edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8167] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to clause 175 be agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4272] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I rise to raise a serious issue that is continuing to get worse in this Parliament in my view. It is the nature of answers to questions. I would like to take the time of the House to raise this with you because it is illustrative of a terrible trend. I refer to my question for written answer No. 1663 to the Attorney-General and it asks this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am perfectly happy for the member to come and see me about the matter and then I can have a look at it. But this is Parliament’s time and that is a written question. If the member has not had the answer on time it is perfectly proper to raise that and I will make sure it is on time. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a point of order of this House. It is a written question but it is a parliamentary written question and there is only one place that one can raise— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Carry on then. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The question asks: “ … what court room experience did Judges Glazebrook Keith Blanchard and Hammond have before their appointment and what were the dates of their appointments?”. That is a very straightforward question for the Attorney-General to answer. But the answer that came back through Parliament is this: “The information requested in this question is part of the public record.” That is it. The Attorney-General does not even advise what the public record is that tells people a judge’s courtroom experience. I would have thought that that was a totally inadequate answer. Maybe the Attorney-General does not know that there is no public record of judges’ courtroom experience. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had his moment. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 130/4 which is going right back to Speaker Harrison in 1983: “A written answer is primarily a matter between the Minister and the member.” If the member has consulted the Minister OK then he can certainly consult me and I will do my very best to make sure that he has a proper and accurate answer given.
Wong Pansy: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Wong Pansy: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8803] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 As a resident of Christchurch for 27 years I think it is fitting for me to stand up and put some positive aspects back into this very fine legislation. I remember that a few weeks ago the House cooperated and passed in unison the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill and I regret that the Labour Government has wasted Parliament’s time in taking offence at arrangements that the National Party was very happy to oblige with to help facilitate the passage of this bill. 
Putting all those negative feelings aside I think tonight is the time that Parliament should celebrate the passage of this bill. The Canterbury Museum and Christchurch will be the benefactors of this bill. I am pleased to learn that the Christchurch City Council will lease the Robert McDougall Gallery for the extension of the Canterbury Museum. I want to pay a compliment to the Canterbury Museum director Anthony Wright who in the past 5 years has invigorated the museum. I have every confidence that he will utilise the McDougall Gallery well to exhibit and showcase the very fine collection of the Canterbury Museum. 
I also take the opportunity to compliment and acknowledge another Tony—Tony Preston previously the McDougall Gallery director and now the director of the new Christchurch Art Gallery. Tony Preston landed in Christchurch some 4 or 5 years ago. He is not from Christchurch but has integrated into the society well. He is a very strong director with a good network and has the city and its residents behind him. Christchurch has now seen a very fine building take shape in the form of the new Christchurch Art Gallery and that has freed up space for the Canterbury Museum to take over the McDougall Gallery. 
We come here to tonight to celebrate the passage of over 70 years in the life of the McDougall Gallery. It has provided much pleasure and prestige to the residents of Christchurch and indeed to other New Zealand and international visitors. Those visitors can continue to enjoy its fine works in the new Christchurch Art Gallery but in addition the McDougall Gallery will be utilised by the Canterbury Museum under the very capable direction and management of both Tony Preston and Tony Wright. I have pleasure in being associated with this bill.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14603] 
5.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the Government doing to promote the importance of breastfeeding to the health of New Zealanders? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 This week is World Breastfeeding Week and we are using the opportunity to promote breastfeeding by highlighting the health benefits. We have supported the baby-friendly hospital concept and are seeking to have all 87 maternity facilities accredited as baby-friendly hospitals by 2005. In the Healthy Eating—Healthy Action strategy a national promotion campaign for breastfeeding is proposed. That will be undertaken in this coming year and the Ministry of Health is working on the implementation of the World Health Organization’s global strategy on infant and young child feeding. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What information has the Minister received on initiatives that are taking place this week to promote breastfeeding? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I understand that a petition is being launched today to promote social acceptance of breastfeeding in public places. Sadly far too many mothers are made to feel uncomfortable when nursing their babies in public and I commend the petitioners’ action in encouraging an overdue change in attitudes. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Minister advocate to her colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson that the Government consider supporting a Green amendment to the current paid parental leave legislation that would require employers to provide appropriate breastfeeding space in workplaces where practicable? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This matter is subject to select committee deliberations. I look forward to that report and I do not intend to pre-empt any of their discussions. 
