracy of ours survives on conventions. We have had this Standing Order or similar provisions going all the way back to 1853. I sat in the library this morning and went back to the Standing Orders that were first established for our Parliament in 1853. At no time in those 150 years has this stunt been pulled before. 
A dangerous precedent has been set. The right thing for the Leader of the House to do is to stand and apologise to this House for breaking the Standing Order and he should set aside 2½ hours of members’ time to make up for such a blatant breach.
Power Simon: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15914] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just as a point of clarification my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison indicated at the start of his contribution that he was keen to make more than one contribution to this part of the debate. In the first part of the Committee stage the Government senior whip moved a closure motion. I seek your advice Mr Chairperson in respect of the convention. I believe that during a members’ day the matter is very much in members’ hands as to when a part in a debate comes to a conclusion. I would be interested in what the Deputy Leader of the House has to say. I just want to confirm with you that we will not be engaged in a time-based closure motion situation.
Peters Winston: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Peters Winston: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16366] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The mover may not know but if she is prepared to extend that so that there is a disclosure as to who were the Noes who were the Ayes and who were the abstentions then we will accept it. We will not oppose leave as long as that is a fact. But the member needs to get up and say it out loud so we all know what she means.
Burton Mark: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5574] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think Mr Sowry made a suggestion that had the right spirit about it. Without in any way commenting on the authority of the Chair and in order to help clarify the matter for the Committee—and I think the Chair made a clear indication that he had declared the vote—I seek leave in order for all members to be clear that we simply take the vote again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(17)Section 2(1) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the definition of the term “environment” and substituting the following definition: 
environment includes— 
(a)ecosystems and their constituent parts; and 
(b)all natural and physical resources; and 
(c)the health safety amenity values and cultural values of people and communities.
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:20945] 
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 to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) all the words after the words “is to” and substitute the words “block stop and wipe compensation payouts to prisoners”.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13049] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
House resumed.
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 amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; 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 Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act” and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Compensation and Claims Act”.
Tisch Lindsay: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9835] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The National Party will support this bill. We believe that it is an important piece of legislation and we will also be interested to see what submissions go to the select committee. I want to make brief points about trading in illegally obtained seafood. The bill replaces the present section 233 of the Act which makes it an offence for any person to knowingly for the purpose of obtaining any benefit under the Act receive or possess any fish aquatic life or seaweed otherwise in accordance with the Act. It is also an offence to engage in any commercial activity involving the taking possessing receiving procuring processing conveying selling of or otherwise dealing with any fish aquatic life or seaweed otherwise than in accordance with the Act. 
We believe that the bill will strengthen those provisions. It redrafts these offences one of which relates to obtaining a benefit by knowingly performing one or more of these actions and the other relating to knowingly doing one or more of these things with the intention of obtaining a benefit. So the word “benefit” is defined to mean “includes any privilege property pecuniary advantage or valuable consideration of any kind whether for that person or any other person.” We can see that definition in clause 6. So it more clearly defines an offence to trade in illegally obtained seafood and it overcomes the effects of the decisions in the court case the Minister mentioned earlier on. 
The other area that we think is important—the Minister mentioned it and National wants to reiterate it—is the over-recovery and the under-recovery of levies. The bill replaces section 265 of the Act relating to the over-recovery and the under-recovery of levies for the costs of fishers and conservation services. These amendments will we believe strengthen the way the fishing industry operates. They are important changes and National is supporting them for those reasons.
Carter John: General Debates 
Carter John: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11932] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that point of order. Is this a new point of order?
