edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17549] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu  
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 10 be agreed to.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11789] 
12.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will New Zealand follow the lead of the new Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and commit to withdraw our soldiers from Iraq if the United Nations does not take control by 30 June? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: No. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Spanish Prime Minister that the occupation of Iraq has been “disastrous” and “Mr Blair and Mr Bush must do some reflection and self-criticism. … you can’t organise a war on lies.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think self-criticism is a useful exercise for all politicians and I recommend it to the member. 
Keith Locke 
: Given the Prime Minister’s strong commitment about a UN role during the lead-up to the Iraq war what will she be doing alongside the Spanish Prime Minister to end the US-led occupation of Iraq and put the UN in charge of facilitating a return to democracy in that country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government will support any move by the United Nations that will see a smooth transition to Iraqi control of its own administration. In the meantime our engineers will continue their work repairing hospitals health clinics schools police stations law courts municipal and Government buildings restoring electricity and rebuilding bridges and water pipelines as part of creating a more independent and viable Iraq. 
Keith Locke 
: Besides doing the reconstruction work just referred to why are New Zealand Army engineers helping to repair the rigid radar and combat support boats of the British as disclosed in our journal  
Navy Today 
 when these boats are commonly being used by the British occupation forces for patrol work and only to a lesser extent to help in reconstruction? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If they are being used in patrol work it may well be that that is consistent with the Government’s own commitment to Operation Enduring Freedom.
Mahuta Nanaia: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4791] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Perry Edwin: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Perry Edwin: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13084] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this bill. I speak on behalf of my colleague Mr Jim Peters who sits on the select committee that dealt with this bill. 
I want to go back into a bit of the history of this bill. In 1874 the Crown granted 70 acres of land to the Wellington City Council in trust for the purpose of reclamation and public utility. In 1879 the Te Aro Reclamation Act gave the council the right from time to time to fill up and reclaim certain land on the Wellington harbour. The result was that over time since 1879 the area concerned became fully developed and now includes much of the present-day civic and commercial centre of Wellington. When the Wellington City Council decided to sell property it still owned in the area there was some local concern and agitation about the purpose and the nature of the Wellington City Council’s property regime. A further consideration was whether the Tenths Trust had an interest under Treaty of Waitangi claims. 
I want to touch a wee bit on the bill. The bill conveys to the Wellington City Council firstly the ability to deal with its land as it wishes providing the relevant requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 are met with regard to the selling and leasing powers of the council. Secondly the Local Government Act sets out from section 76 to section 90 the planning and decision-making processes required from the local authority in the course of its policy implementation. Thirdly and particularly important is section 78 which provides for community views in relation to decisions and further sets out the procedures in relation to those decisions. Fourthly section 82 sets out the principles of consultation and section 83 provides for the special consultative procedure which I think is very important to the bill. 
New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill in its second reading. It also supports the ability of a local council to go about its business properly and legally with regard to its lands. Although section 81 provides for Maori consultation the Tenths Trust has indicated that the reclaimed lands in question are solely within the province of the Wellington City Council.
Tizard Judith: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4789] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am very happy to advise the Committee that in relation to motor vehicle sales a proposed regulatory regime document was issued in January 2001. Members will find on page 30 7.1.3: “The tribunal will be partly funded through a registration levy paid by motor vehicle vendors and also through user charges. The fees paid by applicants will be on a similar scale and operate on a similar basis to that of the ordinary disputes tribunal.” That document was available. In fact we had two submissions on it from motor vehicle dealers both of whom said they were very happy to pay it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Two submissions! 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Only two in spite of the hundreds of those documents that went out. So I am very happy having discussed this with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute that this very small levy is seen as an excellent benefit for both the dealers and the car-buying public. If we are going to be sure about buying a major item like a motor vehicle we need to be sure that if something is wrong it will be put right. I congratulate Paul Adams from United Future on his excellent advocacy for the car industry but also for car buyers. That is what this very small reasonable levy is about. 