Peter Brown 
: What is the Government doing to promote the use of alternative health therapies and can the Minister advise whether any such proposals will include an evaluation of chelation therapy? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This is a little wide of the mark in terms of breastfeeding. Did the member mean to ask this on the next question? The Government does not have any alternative therapies for breastfeeding in mind at present. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The opening words of the principal question are: “What is the Government doing to promote” I thought the Minister would like to promote a few other alternatives. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately this is one occasion when the member is wrong.
Roy Heather: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Roy Heather: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9580] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on this part which is actually quite a small part. Having not been part of the select committee process that went through the whole bill very thoroughly I would like to ask about the area of interpreters. I am not sure what the intention of clause 14(2)(a)(i) is. It states an interpreter is to be provided if “the first or preferred language of the care recipient is Maori or another language other than English;”. The thing that worries me is the use of the word “preferred” particularly as in New Zealand there are people who are obviously very fluent in both English and Maori. I am concerned in particular about the cost that could be incurred especially if an interpreter is required for quite some time. I worry that health dollars may be diverted from where they perhaps should be spent and be spent instead on something like the use of an interpreter when people who are quite capable of being understood in English say that they would prefer to be heard in a completely separate language. I wonder what thought the Health Committee gave to that when it was processing this bill. 
We see that in other areas particularly in the mental health areas where patients under compulsory care—[ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and tell me what went behind this measure. I was not part of the select committee process. 
 It was before my time in Parliament. Also I still have not had an answer to my query about the term “rehabilitation”. It is all very well for the Minister to sit there and pass comments to other members of the Committee yet she is not happy to stand up and answer valid queries that I think should be clarified. 
My concern is about the spending of health dollars. I was about to say that in the compulsory care of people with a mental illness the patients are able at every step of the way to appeal the process and use district inspectors to represent them when in fact the doctors presenting the other point of view usually do not have a lawyer representing them. Yet the money that is used for that comes out of the health budget. It comes out of the individual district health board budget for the appeal process when the intention is that the money is to be spent on treating those patients and not on legal bills. 
Clause 14(2)(a)(i) raises a similar concern and all I am asking for is clarification of that small provision. I do not object at all to subclauses 2(a)(ii) and (iii); they seem to be perfectly reasonable. But when somebody who is able to speak English perfectly well says he or she would prefer to be heard in another language I just wonder why that is acceptable. Perhaps the Minister could answer that question for me.
Pettis Jill: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7611] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 When listening to members on the other side it does not take very long to learn of the gulf that separates us from them. Dr Lockwood Smith’s comments about how he believes that Government should get out of people’s lives and about how he believes in a society for the individual just show the difference between them and us. In reality those of us who conduct electorate clinics and who speak to and meet our constituents understand that one of the reasons that the economy is stable and that things are going well particularly in provincial New Zealand is that we have a Government made up of MPs who are very happy to listen and talk to people in ordinary New Zealand. 
One of the really interesting things about this bill is the general support for it. I am pleased to see that attitude prevail because this bill is about improving the bank improving its investigative and information-gathering powers and abilities and improving its ability to carry out its functions. It is about strengthening the board’s role in monitoring the performance of the governor which is also very important for stability and forward-looking initiatives. I agree entirely with what the member who has just resumed his seat has said in that the bill does not alter the fundamental provisions of the Reserve Bank but it does most certainly enhance its role. 
I am sorry if members opposite took offence when I stated the obvious. If one knows anything about the history of the major political parties in New Zealand it will of course be obvious that we are different—and thank goodness that we are otherwise we would not have the strong robust and vibrant democracy that we have in this country. Regardless of our personal philosophical differences I think that both Labour and National will work to preserve that for our country. 
This is a bill that is important to the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. It is good to see that we have a strong economy in this country. It is important that we get this bill through and progress our legislative timetable. I certainly commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19270] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Dunne Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21612] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member who was speaking because he was making some very good points. But I have to say and he is not someone with a quiet voice over the murmur of conversation in this Chamber it was actually very hard to hear him. I seek your assistance in ensuring that the debate that proceeds does proceed with a modicum of quiet in this place because it is important. If members such as the member who has just spoken who is not normally quiet are hard to hear then we have a problem.
