edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wong Pansy: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15706] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 It is interesting to look at Part 1 of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill because that part states the purpose of the bill. The purpose firstly under clause 4(a) is: “to improve security of supply of electricity:”. I think the minority Labour Government is living absolutely in a fantasy world if it thinks that by forcing through legislation it can command the security of supply of electricity. 
The Minister of Energy came into this Government 5 years ago and had spent about 10 years in Opposition as spokesperson on energy. One would have thought that he came to his position with a vision and a blueprint for the energy portfolio but the first thing he did was set up an energy governance board. It would get the whole industry together with consumers and it was supposed to work out a solution but what it meant was the Minister never really had any solution or vision for the energy future of New Zealand. The Hon David Caygill was the chairman of that particular phase. Well millions of dollars later the energy governance board disbanded and then the Minister once again displayed to the public that he actually had no solution or vision for the future of the electricity sector of New Zealand. 
So as I pointed out yesterday during the Committee stage of the Maori Fisheries Bill whenever the minority Labour Government does not have a solution the answer is quite simple. It sets up either a committee or a commission. Now without really specifying the parameters or giving good guidance and directions it has kicked this difficult issue to a commission to resolve and to establish means and methods to secure the supply of electricity. 
When we look through Part 1 we see pages and pages of details reporting mechanisms disclosure requirements and dispute resolutions—exactly what the Hon Richard Prebble said—without examining the underlying problem of the shortage of generation or the unnecessary restrictions on the usage of various means to generate electricity. The Government resorts to disclosure requirements bureaucracy and appointing the commission to perform a task that the Minister has no solution for. So I think the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven should take a call to explain to the New Zealand public how Part 1 of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill by setting up those disclosure requirements and the pages of code of conduct would secure the supply of electricity to the public. 
This bill is one of many that we have witnessed in 5 years under this Minister of Energy but we are yet to really know or appreciate what the vision or the way forward is for securing electricity supply for New Zealand. Today the Government announced some tinkering to the Resource Management Act and that will not be helpful either.
Hartley Ann: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Hartley Ann: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20559] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have just a couple of points. The member keeps using the term “minority report” when actually the expression is a “minority view” right through the report and that is an important point. I also make the point that Standing Order 244 certainly provides for committees to include differing views in their reports. 
Simon Power 
: Diverging. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well differing or diverging—it is the same thing. Certainly Speaker Hunt in his ruling did say “diverging views” but it can be “differing views” too. While it may seem unusual in this instance for a party that is assumedly part of the majority to have a differing view it is not impossible. I think Stephen Franks was probably making some of that point too. It is a matter for the committee to decide whether the view is a differing view and whether it should be included in the report. In the end the matter is for the committee. I am very happy to discuss it with the Speaker but I just make those points.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14482] 
A party vote 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent. 
Motion agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15873] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the list of joint education programmes provided by Aoraki Polytechnic including the breastfeeding interest group and Alzheimer’s New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Burton Mark: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
Burton Mark: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
[Volume:620;Page:15866] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who raised the most recent point of order quoted Speaker’s ruling 149/4(1). I draw his attention to 149/4(2) which states that “the member should discuss the matter initially with the Minister to try to correct the answer” and so on. Again that does not appear to have been done. So this is not the time or place to raise this matter; this matter should be raised with the appropriate Minister.
Ogilvy Bernie: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18781] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill at its introduction to the House and to support its referral to the Education and Science Committee. In answer to the previous speaker Sue Kedgley I believe that the Education and Science Committee is well qualified well able and has the scientific expertise within it to make a great deal of sense out of the bill that is before us. 