I am delighted that ACT members are making such idiots of themselves because I have had a pile of letters and messages from motor vehicle dealers asking what on earth is this hysterical nonsense from Deborah Coddington. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Can I ask the Minister having described my party in unparliamentary language— 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Who did? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
:I can tell the Minister that it is out of order to call people idiots in this Chamber. But having done that and having made the claim that she has a pile of letters to her asking what is ACT doing I challenge her to table them. To make sure that I mean this challenge I say the Minister has not got one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Whether the Minister tables them is the Minister’s prerogative.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:617;Page:13424] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to
English Bill: General Debates 
English Bill: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6562] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 New Zealand has been deceived by its own Prime Minister on an issue that matters enormously to every New Zealander. Today in question time we discovered that the Government has not decided to pass legislation to settle the issue—[ 
Interruption 
].
Mark Ron: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8779] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I shall attempt to be of some assistance. It seems to me that we are negotiating through points of order the terms of what was or was not agreed and thereby are consuming valuable time on members’ day. It would be my hope that the Government could progress to the next item of business on the Order Paper whilst the whips retired to a convenient place to discuss what they might or might not wish to do. They would then come back to seek leave of the House. I will be guided by the Chair but if it were helpful I would be prepared to move that the Government proceed to the next item on the agenda while the whips retire to discuss this issue. At the end of the day a member’s bill in the name of Steve Chadwick is still waiting to be debated and we get these opportunities only every second week as we know.
Dalziel Lianne: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 1 to Minister 29 July 
Dalziel Lianne: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 1 to Minister 29 July 
[Volume:610;Page:7425] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a couple of mistakes I made in relation to question No. 1 yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Japan—Parliamentary Delegation House of Councillors 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Japan—Parliamentary Delegation House of Councillors 
[Volume:620;Page:15443] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the House of Councillors Japan led by Mr Takao Jinnouchi is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed.
Brown Peter: Points of Order — References to Matters Awaiting Judicial Decision Question No. 2 to Minister 20 November 
Brown Peter: Points of Order — References to Matters Awaiting Judicial Decision Question No. 2 to Minister 20 November 
[Volume:614;Page:10271] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the last sitting day of the last sitting week I asked a question of the Minister of Health about whether she had seen any reports on widening the window of eligibility for breast screening tests. In her answer she outlined that she had had reports illustrating the effect of widening the eligibility of women for tests from the age of 64 to that of 70 years. I accept that the Minister made a genuine mistake. I understand that she has had reports about the importance of widening that window from the age of 50 years down to 40 years and I think that she has inadvertently misled the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that that is up to the Minister; it is nothing to do with me. The Minister if she wants to make a statement can most certainly do so or the member can take other action. But it is not up to me to intervene in this area.
Prebble Richard: General Debates 
Prebble Richard: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8538] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 That is a very serious matter. Are you now saying that instead of raising a point of order we just stroll up to your chair and start whispering into your ear matters that no one else is able to hear with a purpose of influencing the Chair? I suggest to you that that is grossly disorderly and if I thought that that was going on every time anyone comes to speak to you and if I believe they are doing it in order to influence your rulings we will have many points of order.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:20804] 
11.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: Does the Government intend to recognise “legal ownership interests” in parts of the East Cape foreshore and seabed claimed by East Coast iwi as outlined in the terms of negotiation with those iwi? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Foreshore and Seabed Act gives the Crown full legal and beneficial ownership of the public foreshore and seabed. The terms of negotiations set out each party’s perspective of its foreshore and seabed interests. The terms also include a statement that the Crown maintains its legal ownership interest in the foreshore and seabed. The way in which these interests will be reconciled will be a matter for substantive negotiations. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Government is maintaining that it has ownership what is it negotiating about? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is negotiating around a number of matters. Clearly both Ngati Porou and Whanau-a-Apanui have particularly close linkages to the foreshore and seabed not least because in terms of Maori land that is owned down to the foreshore and seabed the great majority of it is actually within those two iwis’ areas. Therefore we are talking about how we recognise what in effect if they had gone the High Court route would have been their territorial customary rights. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Have either of those iwi accepted the Government’s position that the Government on behalf of the people of New Zealand owns that foreshore and seabed; if so what are they negotiating about? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The issue is not whether they accept the Crown’s assertion of its legal ownership; the issue is what kinds of processes will be in place to enable the genuine customary interests of Ngati Porou and Whanau-a-Apanui to be worked through. Even the member’s leader said that there were customary interests that should be properly recognised. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why is the Government continuing to negotiate with a group that will not accept the Crown’s ownership of the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What is recognised by Ngati Porou and Whanau-a-Apanui does not affect the actual legal position which is that the Crown does have legal and beneficial ownership of the foreshore and seabed. In the same way the Crown is not recognising that Ngati Porou or Whanau-a-Apanui own the foreshore and seabed; we recognise that they assert they have ownership interests. Ngati Porou once used to be strong supporters of the National Party; they have tended to change their minds on that matter but I am sure that their hospitality would still extend to trying to explain exactly to the member their connection with the foreshore and seabed should he care to go there.