Field Taito Phillip: New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20086] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7223] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 At least twice today you have asked Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise and he has adhered to every request you have made along those lines. Question No. 6 relates to an issue that is of particular concern to many people and specifically to members of New Zealand First. Mr Peters was going to ask four supplementary questions on that issue and you effectively curtailed that. I would ask you to allow Mr Peters back into the Chamber because he stood his ground firmly. You might have thought that Mr English was going to take a call. Mr English has now admitted that he was not going to take a call. Mr Peters stood his ground firmly to say that he wanted the call for a third supplementary question and he would have taken a fourth one after that.
Pettis Jill: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9021] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 It is abundantly clear from practices in this Committee—and I say with respect that I have been here longer than that member—that Ministers’ amendments are taken collectively at the end. The practice that we are seeing tonight is no different from what has been practised over the last 10 years and the Chairperson tonight is complying with what we have witnessed for the last decade.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20062] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (2) of section 134 the expression “7 years” and substitute the expression “10 years”.
English Bill: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
English Bill: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16641] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a debate in which as my colleague pointed out he has taken a strong personal interest over some time. I expect the debate on Part 2 will be one in which even more members will want to take part. I would be interested to know just how you intend to deal with assigning the call because if Mr Smith was not able to get a call on Part 1 given his degree of involvement there are any number of us who may feel that we are likely to be cut out of Part 2. So I would be interested to know just how you are going to handle it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Part 2 is the main part of the bill I say to Mr English.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8158] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Noes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of Dr Lynda Scott to clause 136(2) be agreed to.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10515] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 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. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7464] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 76 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 4; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 39 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a second time.
Locke Keith: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4373] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I am moving an amendment under this part so that we are not intercepting the communications of foreign diplomatic missions because they get very upset if that is the case. The Green Party wrote to the missions and one of them the South African consulate did reply saying that it would take a very grim view of anyone violating its privacy by hacking into its computers. So I think we should support this amendment. Also the definition of a foreign organisation is so broad that it could include all kinds of organisations such as Greenpeace voluntary organisations and subsidiaries of overseas corporations. With the takeover of a lot our economy by Australian British and American firms or whatever a lot of our economic organisations would be foreign under this definition. New Zealanders working for them or representing them would be subject to spying as would New Zealanders communicating with them. Also it is as my colleague Rod Donald said an intrusion on the privacy of New Zealanders. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14561] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19575] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment to clause 7 in the name of the honourable member Paul Adams is out of order. Twenty-four hours’ notice was not given of an amendment that may have had an impact on Government fiscal aggregates.
Yates Dianne: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
Yates Dianne: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12505] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I look forward to the time when the National Party will get over its paranoia about Maori. I wish to say that this tax bill is a jolly good bill and it does show that this Government is listening to people. I thank John Tamihere and those who have been around the country listening to and holding meetings with small-business people. Particularly good is the part of the bill that introduces a rebate of income tax for small-business taxpayers who pay their tax on their self-employed or partnership income in their first year. That is what we have heard people saying they want and this is a Government that does deliver.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:610;Page:7291] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Certainly I have no intention of introducing legislation before the Privileges Committee has considered the matter.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21648] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 39 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 4; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “2 years” and substitute the words “1 year”.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5817] 
1. DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What steps has the Government taken to progress youth development? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 It is difficult to be modest. The Government is undertaking a huge range of initiatives to support youth development such as the $56 million plan announced recently by the Prime Minister to get all young people into education training or work by 2007. This Government is focused on taking a positive approach to youth development rather than rehashing the failed policies of the past. 
Darren Hughes 
: Does the Government support the concept of more punitive measures against parents whose children are not in education or training? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition who is proposing beneficiary bashing under a rehash of the code of social responsibility this Government is looking for real solutions. This year’s Budget announced an additional $8 million for getting students back to school bringing the total package over 5 years to $46 million. This Government is focused on solutions not just slogans. 
Simon Power 
: Has youth development been progressed by denying Government funding to WellTrust which delivers critical services in addressing substance abuse in the wider Wellington region; if so how? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I understand from newspaper reportage that WellTrust is not receiving funding. Apart from that I cannot elaborate any further. 