We support this bill for a number of good reasons and we have no concerns as the previous speaker had that 3 June is a rushed deadline. If she had followed what had happened in the previous amendment bill she would know that 70000 notified toxic substances were flagged in that bill to come forward in this bill as I recall the situation. I have been taking quite a bit of interest in this issue. The fact that the previous speaker could say that we may as well operate with no legislation horrifies me and I hope it horrifies other members in the House. How would we like to go into 2006 and beyond with nothing to control the 70000 notified toxic substances? I think it is absurd that we would go on for any length of time into the future without this legislation. We have a good time line and the regime will be in place as I understand it by June 2006. We do need a year for all the regulatory and other matters to be put in place and for the ministries associated with these matters—and the Environmental Risk Management Authority which is the organisation that will make it happen—to prepare. 
I support this bill as United Future does because it underscores the fact that there will be beneficiaries from this regime. The business world will be a beneficiary. I think it is remarkably even-handed of the Minister and the Government to do this bit. The provisions will help businesses. The number of applications that businesses need to submit will be reduced. It takes a hard-hearted politician not to think that that is a good move. We do think it is good and we also realise that the Government will benefit from it. I note that the bill deals with military matters—ammunition no doubt and all sorts of elements associated with the hazardous substances that are attached to the military. That issue will be sorted out at the same time. This legislation will put many user-friendly controls into place. The bill provides a very efficient pathway towards making the transition into the new regime in June 2006. It is with pleasure that United Future supports the referral of this bill to the Education and Science Committee.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7799] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “but continue to apply to ACT members of Parliament”.
Sowry Roger: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Sowry Roger: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7749] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank you for the ruling. I want to raise one issue from the ruling you have given. You made the point that you asked members to reflect upon whether they would be comfortable with the Speaker making a decision as to whether a vacancy had occurred without consultation with the House. I put it to you that the law was changed exactly for that purpose; that members decided that it was not appropriate that the majority in the House determined whether there was a vacancy. We see the exact reasons for that decision occurring here today where the Privileges Committee has made a decision that there is a vacancy where the Clerk of the House has given his advice to the committee that there is a vacancy and where the Solicitor-General has given clear and unambiguous advice that there is a vacancy. 
For you then to say that members should reflect on whether they are comfortable that you make a decision on that rather than wait for the House to make its decision is I put it to you stretching beyond the point where the House wanted you to be. The House in its decision to legislate to give the Speaker the power to make the decision was sending the Speaker a signal that it did not believe that a Government using its majority in the House should be able to subvert Parliament and in fact make a decision that there was not such a vacancy. That is not what MPs expected and that is what we are now seeing occur. For the very reasons that we are seeing now Parliament gave the Speaker the power to determine independently whether there was a vacancy. 
The fact that you choose not to use that power—and that is your choice—is certainly of concern and I want to take you up on the point you made about members reflecting on whether they would be comfortable about your making that decision. I say to you that yes we are comfortable about your making the decision and it should be made rather than your letting a Government use the weight of its majority to subvert the whole process.
Vote: Clean Slate Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Clean Slate Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13100] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Clean Slate Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion not agreed to.
Simich Clem: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Simich Clem: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:624;Page:19544] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: [ 
Interruption 
] No I do not need any assistance on this at all. The Ministers are fully entitled to do exactly what they have done. I do not see any need to question it.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10022] 
7.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What reports has he received regarding the use of the Internet to gain access to Government services and information? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 The Government web portal will celebrate its first birthday tomorrow. The portal now has some 5500 local and central government services and information resources listed. It receives some two million hits a week—a figure that has been climbing steadily since the launch of the portal. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What types of information are people accessing through the Government web portal? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Every day the portal transfers more than 1 gigabyte of information. I am informed that that is the equivalent of 260000 floppy discs per year. The top 10 most requested search items from the portal are laws job vacancies tax immigration education business health Maori employment and government. What people have not been able to access is when the only person opposite with a good understanding of information technology issues is to be promoted back to the front bench where he belongs.