Tisch Lindsay: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19972] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just want clarification. You said that the Minister wants to withdraw schedules 1 to 3. Is that right?
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12291] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
[Volume:613;Page:10158] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I feel obliged to rise in the interests of decorum in the House. I was in fact expecting Mr Hide to take this point of order. A very serious allegation was made about a member receiving money—$35000—and the question of the influence of that in relation to transport policy. That member we all know is overseas and unable to defend himself. I would have thought it was appropriate for Mr Hide to take a point of order. But I think it is important for you to indicate whether those comments are in order.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6494] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9070] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16926] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17147] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I do hope that subsequent speakers will be allowed to speak in as wide ranging a capacity as Dr Cullen just has. I seek the leave of the Committee to have a second turn given that I stuck so closely to the debate on the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Of course speakers will be able to range very widely. It is not only a title debate; it is a wide-ranging debate and indeed is a summary of events over the last day or so.
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19521] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not questioning your ruling but I am asking for some guidance. Perhaps you would like to give some consideration to the matter and come back to the House with a ruling on whether there are any circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for the Government to reassign a question. The reason why it is an important question is that we are getting into a situation whereby the only way of assuring that a question will go to the Minister to whom it is addressed is to ask increasingly inane primary questions which lowers the quality of the debate. In this case to ensure that the question went to the Prime Minister my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimmons would have had to ask whether the Prime Minister had confidence in the Prime Minister and that clearly would be absurd.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17490] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
The Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Barker 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J(P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M(P) 
Tanczos 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Ward(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora 
Peck(P) 
Yates(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Prebble 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes 
Robson(P) 
Donald 
Hunt(P) 
Roy 
Donnelly 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan 
King(P) 
Shirley 
Pettis 
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
O’Connor(P) 
te Heuheu 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff 
Ogilvy(P) 
Tisch 
Ardern(P) 
English 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Perry 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks 
Peters J(P) 
Wang 
Brown 
Goudie(P) 
Peters W(P) 
Williamson 
Brownlee 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J(P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Ryall(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones 
Scott(P) 
Collins(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L(P) 
Connell(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M 
Copeland 
McCully(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
McNair 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Newman 
Tamihere(P) 
Smith N
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10000] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I withdraw my point of order because it was to be the same point that Mr Brown raised. But if I heard you correctly members of the Committee could seek leave for the Chairman to accept additional speakers?
Jones Dail: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4265] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the passing of this bill and equally supports its being passed with alacrity. The bill arises as a result of the European Commission’s new labelling regulation 753/2002. We want to see the New Zealand wine industry protected as quickly as possible and we will support this bill through all its stages tonight if necessary.
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21685] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to have a report that shows that Dennis Fishburne had $20000 wiped off his fines by Judge Moran in replacement for 100 hours’ community work. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is.