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17183] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That proposed new clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Proposed new clause 2 agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8615] 
8.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What initiatives has he taken to improve cooperation between the tourism sector and the Department of Conservation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 On Tuesday I announced at the New Zealand Tourism Industry Association’s annual conference a number of initiatives I have taken to build a strong tourism-conservation partnership with mutual benefits. These initiatives include improvements to the processing and monitoring of concessions setting nationally consistent policies on visitor use and access to conservation areas and reducing pressures on the tourism hotspots by spreading visitor numbers over wider areas. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister elaborate on the gains for conservation and tourism that he sees in such a more collaborative approach by both sectors? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I see a win for both conservation and tourism. For example a disused quarry at Oamaru has been transformed into an expanding colony of little blue penguins or korora. Numbers have increased from 14 breeding pairs to over 100. This initiative has led to better protection of the penguins and it attracts a growing number of tourists each year.
Brown Peter: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13035] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. My colleague from New Zealand First has been seeking the call on this part for some time. You have now gone to National twice and ignored New Zealand First. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I say to the honourable member that it is not a race as to who stands up first. I look at the proportionality of the House and Mr Mark will get the next call.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16642] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Murray Smith to clause 4A be agreed to: 
to insert before paragraph (a) the following new paragraph: 
(aa)the welfare and best interests of a child are best served when the child experiences the love and care of the child’s biological parents when they are living together in a life-long loving and committed relationship to each other. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Muriel Newman to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert in their appropriate alphabetical order the following new definitions: 
shared parenting 
 means joint day-to-day care of a child arranged in such a way that the best interests of the child is paramount but that the starting point is the equality of parental responsibility and rights. 
rebuttable shared parenting 
 as a default position for the starting point of day-to-day care determinations is based on the principle that just as two parents are equal in their parenting responsibilities and rights before a relationship breakdown so too they should be regarded as equal afterwards unless it can be proved that one of the parents is unfit. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.
Brown Peter: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12210] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The earlier amendment has a definition that is withdrawn.
Benson-Pope David: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Benson-Pope David: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9251] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I am not aware of any such advice being given by anyone to the research unit. I certainly did not give it. No wine changed hands.
Cullen Michael: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17703] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Aquaculture Reform Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16195] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Hunt Jonathan: Address to HerExcellency the Governor-General—Presentation 
Hunt Jonathan: Address to HerExcellency the Governor-General—Presentation 
[Volume:617;Page:13215] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise that last evening accompanied by members I attended upon Her Excellency the Governor-General with the Address agreed to by the House to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the first sitting of the House. Her Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: 
MR SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
I am delighted as Her Majesty’s representative and participant in the law-making process to be present with you on this anniversary day. 
I am happy to endorse the sentiments that you have expressed. 
Silvia Cartwright 
Governor-General
Bradford Sue: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bradford Sue: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4869] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As I mentioned earlier the Green Party does support the bill as amended. I am taking just a very short call to talk to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 73 which we received only recently. In particular the Minister deals with clause 11(2)(b) that relates to limited registration being no more than 4 years’ duration. When we looked at this provision more closely we thought that allowing people to continue through periods of 6 months’ temporary registration was too long. We would like to see that reduced. To that end we have put an amendment on the table calling for it to be no more than 3 years. I understand that the Government will support that amendment and I welcome that. It is part of the social work profession’s desire with this bill to do everything it can to increase and enhance professionalisation and not to allow people to continue for too long in a temporary situation. 
We do understand the need for this in that we welcome qualified and experienced social workers coming to our country from overseas. All too often they are needed to bolster our workforce which is in decline in some respects. We also welcome at times retired people going back into the social work workforce with all their experience. It is not that we are against people working on a temporary basis but we do not think it should go on for too long and therefore we welcome the Government’s support for our amendment.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14131] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10084] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to rise briefly to support the comments made by my colleagues and a large number of other members of the House and to congratulate those who have been involved in the development and passage of this settlement. 
I make one other small contribution in relation to a comment made by one of the earlier speakers Georgina te Heuheu. In terms of setting the historical record straight the comment was made that during the aftermath of the Parihaka incidents prisoners were kept in caves. I know the history of this matter because it is on my patch. I want to put on the written record that while I am in no way undervaluing or understating the injustices done to those people—who were in fact kept in Dunedin Prison—the caves were used for shelter and cooking while the causeway was being constructed at Andersons Bay. I am sure that even Dr Mapp would be interested in an accurate historical record being developed around this matter.