Benson-Pope David: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17118] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — Department of Child Youth and Family Services 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — Department of Child Youth and Family Services 
[Volume:613;Page:9637] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received applications under Standing Order 376 from Katherine Rich and Dr Muriel Newman to debate the release of the Government’s baseline review of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I consider that it does require the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the applications. As Katherine Rich was the first member to lodge an application with me I call upon her to move accordingly.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22222] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a first time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 32 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Bill read a first time.
Peters Winston: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Peters Winston: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11869] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The Committee being the master of its own destiny I seek leave for this debate on the financial review of the Prime Minister’s office to be extended by one speech to enable Don Brash to make a speech—if anybody can find him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is a member of long standing and he knows full well that he cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. 
Report noted.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13144] 
A party vote 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
New schedule 1AA agreed to. 
was called for on the question That new schedule 1AA be agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to schedule 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9433] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 78 and schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Vote: Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17838. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Power Simon: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11071] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. To avoid interrupting her speech I did not want to raise this point of order while my colleague was speaking. During the Minister’s speech on this bill she was allowed to conduct her contribution with very little interruption from this side of the House. During the speech made by my colleague Dr Lynda Scott we on this side of the House had to endure a constant barrage from the Government’s senior whip and from the junior Minister of Customs. I seek from you some guidance with regard to a fair and impartial way of conducting proceedings in this House when members from different sides of the House are making their contributions. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. There was interjection on both sides.
Cullen Michael:  
Cullen Michael:  
[Volume:607;Page:4109] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a debate on Iraq led off by the Prime Minister and consisting of nine 10-minute speeches. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6302] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 9(1)(a)(iii) be agreed to.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:17211] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Foreshore and Seabed Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Shirley Ken: General Debates 
Shirley Ken: General Debates 
[Volume:614;Page:10386] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table travel documents from 1991 showing parliamentary staff of Mr Clayton Cosgrove travelling under false names. 
Documents not tabled.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:626;Page:21191] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Noticing that the Order Paper is not all that deep at the moment and that of the bills the Leader of the House has just mentioned only a couple require passing before the 30 July deadline and they could be taken through urgency in a very short time can he indicate to the House whether he expects urgency next week to flow through to Friday; if so what does he expect the need for that is given the light Order Paper?
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4139] 
12.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: If the United States attacks Iraq will the Government end that part of the frigate  
Te Mana 
’s mission which involves escorting United States vessels through the Strait of Hormuz; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I expect the role of the Canadian-led group which includes our frigate  
Te Mana 
 to remain essentially unchanged. This includes providing safe passage against terrorist attacks for the vessels of nations that are members of the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition. In my view the need to protect coalition vessels against terrorist attacks remains as strong as ever and therefore the purpose of New Zealand’s deployment remains just as relevant. 
Keith Locke 
: Why will the Minister not concede that escorting US warships into the Persian Gulf with war materials that will be used against Iraqis does in practice make us complicit in that war? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Strait of Hormuz is an international strait of significant strategic importance to the entire world. The task force will continue to protect all designated Operation Enduring Freedom coalition vessels from any attack. 
Dave Hereora 
: What reports has he received on the operation of our frigates as part of the maritime interdiction operation? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have been advised that from 2 December until yesterday first  
Te Kaha 
 and now  
Te Mana 
 have conducted a total of 1112 queries or vessel identifications 97 boardings of suspicious vessels and 31 escorts through the Strait of Hormuz. Our forces deployed on both  
Te Kaha 
 and  
Te Mana 
 have operated in an effective and efficient manner and this House should be proud as I am of their demonstrated professionalism and commitment. 
Simon Power 
: What additional commitment of logistical or armed support will be made available to our traditional friends and allies in addition to the frigate  
Te Mana 
’s escort services? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I announced to this House some time ago it is anticipated that as part of Operation Enduring Freedom’s action against international terrorism a P3 Orion will be engaged as soon as basing arrangements are concluded. 
