edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21577] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 43 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (a) of subclause (2) after the expression “$300000” the words “or 10% of the value of the asset whichever is greater”.
Simich Clem: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12360] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments to clauses 22 23 and 27(1) in the name of Rodney Hide are out of order as the amendment to clause 21 was not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brian Connell to clause 25 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17272] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 309 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clauses 19 and 21 be agreed to.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19969] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16996] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I just want to say that a comment was directed at me which was designed to cast a bit of an aspersion. It was a derogatory comment. Of course technically Mr Jones is always right. I asked questions about “a bill” in front of the select committee and quite reasonably so. The thing is we should move on. We all know that the New Zealand First Party cannot make any points without getting personal. We know that Mr Peters is going through some sort of a reminiscence of past grievances this morning demonstrating exactly the problem with Maori in this country and I just want to say that I forgive him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have all had our fun. It is time we moved on.
Robertson H V Ross: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11127] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I tell members the issue of red lights was raised by the Hon Richard Prebble. I have been informed that the red lights on all microphones are on. It is just an indication that the system is switched on. When a member has the floor the microphone is turned on for that member. 
Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8210] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I have much pleasure in supporting the second reading of this bill. It will support skilled immigration by maximising and accelerating its contribution to capacity building sustainable growth innovation global connectedness and thriving and inclusive communities.
Benson-Pope David: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6966] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The closure is not accepted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Wong Pansy: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19095] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I was struggling while flicking through a lot of these schedules. I took a call in the debate on Part 1 to say that the fact that de facto relationships were also introduced into the Property (Relationships) Act a few years back has quite complicated the present legislation. I was looking at the amendments to the Social Security Act in the schedules. We have started to introduce terms like “single” instead of using “unmarried”. I invite the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs to take a call about the subtlety of using words like “single” rather than “unmarried”. Why does it need to be defined in that context? In an earlier schedule we have the term “woman alone”. 
In order to ease my mind since I am supporting this legislation I feel responsible for ensuring that the technical amendments in the schedules are useful and necessary for making sure that the legislation will work in the way it is intended. I want to make sure that no Government department will be confused because of the various terminology in use in these schedules. 
I think it would be helpful for the Minister to take a call to explain to the public the difference between “woman alone” “unmarried” and “single” why it matters and how all those different terms that have been replaced in various legislation like the Social Security Act would need to be interpreted. I think that Parliament has a responsibility to make sure that numerous schedules of this type have the assurance of the Minister that all the i’s have been dotted and all the t’s have been crossed. After all on previous occasions during the flurry of schedules when everyone thought that there was nothing but technical amendments invariably we have found that omissions happened by sleight of hand and suddenly Parliament was called back to put through amendments. 
On a personal level I am sure the public will share with me my feeling that it is interesting that we are looking at this legislation which is quite controversial because large sections of the community have misgivings about same-gender union and about the fact that we complicate the issue by having the State impose rights and obligations on de facto relationships. So I ask whether terminology like “single” replacing “unmarried” and “woman alone” causes added complications. I think the Minister in the debate on Part 2 which the Committee has just finished demonstrated a willingness to give an explanation to the public. She said that she does not want to engage in debate on the pros and cons of relationships but she is happy to explain where the public is entitled to be reassured that in effect all these schedules are amended appropriately and correctly. Once again I voice my objection to the State interfering in de facto relationships as well as in marriage and civil unions.
Ward Mike: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ward Mike: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9860] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 A common concern of those who did not wish to see their dogs microchipped was the cost involved. I note that clause 15(3)(b) provides that a dog owner must provide to the territorial authority a certificate issued by a registered veterinary surgeon certifying that the dog will not be in a fit condition to be microchipped before the specified date. It seems to me it is not terribly difficult for a local authority to judge whether a dog has been microchipped because it is done simply by waving a wand over it. The idea that the device has to be inserted by a veterinary surgeon— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are debating clause 1A “Commencement”. 
MIKE WARD 
: I was simply raising the issue as a warning to the Minister that I would like some clarification later on. I concur with Mr Peters that the Local Government and Environment Committee was concerned that the provisions relating to dangerous dogs will come into force at the point of enactment of these provisions—in 2006. It seems to me that 2006 is a long way off for dogs that have been judged to be dangerous or menacing.
