edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hunt Jonathan: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8214] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well let me just say that when the Business Committee considered this matter a member of New Zealand First was there—a senior member—and no objection was taken. In the end it was a unanimous decision. I make that point very clearly. Secondly of course we can always reconsider the decision. I am of course willing if the member submits something to me in writing to be reasonable and consider what he says. But at the present time I have instructed all the people who are in my position when I am not here in the Chair to adopt this list and that is the way it will be at the moment. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have spoken to Mr Brown about this issue and I will check again with him for his recollection of things. That is not the way he described them to me but I will find out and report back to you on that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I invite him to put his comments in writing to me. I will look at that. But at the present time I am adopting this order and I hereby rule that that will be the case.
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16345] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me just clarify one or two things. I say to the honourable member through you Madam Chairperson that I do not think that anybody in New Zealand First believed that access would be denied to finding out who voted which way. 
Simon Power 
: Read the Standing Orders. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says I should read the Standing Orders. If upon request I went through the Committee and asked who was voting this way and who was voting that way I believe we are entitled to know. I have had telephone calls from the public urging me to pursue this matter. I have looked up Standing Order 6 “Amendment or revocation of Standing Orders” which states: “A Standing Order may be amended or revoked only by motion with notice.” I have a notice of motion here if necessary. On behalf of New Zealand First I am not prepared to let any other bill receive a split vote unless we get an assurance that we will get the names of the people. I suggest that this issue should be addressed.
Hide Rodney: General Debates 
Hide Rodney: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11922] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. For over 2 years the Prime Minister the Minister of Corrections and local MP Nanaia Mahuta have known of the problems occurring in the Waikato and the concerns raised by local Maori as they spent $1.3 million. I want to illustrate how serious those concerns are by reading out a letter I received today: “Kia ora My name is Irene Kereama-Royal and I currently reside in Hamilton. I am a qualified lawyer and was admitted to the High Court in Auckland as a Barrister and Solicitor in 1995. I am completing my Masters in Environmental Law at the University of Auckland and have previously worked for the Ministry for the Environment as a national senior policy analyst providing advice to the then Minister for the Environment on national policy for environmental issues which affect Maori …
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Minister of Defence 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Minister of Defence 
[Volume:617;Page:12621] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that the Hon Kappa Yarka Minister of Defence Papua New Guinea is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
The Hon Kappa Yarka accompanied by the Hon Mark Burton entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17008] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; 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 amendment to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit the omission of the definition of  
ancestral connection order 
.
Mackey Moana: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19755] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. I wonder whether we have just heard another policy announcement from Sandra Goudie future front-bencher for the National Party that it will now remove the exemptions for domestic violence for mothers on the domestic purposes benefit who do not want to name the father of their child. I do not think there is a member in this House outside the National Party who would think that there are women who will deliberately continue to have children then claim violence and have the father want to claim violence so that his name is not on the birth certificate. 
The other thing that was raised in the Committee stage was the issue of whether if a mother had said that the father had died the Ministry of Social Development could check that that was the case. We were told in no uncertain terms that it was not an issue. 
One of the most important things this Government has done under the Hon Steve Maharey in this portfolio is to move to individual case management for the domestic purposes benefit. That has been a crucial change because a blanket rule cannot address every single situation. One of the things the Ministry of Social Development has done is to let mothers know that they are being penalised for not naming the father of their child. That is very important because a lot of mothers did not realise that in the first place. I support the bill and I commend it to the House.
Beyer Georgina: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4388] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will have to do something about the shrill cries from the junior Labour whip Jill Pettis. I notice the varnish cracking at the rear of the Chamber and I have fears for the substrata of the building. You cannot sit there simply waving at her while she continues to defy you. It is most unbecoming of a whip. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think there have certainly been some interjections on all sides.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5580] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 60 
Noes 54 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9.
Brown Peter: General Debates 
Brown Peter: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8760] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I take it that it is in order for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to come back? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. The member can come to the Chair to discuss that at his convenience.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18641] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 325 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 325 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 326 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to.