Craig McNair 
: Is the Minister concerned that measures presumably carried out to address problems facing youth development such as the ramming through of alcohol excise tax earlier this month have prompted such comments as “abuse of democracy” “unethical” and “sticking-plaster measure”; if not why is he not concerned at the general public’s united disapproval of that obviously rushed and impotent legislation? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: In answer to the first part of the question no. When we have statistics such as those from the Alcohol Advisory Council that suggest that 94 percent of parents are concerned about teen drinking habits but that only 24 percent of their children are we have a problem.
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:16672] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Adams(P) 
Copeland   
Mark  
Smith L (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Dunne(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith M 
Ardern(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N 
Awatere Huata  
Field(P) 
Ogilvy (P) 
Tisch(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Franks(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Perry(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wong(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison  (P) 
Power  
Carter J (P) 
Jones  
Rich(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Mapp  
Scott  
Collins  
Noes 75 
Anderton(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sowry  
Barker  
English(P) 
Mackey M 
Stewart(P) 
Barnett  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope   
Fairbrother(P) 
Mahuta 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Newman  
Tanczos(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
O'Connor   
te Heuheu  
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Tizard  
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Parker  
Turei 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Peck(P) 
Turia(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora  
Pettis(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington   
Hide  
Pillay  
Wilson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs  
Prebble(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Cullen  
Hodgson(P) 
Ririnui  
Yates 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
King  
Samuels(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley  
Teller: 
Dyson(P) 
Locke  
Simich(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 37 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6851] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except section 8(1) which will come into force on a date to be appointed by Order in Council”.
Mahuta Nanaia: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15052] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a 5-minute contribution to this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18724] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Madam Speaker on the motion of Gerry Brownlee you have been recalled to facilitate or otherwise a request he will put to you. This matter arose at the commencement of debate on the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. No debate has been taken directly on any of the questions. We have been dealing with the matter that Mr Brownlee raised. I leave it there.
Points of Order — Urgent Debate—Local Government Elections 
Points of Order — Urgent Debate—Local Government Elections 
[Volume:620;Page:16099] 
Points of Order 
Urgent Debate—Local Government Elections 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House for an urgent debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On what subject? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am pleased you asked. It is very clear from the answers given by the Minister for Local Government that for some time in the future we can expect major cities to be without governance we can expect hospitals throughout the country to be without governance we are likely to have to have special legislation in the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has indicated roughly the subject of the debate. Please be seated. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5593] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 45 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.
Alexander Marc: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18112] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to make a short contribution to this debate. But before I get to the bill I just make the observation that a few people have been talking about some of the detrimental effects of gambling. I do not think anybody in this Chamber could possibly put aside the detrimental effects of gambling but this bill does not actually deal with that. It deals with a very specific aspect. The Gambling Amendment Bill exempts licensing trust members from being treated as a key person under the 2003 Gambling Act. It was an omission that should never have gone through but it did. It was an oversight. The significance of this amendment bill is to allow licensing trust members to be involved as they previously had been in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. There should not be a conflict of interest because licensing trust members are publicly accountable to their local community. In other words they should not be able to benefit personally from the licensing trust and I think the provisions in this bill prevent just that. The rest of the amendments are technical in nature to give effect to the purposes I have just stated. United Future will be supporting this bill.
Peck Mark: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Peck Mark: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4723] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 One can always tell when one touches a raw nerve because people stand up and say nothing about a bill at all. I do not intend to speak for terribly long about this bill. I simply remind the member who preceded me that the Commerce Committee dealt with this legislation. It had five submissions on the bill and took 30 minutes to hear the submissions. There was no opposition to the bill at all and it was reported back to the House unanimously. The bill does four things: it amends the definition of pyramid selling it increases the penalties for pyramid selling—there was a previous ACT party member who knew quite a bit about pyramid selling; that person is no longer in Parliament but there it is—it extends the search warrant powers of the Commerce Commission and finally it changes the time for bringing criminal proceedings. This is a good bill and I support it.