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4588] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Visitors — Speaker and Delegation from Legislative Assembly of Sarawak Delegation from National Congress of Republic of Chile 
Visitors — Speaker and Delegation from Legislative Assembly of Sarawak Delegation from National Congress of Republic of Chile 
[Volume:615;Page:11207] 
Tuesday 24 February 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Speaker and Delegation from Legislative Assembly of Sarawak 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Dato Sri Haji Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Sarawak accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members not only would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair but also would wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
Hon Dato Sri Haji Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Delegation from National Congress of Republic of Chile 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the National Congress of the Republic of Chile is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that this delegation also be welcomed.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20065] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13236] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will make two comments. Firstly under Standing Order 334(1) the Government can select any day for this debate. Secondly there will always be some reports outstanding whenever this debate is scheduled because reporting is a continuous process.
Tisch Lindsay: Appointments — Ombudsman—Melwyn Purefoy Smith 
Tisch Lindsay: Appointments — Ombudsman—Melwyn Purefoy Smith 
[Volume:624;Page:19546] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party and I am sure of other parties also we have much pleasure in supporting this motion for the reappointment of Mr Mel Smith to be an additional Ombudsman for the period of 6 months. My understanding is that Mr Smith was first appointed Ombudsman in December 2001 then was reappointed for a 2-year period commencing on 5 June 2003. As the current appointment terminates in June this motion extends the appointment for another 6 months until 5 December 2005. We on the Opposition side of the House certainly acknowledge the work expertise and commitment of Mr Smith as Ombudsman and we have much pleasure in supporting this reappointment. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19448] 
11.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Was a police officer involved in a physical altercation with a Michael Famodun on 12 November 2004 and is he satisfied that a full and thorough investigation was conducted into the outcome of that altercation? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised by the police that a complaint has been made to the Police Complaints Authority following an incident in a car-park in Auckland on 12 November 2004 involving Mr Famodun and an off-duty police officer. A Police Complaints Authority investigation is currently being conducted into the allegations made by members of his family. I am advised that he died some 3 months after this incident. A separate police investigation is also being conducted. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister explain why the family of Mr Michael Famodun cannot bring the police officer known as RC1W249 before a court of law when on 12 November 2004 Mr Famodun who suffered from sickle-cell anaemia and who was half an hour out of hospital was assaulted by this officer in a car-park and who died apparently from that assault on 22 February being aged 33 years and having on the death certificate as cause of death “a massive intercranial haemorrhage such as occurs from a forceful assault or blow to the head” as appears was the case on 12 November 2004 inflicted by police officer RC1W249? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: As I said there are two investigations going on into the matter: one by the Police Complaints Authority and a separate one conducted by the police. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister not been able to determine thus far that the man’s life was taken needlessly at the hands of an obviously seriously stressed non-duty police officer who thwarted attempts to get police to the scene saying that “no police personnel would be attending the scene they were too busy to waste their time” and who even delayed an ambulance getting to the scene to this extremely sick unfortunate and now damaged man? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That is precisely why there are two investigations going on at the moment to try to establish the facts. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table a letter in which Mr Famodun sets out what happened which was written before he died; a further letter from his sister who is a trained medical doctor; and the death certificate which sets out his cause of death. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents? Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. They will not be tabled.
Goudie Sandra: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15638] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document entitled  
Hui-a-Tau 
 which is a Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission document that outlines a number of matters including the matters recently referred to in the discussions on the bill with regard to Inland Revenue Department status of these trust entities. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5167] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I notice that I will be answering question No. 10 on behalf of another Minister. But if we look at question No. 3 we find that the principal questions are whether the Government had made no plans to deal with a dry year in 2003 and if not what exact changes had been made prior to this year to manage a dry year. Those are issues that are totally securely within the responsibility of the Minister of Energy. 