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6184] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It seems that what you have just said there is almost exactly what we just talked about in relation to Mr Copeland’s amendment. You have just said that if Mr Goff’s amendment does not pass then it reverts back. This is exactly what we were just talking about. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No this is quite a different thing altogether.  
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to the amendment to clause 6D set out on Supplementary Order paper 91 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to insert in new clause 6D set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 91 after the words “section 6C” the words “or section 6CB”; and 
to insert in new clause 6D set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 91 after subclause (1) the following subclause: 
(1A) Sections 6C and 6CB do not limit any other powers that a territorial authority has under any other enactment.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:619;Page:14939] 
9.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports has he received on the number of New Zealanders needing the support of an unemployment benefit? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This month the number of people receiving an unemployment benefit is over 31000 fewer than last year. That is a 31 percent drop which is equivalent to the population of Gisborne moving off the unemployment benefit in the last 12 months. With 211000 jobs created since 1999 and an unemployment rate of 4 percent which is the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD we are enjoying the best unemployment rate in 20 years. That is backed by an overall reduction of almost 100000 since 1999 in the number of working - age New Zealanders who need any type of benefit. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister seen that compare New Zealand’s unemployment and working - age welfare numbers to those of Australia? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have received reports that state that the latest unemployment results record New Zealand’s unemployment rate at 4 percent which is the second-lowest in the OECD compared to Australia’s 5 percent or 11th in the OECD. The  
Dominion Post 
 reported that 8.8 percent of all Australians receive a benefit compared to only 5.8 percent of New Zealanders on an equivalent benefit. Once again New Zealand’s situation has been misrepresented by Dr Brash who has scant regard for facts so desperate is he to go to Australia to bag his own country. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister concerned by the fact that although the number of people on the unemployment benefit has halved since 1999 the number of those on the dole for more than 3 years has actually gone from 10789 to 15672 an increase of 45 percent? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes the member will notice from the last household labour force survey that there is now a continued trend downwards in longer-term unemployed. We are certainly turning our attention to that environment to making sure those people get a job.
Alexander Marc: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Alexander Marc: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12750] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 In the very short time that I have I would like to say that United Future will support this legislation although with some questions about the legitimate concerns that the police have about it. Stephen Franks has pointed out some of those concerns. The lack of anonymity for those who relied on the secrecy guaranteed under the principal Act could compromise future information-gathering exercises. Lifting secrecy provisions could compromise the workings of the Police Complaints Authority. 
We were told in no uncertain terms that this bill is a one-off it will not happen again it is a unique set of circumstances and so on. The problem is that with this bill we have opened the door and the next time something like this happens another bill will be before Parliament to open the door all over again. This bill may just compromise future scrutiny of the police and we do have some problems with that. It is a matter of a balance between public confidence in the police and police procedures and public confidence in the Police Complaints Authority with its ability to receive information in secret. 
On this one to be honest one is damned if one does and damned if one does not. Although we will support the second reading of the bill we will consider introducing a Supplementary Order Paper of our own to try to strengthen some of the secrecy provisions if that is possible. United Future does not regard that it is necessarily the case that the removal of identifying information for example would make it difficult for the commission to fulfil its obligations. There are some circumstances where that might not be the case. But I do not see that we have been given sufficient reasons to put that aside altogether. 
There is no denying that the bill was rushed through the Law and Order Committee. There was a time frame within which we had to hear the submissions listen to the advisers deliberate and give consideration. Regrettably it was much too short for us to assess everything as thoroughly as we would have liked. If members read the commentary they will see that there really is very little in it that reflects a lot of the concerns we raised but we simply ran out of time. I do not think this is a very good way to conduct legislation at all. It is something the Minister needs to look at in the future—that we do not simply try to get legislation through promptly without going through it as thoroughly as we should. However the issue of public confidence in the ability of the police to be scrutinised outweighs some of my concerns so at least United Future will support the bill’s second reading—but that support is provisional at this stage.