Copeland Gordon: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15725] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I agree entirely with the second part of the Speaker’s ruling which is why I said that we were not there. But if we go back and check  
Hansard 
 we will see that Mr Peter Brown said that no member of United Future decided to go to the select committee. Therefore the second part of that ruling is not applicable—the part that gives him permission to refer to the fact that we were not there if in fact we could not have attended because we were not members. He simply said that we did not bother to turn up and I think that that is a breach of the first part of Speaker’s ruling 24/1.
Adams Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Adams Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16161] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to Part 4 of the bill. United Future’s concern about this particular aspect of it is that although it is right and correct that employees should be able to take a grievance to the appropriate authority we have noticed over the years that unfortunately when many of those grievances are brought forward the actual issue is not so much the grievance but the possibility of the person getting an amount of money out of it. In some parts of the industry we have 0800 SACKED numbers and the ultimate aim is not to deal with a grievance but to get a monetary return. A lot of the things we bring into legislation such as what is laid out in Part 4 do concern human rights but I think we can overlegislate on many of those types of things. It becomes very complex for both the employer and the employee. I do not know whether in weighing up and looking at the circumstances they will be asking what the best place is they can go to or which of the two alternatives will give them a better financial return from their grievance. 
 So United Future is concerned about this type of legislation and that is why we are voting against this whole bill. As members have heard there are many many areas in this particular legislation that we are concerned about. As sensible as it is to have a grievance process it does concern us when there start to be multiple choices. What will the poor employer have to do? Will the employer have to get advice or to do studies to find out which is the best angle or the best alternative? We have serious concerns about whether this process will work. 
United Future is voting against this legislation in its entirety. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleagues on the other side of the Chamber seem to have been really enlightened by that. I do not know whether they have really taken as long as this in the debating process—I am talking about Part 4—to come to an understanding of what United Future’s position is. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You’re either for or against it! 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I say to Mr Prebble that United Future is definitely against it and it is voting against this legislation. Many clauses in Part 4 do greatly concern us. We are in agreement with the other members of this Parliament who have been speaking against this part. We confirm that their comments have been very serious. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour took to heart the seriousness of their comments on this part but I would like to confirm those comments and say that I think those members’ concerns are very relevant. I would encourage the Minister to take the time to study the amendments and see what good sensible amendments they are. United Future is very concerned about this particular part and we will not be supporting it.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4094] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 45 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14733] 
12.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What information or advice did he rely on for his statement on  
Morning Report 
 that “apparent pressure on particular staff members who the individual was managing” was the issue in the resignation of Ms AmokuraPanoho and who was the source of that information? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 The information was erroneous and I have indicated my regret. 
Simon Power 
: Is he satisfied with the example he as Minister of State Services has set in publicly attacking an individual public servant who has now lost her job without getting his facts straight; and what advice has he received from the Acting Prime Minister in relation to his actions? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No; she had lost her job before I made the comments; and I received clear and frank advice. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Is the Minister saying to the House that he made up this erroneous statement or is he saying that he did have a source the source was Mr Tamihere and Mr Tamihere made it up? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not sure of the source but it is clear that at least one of the tributaries was a hot-blooded indigenous mate of mine. 
Simon Power 
: Does he agree with Dr Cullen’s reported remarks that he “would have been better off staying away from the matter and by wading in gave the impression they were clamping down on free speech”; and will he now actually apologise as at least his colleague John Tamihere has done? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I of course agree with the Acting Prime Minister and I apologised on the day. 
Simon Power 
: Has he done an estimate of the likely amount that his remarks could cost the taxpayer if legal action results from his remarks? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No.
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19565] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that the Minister with prime responsibility for New Zealand’s appointment to the World Bank is the Minister of Finance. Therefore this question should be addressed to the Minister of Finance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows the Minister is entitled to allocate the question to whoever is appropriate in the Government. The question has gone to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the subject matter would generally be considered to be within that portfolio.