Vote: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3887] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 39 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Franks Stephen: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21182] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise a matter that is not a complaint of contempt but a request for elucidation—not necessarily now but perhaps when there is time for consideration—of whether Standing Order 395(f) would apply in a debate of this kind. I raise it because Standing Order 395 refers to contempt. It states quite clearly that a member who fails to declare before participating in the consideration of any item of business any pecuniary interest that the member has in that business— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. The member will please be seated. I am going to rule. This matter should be raised as a point of privilege. The member knows that. That is the ruling. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I have not raised a matter of privilege. I have very carefully not raised a matter of privilege and I do not intend to. I do not accuse anyone of breach of privilege. The rules that relate to breaches of privilege carefully distinguish between matters of privilege and matters of contempt. Indeed in each place where contempt is used it is used as an alternative; it is not used as a synonym for privilege. 
I raise this issue because I believe that it can be debated without accusing anyone of anything malign. I do not believe that anyone has consciously or unconsciously breached privilege but I do believe that there is an issue here. Three members of Labour all Maori made speeches about principles when only spurious principles have resulted in so many of the fanciful claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. I do not mean the claims for historic land breaches. I mean things like the claims for flora and fauna radio waves—
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15467] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of question time to raise this issue which relates to your ruling at the beginning of the session. Yesterday I put down a question on notice. I asked the Prime Minister a question that specifically asked how many of 350 jobs had materialised. You will recall that we had some supplementary questions and some points of order. Finally it transpired that the Prime Minister had asked Jim Anderton’s office to ring for the answer but it could not find out. We repeated the question today just to secure an answer. 
This is one of the things that I think frustrates this side somewhat. It may be that circumstances had changed and the Prime Minister was able to get an answer but one would wonder sometimes if one were cynical whether Ministers are being very very economical with their answers and with their efforts to secure an answer. I can understand the Prime Minister not being able to answer a supplementary question that is narrowing in on something but this was a primary question. We wasted our question a great many supplementary questions and a great deal of time. We put down another primary question and we got the answer. I ask you to consider what that means from an Opposition party’s point of view when it cannot get Ministers and particularly the Prime Minister to answer a question—especially a question on notice.
Turei Metiria: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Draft Report of Maori Affairs Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Turei Metiria: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Draft Report of Maori Affairs Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9207. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens support the recommendations of the Privileges Committee in its report on an article in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 concerning a select committee inquiry into the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. Those recommendations are not particularly punitive. But none the less they give the select committees members of Parliament and the press gallery a timely reminder of the confidentiality of select committee draft reports. The Privileges Committee concludes that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
did breach the confidentiality rules of the House. As often happens in these matters the source of the contents of the draft report apparently leaked could not be identified and therefore there was little punitive action that the committee could take against the reporter the newspaper or any of those identified in the newspaper story. This illustrates the point that the integrity of the select committee process is highly dependent on the integrity of those involved in it and that this necessarily includes the media and particularly the press gallery which are instrumental in the exposure of our democratic processes. 
The Privileges Committee did also look carefully at the information provided to Sir Graham Latimer and considered that the Maori Affairs Committee may have not been sufficiently clear that the information sent to him was strictly confidential. This has highlighted the need for select committees to be very clear about their own procedures in communicating with submitters and members of the public. In defence of the Maori Affairs Committee it must be said that both Sir Graham and Jonathan Milne the reporter are both experienced in the select committee process and know better than most how to best clarify any uncertainty they might have had over the confidentiality issues. Their choice not to take the utmost care reflects very badly on the integrity of both. 
The Greens also support the comment of the Privileges Committee that members should be able to more openly discuss matters concerning select committee proceedings so that there is a better understanding of the vigour and variety of work done in select committee. There are many requests and letters and much information sent to select committees concerning important issues that cannot be publicly known or acknowledged unless taken up as an inquiry. This restricts the public’s knowledge of the breadth of issues select committees deal with. However that said the Greens agree with the Privileges Committee and will also draw a very clear definite line at the release of draft reports before they are reported back to the House. So finally the Greens commend this report to the House.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:613;Page:10220] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On 20 October this year I asked a written question of the Minister of Justice outlining my concern that an 18-year-old Korean male student charged with threatening to kill sexual violation indecent assault and other serious charges had been granted legal aid. On 24 October 2003 the Minister replied saying that his agency had not been provided with sufficient details to confirm whether the student referred to in the question was in receipt of legal aid. Given that I had identified the school that the student attended I was surprised at the inability of the ministry to identify the student given the extremely serious nature of the charges he is facing. But I attempted to oblige the Minister in a follow-up question on 30 October by providing the name of the alleged offender. By way of response on the same day I was advised that my follow-up question was out of order because I had not provided evidence by way of authentication that the alleged offender was of that name. 