Burton Mark: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Burton Mark: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:4993] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that the member’s suggestion has been made in good faith but of course somebody could equally take exception to that translation. We have in front of us a preamble that has an English and a Maori version. Those are the two official languages of our country. I think we should now proceed on the basis of what is provided in the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is quite clear from the explanation given in the commentary on the bill that this is a translation. It is not the role of the interpreter to do as suggested. This is a matter for debate. I have ruled on the matter.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10725] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am just about at the point where we have to finish this and I want to proceed. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Let me just ask you this—and it may relate to the previous debate or otherwise. If you look at Government notice of motion No. 1 on the Order Paper you will see that there are to be 10-minute speeches. That is an open debate—unlimited. If you look further you will see that after that is the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill with twelve 10-minute speeches the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) with twelve 10-minute speeches and the Government Notice of Motion No 2 with 10-minute speeches—unlimited. Why do we have both yourself at question time and now the Deputy Prime Minister saying that members can have this debate tonight? By my reading of this any fair treatment on this matter today in respect of those five matters on the Order Paper that members are about to deal with will not see them finished by 10 o’clock. I want an assurance that members’ rights will not be proscribed in the interests of some party wishing to duck its responsibility not face the public and cover itself up in a circumstance of announcing policy without any parliamentary scrutiny or debate whatsoever. That means I want to know that members will get a fair go and I want to know whether if these debates as they sequentially happen are carried out members will still be here tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17754. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17949] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to clear it up for the Committee. I have the authority to cast two Progressive votes in favour of the motion. We were slightly distracted at the time by the late arrival of another member and that may have been why the members thought I was hesitating on the Progressive vote. There are two Progressive votes in favour.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — National Party Leadership 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — National Party Leadership 
[Volume:613;Page:9621] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave that at the end of this day’s question time there be a debate for 1½ hours on the issue of the National Party’s change of leadership. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has properly sought leave. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8299] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16358] 
A party vote8 was called for on the question That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Carter John: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Carter John: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9119] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I must say this is a strange occurrence. Normally when there are changes made they are made with the consent of the House with agreement. For instance the National Party agreed to have a split speech and we notified you and you were good enough to advise the House of that change. In this particular case given that there is a change taking place— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no change at this stage. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes there is because under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings speeches alternate. The normal case would be that an Opposition speaker would be the next speaker. It is unusual— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a good argument but I just refer the member to the fact that I have the list here. After Labour National and the Greens it was then New Zealand First ACT and United Future because I have decided to call all the parties. One of those slots could technically have gone to the Government but I decided to allow the parties to have their say because I think that in an MMP environment there is a slightly different way of ordering things. That is what I have ruled and in fact it has the support of the Business Committee. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not changing the rule I have made. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I suspect I have already taken note that you are not likely to change your mind but can I just say that I was unaware that that change had taken place— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it has not taken place yet. It will take place after this debate. I will announce it to the House. 
JOHN CARTER 
: More important it would be helpful if when decisions of this kind are taken we could please be notified prior to their taking place rather than after the event. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made a very good point and I accept it.
Carter Chris: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter Chris: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11315] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation)  
on behalf of the Convenor Ministerial group on Climate Change 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part 
.
Mallard Trevor: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12143] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Very briefly I thank the last member who spoke for his explanation. I reiterate that when I became Minister I found there were a number of occasions when funding for early childhood services went from the Ministry of Education to a Crown entity—theEarly Childhood Development Unit—and then to another—the Special Education Service—andthen to community providers. The transaction costs and legal costs of all of that were enormous. This legislation involves something that is much more straightforward— 
Stephen Franks 
: Quantify it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I cannot give the member exact numbers. However from memory something between 30 and 40 percent was going out in transaction and contractual costs. That was a total waste of money and just not acceptable.