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13293] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 220 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 1 be agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3688] 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: When will the Police complete their inquiries into the serious allegations of threats made against crew members in the Alinghi team at the America’s Cup challenge? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 While this is an operational matter the police advise that the file remains open into threats posed by the receipt of the letter against the Alinghi syndicate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not true that according to police sources in Auckland the police inquiry at great expense to the New Zealand taxpayer is finished; and that the threat came from the Alinghi camp itself but no action has been taken for political reasons? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have that sort of information. Reporters might indulge in those claims without any substantiation. The member should produce any information he has for the police so they can deal with his claims. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Does the Minister have confidence in the ability of the police to protect the public watching and the teams competing in the America’s Cup? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police have demonstrated what a good job they are doing to protect both spectators of and competitors in the America’s Cup.  
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister think that ill-informed speculation on this matter contributes to New Zealand’s image overseas or does it serve to perpetuate a negative perception in our country which this whole sorry matter is generating? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The journalist wrote all sorts of things. There is an article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning reporting on material in the  
Observer 
 which shows what nonsense is being written.  
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree that the BlackHeart campaign and the personal attacks on Russell Coutts and members of the Alinghi crew not only could have incited the threats that have been referred to but also undermined New Zealand’s reputation as a good-hearted and sporting nation? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes but more important as most Kiwis are enjoying the event New Zealand and Auckland in particular is doing well no matter who wins. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister make a request of the police in Auckland to the effect that if the inquiry is finished as the information from Auckland suggests a charge be now lodged for laying a false complaint against the party concerned which it is suggested is within the Alinghi public relations camp? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If the member who asks the question has any information along those lines he should make it available to the police and the police will investigate accordingly.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19883] 
11.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Does she have any plans to create a national war memorial park where all theatres of war in which New Zealanders served can be represented; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: The Prime Minister said at the time of the interment of the Unknown Warrior that the Government has begun the process of negotiations towards acquiring land for a national memorial park. These negotiations are continuing and we are confident that they will be successful. 
Ron Mark 
: Why do the plans outlined by the Prime Minister not include an undertaking to build a memorial of the type and scale of those found in the United States and Australia to honour all men and women who served New Zealand during the Viet Nam War? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Every country decides what is appropriate in terms of war memorials to commemorate the sacrifice of those who have given their lives in battles across time. New Zealand has the National War Memorial in Buckle Street that recognises the service of people from the Boer War to the Viet Nam War. There are many other war memorials around New Zealand. I do not think it is particularly useful to compare what happens in Australia and the United States which are of course much bigger countries. However this Government has paid extensive notice. We have for example published a series of oral histories commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Second World War. We are progressing plans to have a memorial to New Zealanders in Hyde Park in London. I believe that the service of people across New Zealand and across the services is very well attended to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That answer was a little long. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Government not think about the fact that 37 New Zealanders lost their lives in Viet Nam that more were wounded that many more survived but had their health and the health of their children seriously affected by exposure to defoliants and that for over 30 years these servicemen and women were stigmatised and denigrated for their service in that war; and does she not consider that those are very good reasons why the construction of such a memorial is the right and proper thing to do? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am delighted to have the support of that member for the actions that this Government is taking particularly the setting up of the Ministry of Veterans’ Affairs and our proposal to work towards a peace park in Buckle Street.
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18818] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I thought that my colleague Pita Paraone would take a call. I do not want him to think that I am taking over his issue but there is an issue in Part 2 that I want to raise as a matter of some concern. I preface my remarks by acknowledging that every iwi has the right to conclude the settlement that it wants. That is its rangatiratanga. Iwi have the authority to do so. National is fully supportive of Ngati Awa’s settlement and will support the passage of this legislation. The issue that I raise is this: whatever may be intended by an iwi I would not want at some stage in any settlements that follow to have the Crown or the Government of the day suggest that just because a concept was recognised in one settlement that concept would therefore become legitimate for all settlements. 
I refer in particular to clause 13(3) which defines what “hapu of Ngati Awa” means. I think that Pita Paraone of New Zealand First still has a Supplementary Order Paper in relation to it on the Table but I will make these remarks. The clause sets out 20 hapu which I take to be the traditional hapu and it also includes in paragraphs (a)(xx) and (xxi) of the definition “Ngati Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau” and “Ngati Awa ki Poneke”. Those hapu are what some of us may term urban conglomerates. The Ngati Awa negotiators and settlors wish to have and shall have them included in the settlement. I flag to the Minister the fact that the tribes that have yet to negotiate settlements may or may not want to have included as hapu their urban groupings living in Wellington and Auckland. Other tribes will have a view that hapu descend by way of blood and although they may acknowledge Ngati Awa’s right to define the term in the way it sees fit we would not want any future Government to try to suggest that future claimants and future settlements must also have a similar acknowledgment. 