Urgent Debates Declined — Community Employment Assistance—Delivery 
Urgent Debates Declined — Community Employment Assistance—Delivery 
[Volume:620;Page:15803] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Community Employment Assistance—Delivery 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Katherine Rich seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the decision by the Government to change the way its community employment assistance is delivered. This decision is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility however I do not consider that it requires a special debate to be held upon it this afternoon. The implications of the new arrangements can be explored through normal parliamentary opportunities. The application is declined.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12201] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12251] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17554] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark (P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 15 be agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12995] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 6 be agreed to.
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21891] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I must say that I agree with the comments made by Pita Paraone—a member from New Zealand First—and by the Hon Richard Prebble. National along with New Zealand First submitted a minority view that related totally to this part under discussion. The Green member is incorrect or impugns the rest of us with a view that is not correct in that she appears to make it look as if we do not respect the beliefs of Nga Rauru Kitahi. That is utterly untrue. We do respect them. They are entitled to their beliefs. They are entitled to their cultural spiritual and mythological beliefs. They are certainly entitled to those; we just do not think that Parliament should be legislating for those beliefs. 
The other thing is that those beliefs can be very well recognised in the deed of settlement and usually such beliefs are set out in the deed. The fact is all of us in this Parliament except the ACT party voted for the Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau legislation and the committee was able to effect a change by requesting the claimants to consider taking out of their settlement bill a schedule that in its way resembled the very one now before us. Their having agreed to that and that schedule having been taken out of the bill—largely because the matter sits in the deed of settlement anyway—their settlement is not at all compromised. In fact it has gone into law. It is now in law. 
That can be done with this situation as well. Indeed in the select committee process I put it to the claimants for all the reasons that have been stated here tonight and for the reason especially that it is as if they are asking the Government of the day to give legitimacy to their beliefs. Well either one believes one’s beliefs or one does not. If one does believe them having them stated in a piece of law does not necessarily make them any more true than what one thinks they are anyway. 
This is a real issue. National in Government will give it serious thought. I know that it has been done in previous settlements but that does not necessarily make it the most desirable thing we have ever done in this Parliament particularly when it is clear that no parliamentarian in this place wishes to show any disrespect to any claimants’ or tribes’ beliefs. But a legitimate concern has been raised that this Parliament ought not be legislating for the kind of statement we see in schedule 12 to be passed in law. 
Sadly although I put to the claimants the issue of changing it or taking it out they did not agree. That is their right I guess but I think it was also the responsibility of the Minister in charge to try to encourage them to have it removed from the bill. That would have had no effect at all on the settlement which with our support will eventually be passed into law.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15531] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice the Minister of Transport is not available. Can I seek leave to defer this question to a time when he is available? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can always seek leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7567] 
12.  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the effectiveness of assessment tools in literacy and numeracy learning? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The asTTle assessment tools that were introduced to schools just 13 weeks ago have won a Computerworld Excellence Award for the use of IT in education. That is testament to the excellence of their design and their potential to impact positively on literacy and numeracy learning in our schools. I congratulate both the team at Auckland University and the Ministry of Education involved in their design. 
Mark Peck 
: Does the Minister have confidence that those tools will be of use in practice as well as in theory? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. Perhaps an even greater indication of the usefulness of those tools than their recent award win is that just 13 weeks after their introduction to schools I am advised that 90 percent of schools have voluntarily opted to use them. That is a fantastic start for a very good learning tool.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14560] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I ask this question of the Committee: why should we be surprised that the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) has two commencement dates? It has been a comedy. Well it has not really been a comedy; it has been a chapter of errors right through. Here we are in August 2004 in the Committee of the whole House at 5.45 p.m. still picking up on the errors of this Minister and the ministry. I ask again: why should we be surprised? I make this observation: if Gilbert and Sullivan were alive today and sitting in the gallery they would have the makings of a brilliant comic opera. We are still playing it out on the floor of this Chamber in 2004 a year or so after the bill was introduced and we have two commencement dates. 