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
[Volume:626;Page:21040] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is now debating the ruling that I have given. As I have indicated I have given a ruling that is consistent with previous Speakers’ rulings. The fact that members may not agree with that ruling does not change the fact that the Speaker—me—has given a ruling consistent as I believe with the other rulings. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry but I will take no more. I am sorry but we are starting to debate this matter. I have made options available to Mr Franks if he wishes to pursue the matter. It will not be done in this Chamber at this time.
Cullen Michael: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4769] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:612;Page:9337] 
Business of the House 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Despite the fact that the House is in urgency I seek leave for it to have question time on Wednesday and Thursday in the normal manner. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11325] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Gudgeon Bill: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Gudgeon Bill: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:4988] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 The tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Maori language. The Crown accepted those findings. The Crown accepted that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi imposed a continuous obligation to take such steps as were reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Maori. Will this bill protect te reo Maori? Will it help prospective students—those who can afford to sit down and literally take a class in the Maori language from the television screen—to be astute and fluent speakers of the language and thus retain and protect it? That is the question out there. If this amount of money is to be spent on Maori television for the purpose of protecting and retaining te reo how will te reo come across on the television screen for those who can afford to watch it and are able to learn from it? That is the question I leave with the Minister. 
If television programmes are promoted to teach the language how are 5-year-olds—up to people of whatever age who do not speak the language—supposed to learn? If a survey were to be taken of how teaching through the medium of the television screen promoted the language how many of those who watched it would come out speaking the language fluently? That is the question. If this language is to be retained the wheel has already been invented. It is in our homes maraes kohanga reo polytechnics universities and wananga. Can New Zealand First be guaranteed that for every person who watches programmes on Maori Television—if or when it gets off the ground—there will be a result? I urge members to think about that matter and I ask the Minister to take a call on it. I might think of joining Labour if its members came out speaking te reo but I doubt it very much. 
Brent Catchpole 
: There is no chance of that. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: There is no chance of that. I know it will fail if we—this Committee or this Government—say that Maori television programmes will teach our children mokopuna youth and those of adult age so that they come out speaking fluently in Maori. That is the challenge. 
Let us look at the bill again. Its preamble is very shallow; it refers to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and that is all. But how what where and when? Will we come out with fluent speakers of Maori—yes or no? Will we come out with people who understand the tikanga of iwi throughout the country? Will the mita o te reo be recognised by Ngati Porou Ngapuhi Te Arawa Mataatua Tuhoe? Questions will be asked by our kaumatua. They will say: “E hoa e hara te ra i te reo o Te Arawa”—That is not the language of Te Arawa. We want our speakers to be there to teach them. How can te reo be taught if we sit in front of a screen and switch te reo off when we have had enough of it—especially if we do not understand it? The message is the same: if we do not do the job right when we are teaching in schools how can students learn?
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8657] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hope that that consideration will include advising the Parliament just what action you will take in respect of your office. According to the statements you have just made the Parliament is now expected to believe that in the context of the high level of publicity around Mr Ardern’s actions the police rang your office to advise somebody—I presume it was you—that they were going to come to Parliament to interview Mr Ardern and that no one from your office told you of that until Thursday last week when you were just about to rule. Of course prior to that I assume there would have been discussions and investigations into what did happen but that information was kept from you up until just prior to the time when you ruled in this Parliament—late on Thursday afternoon. That is extraordinary. That does undermine the confidence of this Parliament in your office. If this is a matter that everyone who operates in this place knows to be a matter of privilege—that is the access of the police to parliamentarians—then you certainly owe the Parliament an explanation. If this Parliament cannot rely on your staff then everyone in the country will need to be given your personal mobile phone number because that information should have been transmitted to you. That raises fundamental questions about the confidence we can have in the operation of the Speakership.