Keith Locke 
: How many Iraqis need to die killed by the weapons that are in the ships that our frigate will be escorting through the Strait of Hormuz before the Government reconsiders its policy of escorting such ships? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have said to the member already the maritime interdiction operation includes protecting the ships of Operation Enduring Freedom coalition member nations from the possibility of terrorist attacks as they move through the Strait of Hormuz. Such ships are exercising a right of freedom of navigation in their passage of the straits.
Catchpole Brent: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8693] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The chairman of the Commerce Committee is trying to shut down the debate and I am disappointed. 
The Consumer Credit Bill has been renamed the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill. That is quite a mouthful. The bill as it stands is trying to stop oppressive credit contracts and buy-back schemes. Probably a better title would be: “Prevent Buy-back Scheme Bill”—or even “buy-back scams” as they have come to be known. That would be a much better title because these buy-back scams are one of the reasons that this bill is being rushed through the House. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Rushed! 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The Minister screams out “Rushed!”. It has taken a long time to get the bill back into the House and there has recently been a rush to get it back. That has happened in response to the buy-back scams that have been going on particularly over the last few months. The Minister is nodding in agreement because she knows that these scams have come about in the last few months? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I concede that. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The Minister agrees. I think the title should be the “Prevent Buy-back Scheme Bill”. 
If we do not accept that suggested title perhaps we should look at an alternative title: “Credit Contracts (Offered in Languages in Which They Are Advertised) Bill”. There was a concern that advertisements for consumer credit were sometimes advertised in a language other than English or Maori. This issue is covered in Part 6. It was discussed in the Commerce Committee—I am coming back to the title Mr Chairperson—and there was a belief that credit contracts should be offered in the same language in which the consumer credit was advertised. If we do not put that wording into the title then people will continue to believe that only English and Maori are to be used for the credit contracts. They will think that creditors can advertise consumer credit in whatever language they like but the contracts will be written in either Maori or English. Without that new title this bill is quite worthless. 
I say again that the title should be changed to: “Oppressive Contracts Buy-back Scheme Bill” because that is really why the bill has been rushed back into the House. I think the Minister will agree that that has happened because we need to deal with the problem of these scams.
Adams Paul: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Adams Paul: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4788] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I was not going to speak on this part but young Richard Prebble fires away in his normal exuberant style which I admire. It is always interesting when we hear one side of the story without hearing the other side. To be honest the industry was aware of this in a consultation paper in January 2001 where the levy was mentioned and the levy was supported by the industry. Motor vehicle dealers are a group of people who do like to solve problems quickly. As I said previously in the long run the longer disputes go on the more it costs the dealer. 
The motor industry will have to pay a levy of $127 per dealer. That will give motor vehicle dealers access to a tribunal that will be able to sort out any disputes at a very quick rate. Personally I am thankful that I have had very few disputes with a customer but I would not like to have to wait to go through the court process of this nation while the whole thing was held up. If I have to pay $127 on each of my licences I will be very pleased to pay the $127 so that disputes can be sorted out quickly and resolved. I for one as with most other dealers in this country do appreciate our customers; we do want to do things in a correct and a right order. Even in this Chamber we have disputes between people and there are always two sides to a story. If it costs me $127 a year to have access to a tribunal to sort it out I and I believe most other dealers in this country welcome it.
Power Simon: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Power Simon: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6502] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You can see the quandary that we are now in when trying to debate the accuracy of these clauses. I have no reason to question the Minister’s word on this issue but clearly the annotations of the statutes in the lobbies are wrong. That raises a number of serious concerns not the least of which is that members in this Parliament are entitled to rely upon the accuracy of the annotations contained in the volumes in the lobbies of the Chamber. Members in the Committee who are debating various clauses in various bills could be—frankly—misleading the public over issues they are debating if those statutes are not correctly annotated. I note the Minister’s comments that she is prepared to follow this matter up with those people who are responsible for that annotation. Mr Chairman I ask for your view on that but I also ask the Minister—and this may be slightly out of order for which I apologise—to table a copy of that section so that the rest of the Committee has access to it; otherwise we are in a situation in which we are not dealing with accurate information.