My point of order is that the parliamentary process is being deliberately frustrated here and the New Zealand public is being denied information pertinent to the use—or in this instance misuse—of its taxes. I am seeking your assistance: I want the blockage to my questions regarding this matter being answered to be removed. In summary I asked a question I was asked for more detail I provided more detail yet I was still denied an answer. That is wrong and I request your assistance.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:608;Page:5241] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Noting that the Order Paper is just as long now as it was at the start of the year and that considerable amounts of legislation are due to come out of select committees can the Leader of the House indicate to us whether we are likely to see some extended hours in the form of urgency during this 4-week sitting block and also whether the current order of the Order Paper is the Government’s priority for its legislation?
Donald Rod: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
Donald Rod: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7897] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing substantially with the previous three speakers. As a representative from the only party that supported the legislation I would ask you Mr Speaker to take some time to think about giving a considered ruling because as Mr Peters said in the future it would by very helpful for subsequent Parliaments to understand the process by which you reached the conclusion you have. I am not disputing your conclusion but I think it would be helpful for you to set out—not just as a reply to a point of order but in a formal statement—the process you went through in relation to the comments you made prior to the Act being changed.
Fairbrother Russell: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9014] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13045] 
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 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 204 be agreed to: 
to omit the figure “12”  and substitute the figure “6”.
Dog Control Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Dog Control Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
Dog Control Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Dog Control Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
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 question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 3 and substitute new clause 3 be agreed to.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20258] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 9 be agreed to. 
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. 
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Ward Mike: Motions — Michael Campbell—2005 US Open 
Ward Mike: Motions — Michael Campbell—2005 US Open 
[Volume:627;Page:21738] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Excellence wherever it occurs has the capacity to inspire and delight. When that excellence is attained by one of our own and it is the outcome of years of persistence and dedication I suspect that a whole lot of ordinary Kiwis get the urge not just to be better at their sports but to do everything they do just a little bit better. Michael Campbell is not just a very good golfer; he is by all accounts a really nice bloke with it. He has a commitment to his country and that is shown in his contributions to worthy causes here and in his decision to wear New Zealand - made clothes. I suspect that there are few New Zealanders who do not feel better about being New Zealanders today as a result of Michael’s outstanding win in the US Open. The Green Party takes great pleasure in supporting this motion.
Benson-Pope David: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15939] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I understand that this issue was also traversed by the Business Committee today. 
Jill Pettis 
: Yesterday. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yesterday—I am corrected. 
Peter Brown 
: No it wasn’t. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It was actually. I have seen the minute referring to it so it should be no surprise to any party that was represented there. I suggest to the member that if he wishes to have that information he could write to the whips who if they chose or if party members authorised it could make it available. But obstructing the business of the Committee around a procedural issue that has already been debated is hardly constructive or productive. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I want to confirm this. Mr Benson-Pope is quite correct. That is exactly what the Business Committee did agree to and it is entirely a matter for the whips whether they divulge that information.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12897] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Shirley Ken: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
Shirley Ken: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5700] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not aware of anywhere in the Standing Orders where there is a special provision for the general debate. The point of order raised by the honourable member Mr Power was quite correct. There is no special provision in the Standing Orders that means there is some lower standard for the general debate. Sure it is robust but the Standing Orders still stand and they make it quite clear that members cannot reposition themselves to gain benefit for interjection. I am glad that you have brought the matter to the attention of the offending member but I was concerned with the suggestion in your ruling that there is some special lower standard for the general debate.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6475] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Last Thursday I made an error in responding to the health Minister Annette King for taking offence at my colleague Lynda Scott for raising individual cases. I sought and obtained leave to table 19 cases that she as Opposition spokesperson had raised as individual cases in the House. That was an error; it is 21 cases. I now seek leave for those 21 cases to be tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15405] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time.
Cullen Michael: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13473] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
[Volume:613;Page:10015] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am wanting to move on. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I appreciate your wanting to move on and I am keen to do that too but I do need to have some clarification on just where we have ended up—and I am not challenging your ruling. As I understand it you are ruling that the phrase “in the member’s place” in Speaker’s ruling 53/6 means in any set of seats allocated to the party to which the member belongs— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: —and therefore the ruling given last night that the closure had been correctly moved because of the provisions of Speaker’s ruling 7/1 was in fact incorrect. It should have been because of the interpretation you have just placed in your capacity as Speaker and quite properly so on Speaker’s ruling 53/6.