Visitors — Mr Tsutomu Kawara 
Visitors — Mr Tsutomu Kawara 
[Volume:607;Page:4799] 
Visitors 
Mr Tsutomu Kawara 
Mr SPEAKER:  
I advise members that Mr Tsutomu Kawara the Chairman of the Committee on Fundamental National Policies from the House of Representatives in Japan is in the public gallery. I am sure members would like to welcome him.
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17575] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments in the name of Richard Worth set out Supplementary Order Paper 314 to omit schedules 1 2 2A and 2B are out of order as each is a direct negation of a question. They signal the member’s intention to vote against those schedules.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20951] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in its appropriate alphabetical order the following definition: 
restricted period 
 means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2009 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees 
[Volume:608;Page:5163] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Justice and Electoral Committee must finally report the Clean Slate Bill to be extended to 25 July 2003 and for the time by which the Education and Science Committee must finally report the financial review of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to be extended to 21 May 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:616;Page:12365] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would invite the member to read the report that Mr McGee has presented to me which goes into that in some considerable detail.
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10409] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As much as I like a smoke-free environment—and I say that sincerely—I do not like seeing ladies dressed in T-shirts. I think it is unbecoming to Parliament and I seek your ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you Mr Brown.
Tisch Lindsay: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12398] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to make it very clear that we are voting separately on the ACT amendment and the Minister’s motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister’s motion as amended will be put next.
Vote: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9545] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 20 and the schedule as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Clauses 1 to 20 and schedule as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Name changed to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17735] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5434] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Shirley Ken: Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14481] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a growing concern with this referral motion—of the Government consistently bypassing Standing Order 194. The Standing Orders are very clear to protect members’ interests. We are getting this experience in many committees. The only opportunity members have is to raise the issue and put forward an amendment during the debate. It is too late at this stage. But sitting past 6 p.m. and sitting on Fridays is actually a breach of the Standing Orders and it is sneaked through by Ministers doing it in the referral motion at this stage. It is a gross intrusion into members’ rights and a breach of the Standing Orders and I believe it needs to be looked at.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20953] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 8 be agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4083] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to thank the previous speaker for resuming his seat. I say to him and to Mr Tisch who spoke earlier that the very reason that the Government is finally progressing this bill is because of the requests from the industry. Prior to the last election I can recall the unanimous wish of racing industry parties in the Waikato to get on with it and I find it extraordinary that the National Opposition would delay this bill in any way at all.
Visitors — Sweden—Committee on the Labour Market 
Visitors — Sweden—Committee on the Labour Market 
[Volume:619;Page:15309] 
Thursday 2 September 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Sweden—Committee on the Labour Market 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that members of the Committee on the Labour Market from the Swedish Parliament led by the Chairperson Anders Karlsson are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish they be welcomed.
Swain Paul: Tabling of Documents — Spring Hill Corrections Facility 
Swain Paul: Tabling of Documents — Spring Hill Corrections Facility 
[Volume:617;Page:12621] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an amended breakdown of iwi expenditure relating to Spring Hill Corrections Facility which was originally tabled on 23 March 2004. This amended breakdown is part of a report I released last month. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed?