I ask a further question: which date is the right commencement date? Clause 1A states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” and clause 65 states: “This Part and Schedule 2 come into force on the day on which this Act receives the Royal assent.” So potentially we have the Act coming into force 1 day early or 1 day late. I would like to ask the Minister how he determined which of the two clauses—clause 1A or clause 65—to omit. 
Shane Ardern 
: Or the Minister. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: That is a good point. Did he toss a coin? Did he draw a short straw? How did he determine which clause was the appropriate one to omit? Why is there a discrepancy? Why does one clause have the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and the other “on the day on which this Act receives the Royal assent”? Some might suggest that this is a rather trifling matter but it indicates to me very clearly that the required amount of thought has not gone into even the most simple of tasks of getting the day right. It is perfectly appropriate to stand in this Chamber and ask the ministry what day it is. Does the ministry know what day it is? Does the Minister know that this is— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What day is it? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: It is Tuesday. I had to announce that to the “Minister of Lord High Everything Else” over there the Minister of Arts Culture and Heritage. I guess she had a hand in this bill too. One would almost have to think so. However as I said earlier this really is a serious matter. It has caused huge angst. Here we have just a symptom of the inefficiencies and the ineffectiveness of a new Minister. Everybody is giving him a little leeway because of the fact that he is a new Minister but he has yet to put his seal of approval his stamp on the ministry. 
It is with some bemusement that we stand here just prior to the dinner break debating the question of whether the bill should have two commencement dates. Of course there should be only one. But the question for the Minister is: which is the right one? I yield the floor to the Minister and expect a reply to my good question.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3758] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (ix) from subclause (2)(b).
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:606;Page:3646] 
11.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What recent reports has she received on workplace injury rates? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I recently received an update on the Accident Compensation Corporation’s employer intervention programme which is targeted at workplaces where high injury rates have been reported. I am delighted that for the 6 months to December 2002 the programme achieved injury reductions of between 8 percent and 22 percent compared with the same period in the previous year. That amounts to nearly 900 fewer injuries over a 6-month period. 
Helen Duncan 
: What other measures is the Accident Compensation Corporation taking to reduce workplace injury rates? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is taking a large number but I will just highlight one that I would like to draw to the attention of the House. The safer industries programme is targeting 10 high-risk industries including farming construction and forestry. Under the programme 40000 construction workers have received site safety training. The aim of the programme is to halve the injury rates in those high-injury-risk occupations over the next 10 years. That benefits the workers and their families their employers the economy the health system and our communities. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Given that the most dramatic drop year-on-year in workplace injuries in New Zealand in recent years occurred after the introduction of the competitive model to the provision of workplace accident insurance why did the Government remove the scheme and replace it with a non-incentivised monopoly scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I look forward to the day when we can move on from that debate and focus in a united fashion on the goals that I am sure underneath it all we all share—that is to reduce the total cost of workplace injuries in our community. I have just given the House two examples of the incentives in the renationalised accident compensation scheme that directly benefit employers and reduce injuries as well.
Beyer Georgina: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Beyer Georgina: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17591] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I cannot abide the kind of double standard I heard from the member who just resumed his seat. One becomes quite browbeaten from all sides of the Chamber I guess in this debate but I think I have been involved in one way or the other with fighting for not only my rights but hopefully for others’ human rights. To hear these things trivialised and to be treated as though there is some other being or person superior to some of us in society—where those who call for one law for all do not actually believe that in this particular instance—is most disturbing. It is most disturbing to hear that and that is all I wanted to say.
Fairbrother Russell: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17917] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20988] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7223] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker while Mr Mark is still here. In fact three members of New Zealand First are here so it is a bit of an odd walk-out. I was listening to Mr Mark and I think he picked his words with care but I want an assurance from him that the remarks he was making were not a reflection on the Chair. If he is walking out because he does not find question time worthwhile that is his right but if he is walking out as a reflection on the Chair that is a reflection on the whole House. I think you should clarify that matter with him; otherwise he should walk out for a long period of time.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13520] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 28 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Parker David: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Parker David: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17076] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.