Prebble Richard: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15622] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 Mr Franks had to go to a Maori Language Week function so he cannot speak. They were not prepared to alter Maori Language Week for Parliament. But perhaps I could have leave so I can complete his speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. The member is seeking leave for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Mr Speaker! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Point of order— 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No this is not a point of order. I am going for the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: OK. I call the Hon Richard Prebble.
Franks Stephen: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 12 
Franks Stephen: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 12 
[Volume:623;Page:18759] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have done that before I called the next item. I will have to take the leave of the House that we return to it. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Jones Dail: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12996] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw attention to the foot of page 2 of Supplementary Order Paper 213 and to the spelling of “adviser”. Is the Minister really seriously expecting us to spell it “adviser”? It should be spelt “advisor” surely. Perhaps the Chair should take a look at that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell Mr Jones that that is hardly a matter for a point of order. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is nonsense. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The matter can be debated. It is a matter for the Minister and he has just told me that he will fix it up. I just tell honourable members that when we are voting I would like them to look at Speaker’s ruling 61/2. There is to be no comment at all during the taking of a vote. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of the definition of  
family group 
.
Peck Mark: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7068] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Franks Stephen: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Franks Stephen: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20558] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The whip for the National Party Mr Power raises a point that might show the evolution of practice. We are inclined toward giving the public a much clearer idea of the reasoning for the way in which members of a committee have approached issues without recognising that the Standing Orders in this respect started pre-MMP when possibly the discipline between the two parties was a lot more robust. But the commentary we have here is probably a proper reflection of what happened in the Justice and Electoral Committee and I speak as a member of it. I was not sure whether the whip asking for the ruling was asking that the report be removed or the terminology be changed or was saying that the report itself is invalid. I would be reluctant to see any ruling that prevented this kind of report. 
In a sense the situation is self-evident. United Future members were wanting to have a bob each way. They were unhappy about the bill but were still voting for it and they wanted to record their unhappiness even though they were voting for it. My view is that it is appropriate for members of the House to see that and it is appropriate for the public researchers and others in the future to understand it. I think they will be baffled because the committee has adopted some constraints. There is a voluntary constraint in the sense that a minority view should be confined to a reasonable length which we have said is a page. 
But I hope that if the Speaker does agree to give a ruling on this the ruling tries to accommodate this situation. I think the remedy is here. I think it is absolutely farcical for a party to trash a bill completely then vote for it but I think that the House can read what United Future is doing and that members can make up their own minds without our bringing down a rule that says it cannot do it.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9738] 
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 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17488] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 47 
Adams 
Eckhoff 
Perry 
Tisch 
Alexander(P) 
English 
Peters J(P) 
Turia 
Baldock 
Franks(P) 
Peters W(P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang 
Brown 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson 
Carter D(P) 
Hutchison 
Roy 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J(P) 
Jones 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley 
Collins(P) 
McNair 
Smith L(P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman 
Smith M 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Smith N 
Noes 72 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey J(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons 
Mackey M(P) 
Swain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins 
O’Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Ririnui(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Pettis
Smith Nick: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4596] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. My colleague Ron Mark won the call but I make this request with the good nature of the Committee. An interaction occurred between Mr Mark and Mr Cosgrove about a vehicle being confiscated in the event of there being more than one offence under a 28-day notice. A substantive very reasoned point has been raised by Mr Mark; I think it is reasonable that Mr Swain the Minister in the chair Mr Cosgrove or one of the other Government members provide some explanation rather than us just simply rolling on. I ask a Government member to take a call and provide some explanation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. It is up to the Minister or the member to reply if they so wish.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12923] 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he agree that an inquiry should be held into the sale of Paraparaumu Airport in 1995 as recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in its report on the petition of Ross Sutherland and 584 others; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The report of the select committee raises serious issues and the Government will respond formally to it within 90 days as the Standing Orders require. However it is already clear that the privatisation style of the previous National Government was dodgy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What regard has the Minister had to these facts— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee you do— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I was responding. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —no you do actually take things a little far. You are lucky I am so reasonable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What action will the Minister be taking to hold to account those who lied to the select committee inquiry over this matter who told the select committee that an offer had been made to the original owners when clearly that was not true—and the select committee discovered that; there was even an embarrassed National Party member of the committee present at the time—and will he tell us what he intends to do about the assurances that Rob Storey gave to the officials in 1991 that treaty claims needed to be considered on this matter? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Those and many other matters form the issues that the Government will need to respond to. They are serious. I acknowledge while I am on my feet the consistency of the member and indeed of his party; I recall that it was the proposed privatisation of another airport that caused the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to be shredded and that phase of Government to end. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: In what ways according to the committee’s report did the Government processes around the sale fall short of acceptable standards? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are too many to mention in an oral question but the committee said the worst were a failure to deliver on the stated objectives of the sale and a decision to sell too cheaply. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister as he has put the issue of the September 1998 proposed sale of Wellington Airport into contention whether he has read the Cabinet paper that discloses that the National Party part of the coalition wished to go downtown at the time with a majority foreign sale offer whilst telling the public in New Zealand that it would not sell the majority ownership off shore; and that that because it was outlawed by the coalition agreement brought the coalition agreement down; and what sort of unconscionable behaviour could one call that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very interesting question about another matter. The Minister can report in so far as it relates to his ministerial— 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No but thanks for the revelation.
Robertson H V Ross: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15426] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and I will consider all things on an equal basis when I make such rulings. I thank him for drawing that to my attention. I call the honourable member Phil Heatley— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How does that work! We will have another think about that Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well is Mr Heatley seeking a point of order? 
Phil Heatley 
: No no I was taking a call as you well know.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17575] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Simich  
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton  
Gosche (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Coddington  
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui  
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland  
McNair  
Sowry(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
O'Connor  
Tamihere(P) 
Jones  
Part 2 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7878] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17123] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the proposed new clause 93 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed new section 107A(1) of the principal Act the words “ or is likely to have a significant” and substitute the words “have an”.
Pettis Jill: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5143] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
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:12290] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 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 2 agreed to.
Visitors — Australia—Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation  and References Committee 
Visitors — Australia—Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation  and References Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20145] 
Tuesday 3 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation  and References Committee 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation and References Committee are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — National Party Leadership 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — National Party Leadership 
[Volume:613;Page:9621] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As is so often the case that was not a point of order.
Tizard Judith: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11452] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to clauses 4 and 7 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to schedule 2 and the following amendments in his name be agreed to: 
to omit from the heading to Part 1 the words “31 December 2003 or earlier and substitute the word “a”; and 
to omit from the heading to Part 2 the word “March” and substitute the word “June”. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Robson Matt: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robson Matt: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9001] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I found it humorous to listen to speakers on the other side of the Chamber particularly after we had had a discussion on humour and irony. The humour I found was to discover that parties of the right were suddenly concerned about justice and fair dealing. In all of my life I do not think— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We have just had a ruling from the Speaker on how members can call people and describe them. I take offence to my party being called a party of the right. I ask that that member refer to this party perhaps as a party of the centre. I do not want to be associated with a party of the right. I object to that. In terms of the ruling that has been made that is totally out of order.
Hughes Darren: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22072] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I seek leave for Moana Mackey a list MP from the region to be given the opportunity to make a 5-minute contribution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member herself has to ask. Is the member seeking leaving? 
Moana Mackey 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is two members. I point out that we have not actually used the total time for this debate because members have not taken their full time.
Robertson H V Ross: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6167] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I indicate to members that we have had a very full rigorous and passionate debate and that is the way it should be in this place. But interjections have not always been in keeping with the standard of behaviour that has occurred so far in this debate. So I ask members to take that into account please.