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5572] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think the point is being perhaps inadvertently obfuscated. Mr Sowry made it very clear that the issue is that the presiding officer makes the declaration and at that point either the Opposition or the Government makes a decision whether it wants to call a party vote based on the declaration. I put to you that you cannot make one declaration as a presiding officer then if the Opposition does not exercise its prerogative to call for a party vote relitigate it later and say that in fact you heard someone say “No” and therefore there is a majority and that precludes the Opposition from exercising that option. Clearly that is not right according to the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that it is for the Chair to interpret the results on the voices. I may have made a mistake. If I have I accept that but I have determined that the Noes have it and any member who voted “Aye” can call for a party vote. I now call for a party vote.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22182] 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Immigration; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is the case what was wrong with the last Minister of Immigration because she was a hard-working conscientious Minister as well? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is right. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh she was! I will ask the Prime Minister two questions then. If that is the case one why did she fire Lianne Dalziel—a hard-working conscientious Minister—if she was not proved to be incompetent; and two why is the Prime Minister keeping this man who has just written to me saying: “Don’t write to me; write to the department.” his having of course got up in this House countless times to say: “Please give me the information.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that as recently as only 25 July the member had a letter from the Associate Minister of Immigration informing him that we appreciated his sending in his 22 cases and additional information on one individual and that of those cases the department was already aware of nine and we were following up the other cases that the member had been kind enough to bring to our attention. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If this Minister is a hard-working diligent conscientious capable Minister what has happened to the family of 16 all of whose families were deconstructed in the Middle East then reconstructed falsely here; and why does it take months to find out what would take any investigator about 3 hours to find out? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously I cannot comment on the details of cases like that. I simply do not have the details in front of me. I have no idea whether they are true. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm the importance of checking details accurately when information comes across given that the last time that member raised a particular person’s name in this Parliament he went out for a terrorist and came back with a mechanic? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously it is important to get the facts right because people’s status in New Zealand hangs on it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In respect of the Minister of Immigration why should the people of New Zealand have any confidence in this Government which always lets in the bad ones but makes the good ones wait in the line for years on end? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My recollection from answering questions along these lines for some time is that a number of the people we have had to act against were people admitted during that member’s time in Government.
Swain Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7008] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. When the bill was first introduced it was said that the Government’s intention was to ratify the Stockholm Convention as soon as practicable. The benefits of ratifying the Stockholm Convention and implementing it through this bill include protection of the health of New Zealanders now and in the future by reducing exposure to persistent organic pollutants; safeguarding the quality of their food especially meat and dairy products; strengthening and protecting New Zealand’s clean green image; addressing persistent organic pollutant stockpiles waste and contaminated sites; and demonstrating our commitment to maintaining and enhancing the global environment. 
It is worth noting that there are obligations under the Stockholm Convention that will be addressed by non-legislative means. These obligations are to minimise and where feasible eliminate emissions of dioxin; to ensure that stockpiles of persistent organic pollutant chemicals are identified managed and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner; to identify and remediate if possible sites contaminated with persistent organic pollutants; and to prepare and report progress on New Zealand’s national implementation plan for meeting convention obligations. 
I thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its constructive amendments to the bill notably with regard to the disposal of persistent organic pollutants and the regulation of polychlorinated biphenyls. The Environmental Risk Management Authority can give directions as to the environmentally sound disposal of a persistent organic pollutant substance and holders of current polychlorinated biphenyl use and storage exemptions are able to extend these exemptions until the year 2016. 
Of the 151 countries that are signatories to this convention 33 have become ratified parties. By passing this bill into law we will be within the first group of 50 ratifying countries and hence responsible for bringing the convention into force. I commend the bill to the House.
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:620;Page:15883] 
11.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to encourage primary school children to be more active? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Education regulations will be changed to make physical activity a priority for schools. As a result of this change each child will be required to participate in at least 1 hour of meaningful and high-quality physical activity a week facilitated by a physical activity education specialist or a teacher with extra training. That will be in addition to the regular health and physical education curriculum requirements. 
Helen Duncan 
: What research has the Minister seen on the importance of physical activity? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is one area where it is not appropriate to promote abstinence. Research also indicates that physical activity enhances brain function the learning process and kids’ academic performance across all curriculum areas.
Vote: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19586] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to.  
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 16 
ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22171] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Well you should be. You are there to do your job properly. The fact is that if a member is seeking leave he is entitled to be on his feet and not be interrupted by somebody who is grossly out of order. Next time Madam Chair—and I know that this Parliament has only a few days to go but in the hope of improving Parliament before we rise—perhaps you could stick to what the Standing Orders and prior Speakers’ rulings state and not be so abrupt when some other party is at fault. That member should have been stopped in his tracks from the very moment he got to his feet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but I was making my ruling. I did not need any further contribution to the debate. Can we please return to questions.
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10186] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Cunliffe David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17482] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.