Simich Clem: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12358] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: In accordance with leave of the House a separate vote is to be taken on the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales. In accordance with leave also granted this will be a split party vote. 
The question is that the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wines sales be agreed to.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15639] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 169 be agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11324] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 2 and substitute the following: 
2Commencement 
(1)New sections 70A and 104E come into force on the day that a national carbon charge carbon trading regime or national environmental standard to control the discharge of greenhouse gases comes into force. 
(2)All other sections come into force on the day this Act receives the Royal assent.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6416. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This point of order is in support of you and indeed in support of the Leader of the House Dr Cullen. The Minister did answer one question. But what I have been talking about is a second question that I asked in the House to which the Minister said he would directly get back to me. I am afraid he has not addressed that question at all. That is my point. I am happy with the answer that he has addressed. What I am not happy with is that one of my questions has not been addressed at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now that is something the member can take up with me afterwards.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20256] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
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. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21622] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I address this bill also as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Obviously I endorse the main points made by the chair of that committee and also by the deputy chair. I realise that there were some genuine concerns certainly from some of the submitters in terms of this bill. But I make the point that in our view it is very clear on consideration of this bill along with others that this bill will in no way compromise the rights of decent genuine citizens in terms of their various activities on behalf of and contributions to various relief agencies that have been mentioned. I certainly want to assure members of this House about that. Someone has talked about the groups that have been collecting for for example the recent tsunami relief appeal and has said that perhaps some of that money may have unwittingly ended up in inappropriate hands. However the people who have more to fear—and much to fear as should be the case—are those who deliberately mislead genuine members of the general public and then use their offices to channel money to terrorist organisations. In my view and as has been said by previous speakers there is a very high threshold in terms of determining those terrorist organisations. 
I along with other members of this Parliament look forward to the substantive review. Any sovereign Parliament must always be vigilant that any legislation in this particular area does not lead to unintended consequences. In terms of our scrutiny of the actions of the court and even of the actions of the executive of the day that is a very important function of Parliament. I heard a previous speaker allude to Guantanamo Bay and to some of the abuses that have apparently been going on there. Of course we should be very concerned about that. Of course we should ensure that such actions and processes are open to the harsh glare of scrutiny. However as the Hon Peter Dunne very aptly pointed out the world as we knew it has dramatically changed. The nature of international conflict has dramatically changed and the way in which we respond to that also needs to change. We have to strike the appropriate balance and sometimes it is possibly difficult between individual rights and liberties—the right of people to get together within a democracy—versus the rights of people who would in my view blatantly mislead and corrupt the innocent and channel funding and support to terrorist organisations. 
I look forward to the substantive review. I think it is very very important that we go through that whole process with great care and consideration. Notwithstanding some of the reservations expressed by some submitters at the select committee which we all listened to very carefully I commend this bill.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4714] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:20804] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Earlier with regard to a question on weathertight homes the Acting Minister of Internal Affairs said that my figure of 80 claims per month was incorrect. I seek leave to table the answer from the Hon George Hawkins to written question No. 3973 which shows that the Acting Minister’s figures given to the House today were contradictory to those of the Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Peck Mark: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peck Mark: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6974] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Beyer Georgina: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17947] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9024] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I note that you have rushed ahead and done what you have just done but my point of order is unresolved. My point of order was that the Speaker be recalled to rule on the view you have taken of Standing Order 301. You have not dealt with that point of order. Instead you have chosen—I would say wrongly with respect—to declare the result of the vote. I am seeking that my point of order be resolved and that the Speaker be recalled.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Minister's Answer 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Minister's Answer 
[Volume:618;Page:13757] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you recall I asked a question of Mr Swain last week and he promised to give me an answer. It is now Tuesday and I am wondering whether he is able to do that now since he undertook in front of the House to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is for the member and the Minister to work out for themselves. It does not come into part of this House’s operation.
Smith Nick: General Debates 
Smith Nick: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6569] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a new point of order Madam Speaker. You have had the point made to you by the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Education deliberately does this. The reason I did not interrupt is that if I interrupt a 5-minute speech as occurred quite successfully by deliberate tactic by the Minister of Education on the Leader of the Opposition one breaks up the member’s speech. That is why we have a Chair in the House. If you are not going to stand up for the Standing Orders of this House I suggest you get someone else to do the job.