I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton to take a call. I would like to be given some reassurance on that matter because it is a matter of great concern. Other tribes will have other ways or will suggest other concepts or instruments by which they wish to make sure that their beneficiaries who largely live in the cities come within the ambit of their settlement. That is their right just as it is the right of Ngati Awa to say who shall be the beneficiaries of this settlement and who shall be the hapu. I think Pita Paraone will touch upon the explanation that Ngati Awa has given for this definition. There is a precedent for it. Ngati Awa say I understand that it is already in some regulations issued under earlier legislation. Be that as it may it is an important issue. It does highlight the need for the Minister to say categorically that the Government recognises that this settlement is for this iwi alone and for no other iwi.
Collins Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6581] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that on behalf of the National Party I support this bill. The Auckland War Memorial Museum is what a war memorial should really be. It is a substantial building. It is a very very powerful building to visit and it is a building that my family and I love to visit—and particularly my young son loves the treasures in the museum. I would like to commend this bill to the House and to commend the work of the management and staff of the Auckland War Memorial Museum.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
[Volume:618;Page:14294] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise what I think is a serious point for the ACT party and indeed for this House. We would like you to give it your due consideration perhaps consult with the Business Committee and report back to us. 
You will be aware that the Court of Appeal has recently put down a judgment which found that the ACT party was wrong to have the belief that: “Our proportionality has been distorted.” But what we find is that you have made a decision that we no longer have nine MPs as we were elected with; we have eight MPs. So accordingly our seating has been adjusted for eight members our parliamentary resourcing has been adjusted for eight members the number of calls we get in any speaking slot on any bill or at question time is as if we have eight members and our representation on select committees is as if we have eight members. 
We are considering what our response should be in light of this judgment. Although I do not ask for your consideration now I ask you to consider whether you are correct in assigning us as having only eight MPs in this House and allocating the proportion accordingly.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9343] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Noes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to and clause 1 agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12035] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I can advise the House that the ACT party will be supporting the Maritime Security Bill and I would make the point that we are not represented on the Government Administration Committee. But aside from that we have studied the bill and we support and accept the necessity for the measures proposed under it which is all about wharf and ship security. We are internationally obligated to have that security under the 1974 International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea which is the root of this legislation and more specifically the port facility security code that was adopted internationally I understand in December 2002. That was obviously a response to the 9/11 tragedy the previous September which occurred just before the adoption of this code. 
New Zealand as a trading nation is far more dependent than most on trade as a proportion of our GDP. Even if we did not like the measures in this bill we have no option but to move within international conventions; otherwise our ships and wharves would not meet the various codes of compliance and our exported and imported goods would suffer greatly. So as a trading nation we are bound to adopt the measures contained in this bill. 
Unlike my Green colleague who has just resumed his seat I believe there is a real threat of terrorism. In the current climate it is naive to think that there is no serious threat—there clearly is. If 9/11 were not enough one has only to look at Bali and Madrid and the follow-up and just read the rhetoric that is coming from some of the international terrorist groups. No country is immune from attack. While we enjoy our lifestyle in New Zealand which is a more casual lifestyle than many countries can enjoy we have to accept that interdependency between nations is now at such a level with international travel and movement of cargoes the way it is that anywhere is a potential target. 
Certainly Australia our key trading partner would be very concerned if we did not adopt these measures because they have a genuine fear that New Zealand is the soft point of entry—the soft underbelly for access to Australia. Australians for obvious reasons face a much greater risk of terrorist attack than New Zealand but it would indeed be a tragedy if terrorist groups used New Zealand to do mischief and cause damage in Australia. 
ACT will be supporting the bill. We have studied it in depth. There are some quite draconian measures that philosophically we have some difficulty with and in an ideal world it would be nice if we did not have to have those sorts of powers and controls. But we accept the harsh reality that in the world we are living in with a real threat of terrorism these measures are necessary and in the circumstances appropriate.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15932] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 3; Progressive 2. 
Noes 18 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 5; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.