As Minister of Finance I make many statements about almost every aspect of Government policy. That does not mean to say that all questions can be directed to me as Minister of Finance. If the question is about mental health that would be directed to the Minister of Health and questions about dry-year preparations go to the Minister of Energy. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to say only once that there will be no interjections during points of order or people will be leaving. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He is not merely the responsible Minister; he has been doing a great deal of work over recent weeks to try to avoid the worst possible consequences.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:624;Page:19303] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 29 March and Thursday 31 March when there are State luncheons for the Prime Ministers of Bahrain and Malaysia. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There being no objection that course will be followed.
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:21006] 
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 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Carter John: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Carter John: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5735] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I will speak very quickly and make just one political point. Here we have a Government that has two standards—one for the West Coast where it will not allow reserve land to be used for other purposes and another here where it is to allow reserve land to be used for education purposes. There are two standards. Nevertheless we support the reason for this bill going ahead and will support the bill. 
Bill read a second time.
English Bill: Points of Order — Question Time—Authenticity Question Time—Information in Minister’s Possession 
English Bill: Points of Order — Question Time—Authenticity Question Time—Information in Minister’s Possession 
[Volume:623;Page:18468] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a different point of order with you for your consideration. Yesterday I asked a series of questions of the Associate Minister of Education relating to the results of scholarship exams in secondary schools. The Minister gave a series of fairly vague answers. It became apparent after question time that the Minister had planned a press conference at 4 o’clock after question time and that he almost certainly had in his possession at question time the information that he used at the press conference. I am raising the question of what obligation the Minister has to use the information that he possesses to answer questions asked in this House. The Minister may prefer to be accountable to the media and not to the House but the information he had was directly relevant to the questions I asked the information was available to him and he did not provide any of that in answers given to the House. 
I have checked the  
Hansard 
 and the Minister was careful not to mislead the House. I mean that only in the technical sense in which this Parliament uses the term “mislead”. So he did not mislead the House but he had information that he could have used to answer questions that were asked and that is demonstrated by the amount of information he gave at the press conference about three-quarters of an hour after question time ended. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 115/4 which I made. I repeat: “While it is eminently good practice for Ministers to make important policy announcements in the House it is not by any means a convention in New Zealand.”
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6735] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future; 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a first time.
Benson-Pope David: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Benson-Pope David: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9975] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 You have ruled very clearly and quite unequivocally on two occasions. That ruling has being relitigated and challenged by the previous two speakers. I move  
That the Speaker be recalled 
.
Hawkins George: Gambling Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hawkins George: Gambling Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19844] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. 
This bill amends the Gambling Act to allow licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. Under the Sale of Liquor Act licensing trust members are generally elected by their local communities. Some gaming-machine societies that operate their gaming machines on licensed trust premises have traditionally allowed licensing trust members to have input into their decisions. The Gambling Act prohibits that type of arrangement. It does this by way of a strict separation between those who run commercial premises in which gaming machines are operated and those who control the proceeds from the machines on those premises. 
The bill exempts licensing trust members from this requirement to reflect their unique position as elected members. The exemption also extends to community trustees where a licensing trust reconstitutes as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act. 
The bill was introduced on 30 November 2004. It had its first reading on 14 December and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. I thank members on that committee for considering this bill within a short time frame. The committee considered 14 submissions of which seven were supported by oral evidence. It reported the bill back to the House on 21 February and did not propose any substantive amendments. 
The committee in its commentary made particular note of the local knowledge and accountability of licensing trust members and the substantial contribution they make to the well-being of their local communities. The committee also noted that members cannot benefit financially from the trust. For those reasons the potential for conflict of interest that the relevant provisions of the Gambling Act are designed to prevent is much lower in the case of licensing trust members than for other people with a role in running commercial premises. 
I commend this bill to the House.
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:21006] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Part 3 agreed to.