Tisch Lindsay: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19597] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek a point of clarification. It is my understanding that all parties have to agree on Statutes Amendment bills. Now we have one party—New Zealand First—that is voting against the bill. My understanding is that we are all in agreement that if there are changes to be made they will be made at the select committee. I am asking for your ruling as to whether it is in order to conduct a party vote first and whether it is in order for a party to actually vote against a Statutes Amendment bill. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a very simple ruling. There is nothing to stop that happening. It is unusual. However there is nothing that stops it. The Committee of the whole House then considers the bill.
Carter John: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter John: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9579] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I just want to make a small contribution on this bill. 
Simon Power 
: Nothing this member does is small. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well OK I want to make a significant contribution. In particular I want to ask the Minister a question. In the dealings that I have as the member of Parliament for Northland I have found that when we come across cases like this often part of the problem is that there are just not enough trained people and resources to provide the services that these people need. I know that the Government has put significant funding aside—and good on it for doing that. We hope that the funding will be enough; I guess we will find out in time whether it is. The Minister may be able to indicate whether she is satisfied that we have enough trained people out there to do the job. When we deal with these people that is often the area where we are limited. If that is the case—and maybe it is not but I suspect that it may be so—how will we go about getting sufficient people into the system to be able to help with regard to these issues? 
Often the resources that are needed to provide for the needs of these people are significant. It is a great shame in some of the dealings that I have that where the argument comes that people need support and help it is actually an issue of going through the system and getting people who are able to give that assistance. The problem is that as a local member of Parliament one makes representations on behalf of somebody gets something looked at get involved with it and makes some progress for that person to the detriment of someone else. That is the sad issue with regard to all of those sorts of things. The question is whether we have sufficient resources. I wanted to make that point—that is do we have enough people with the ability to deal with those issues? I suspect that we do not. I also suspect that we need to put a whole lot of emphasis into making sure we have people who are properly trained to be able to deliver the services that we require as we put this legislation together. I draw to the Minister’s attention that it is one issue that I would like to think we will put a whole lot of focus on as we pass this bill through. We need to make sure that we are not just trying to paint over something and say we have done something so it will all be OK because it may not be. If we just pass a piece of legislation that certainly does not mean it will fix the problem. There is a wider issue out there and I wanted to make that comment. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 160 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19985] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Charities Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Goff Phil: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Goff Phil: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3941] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Veterans' Affairs 
: I move  
That the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. This bill meets the veterans’ community’s desire for their entitlements to be instituted and viewed separately from the wider social security system in recognition of the special status of veterans. The bill also enables veterans of working age to participate in voluntary or paid employment should they be able without losing their veterans pension. 
The War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) provides formal recognition of the impact of service in a war or emergency on New Zealand veterans by providing a mechanism to assist with rehabilitation. It does this by amending the current provisions surrounding the veterans pension and allowing veterans of working age who need support during rehabilitation to engage in voluntary or part-time work without losing their entire pension’s entitlement. The bill removes the penalty of loss of entitlement when veterans undertake voluntary work and institutes an abatement regime particular to the veterans pension for veterans who undertake paid work. This allows veterans to undertake such work without losing their full entitlement to a veterans pension. There is no stand-down provision associated with the veterans pension. 
The introduction of the abatement regime gives members of this group a means of flexibly managing their medical needs without financial disadvantage if their circumstances alter. Making this change to legislation and supporting working-age veterans as they re-enter the workforce is a forward-looking progressive and practical way of assisting the younger veteran population. Providing financial support to veterans while they make that transition will benefit their overall rehabilitation. 
This Government recognises the special status of New Zealand’s war veterans and the ongoing impact that service in a war or an emergency has on an individual’s life and the lives of his or her family. As I understand it the bill received the unanimous support of the Social Services Committee and I commend it to the House.
Pettis Jill: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9357] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Coddington Deborah: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9415] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I could not hear what the member said. Could he please repeat that.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20318] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 In answer to my supplementary question Dr Cullen confirmed for the House that the carbon charge was priced at $15 per tonne and it would be capped at that rate for the first commitment period. I seek leave to table the written question and answer sheet from the New Zealand Government where it makes quite clear in an answer to a question it posed itself about the price being $15: “It is possible the rate could be reconsidered. However the Government is clear that the price will be capped at $25 per tonne to the end of the first commitment period in 2012.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12751] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The National Party will support this legislation. We note the concerns of United Future. Mr Alexander of United Future is the deputy chair of the Law and Order Committee. National notes those concerns. Firstly yes there was a rush. This legislation was introduced on 30 March and the select committee had only 2 weeks in which to hear submissions. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15495] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to.