edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21752] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This question was originally submitted to the Prime Minister and because the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a different gender I now need to change it to read “Does he accept” rather than “Does she accept”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure that is permissible.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10004] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not seeking leave to—
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5432] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 What is the situation now—because I chose not to raise the point of order during the member’s speech? Does that mean that raising a point of order now has no validity? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it was in close proximity to the words that the member is objecting to but offence has not been taken by the person it was directed at although those words are not really acceptable in the Chamber. But it is 2.48 a.m. so I just take note of it.
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8114] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 In view of the absence of the Minister of Maori Affairs to whom the question is addressed I seek the leave of the House to defer this question until the next sitting day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Robertson H V Ross: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18908] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the honourable member that it is my understanding that when this was dealt with on a previous occasion it was decided the issue would be dealt with in a select committee. That is where I believe the matter rests.
Peck Mark: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9548] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 Apart from the politics I quite enjoyed listening to that member’s speech. This is an issue on which many people in this House may have some strong views. Members will be aware of a case I raised when I was a very new MP relating to the treatment of a Mr Gellatly in Invercargill. I think that that particular matter got mental health to the top of the political agenda. Mental health is not a respecter of political parties; at the end of the day it is a public policy issue that we have to get our heads around—and this bill is a good attempt. 
I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition a former Minister of Health would take a call on this issue. It is one that was of concern to him as a Minister and I know that as Minister he took a very strong stand on protecting people in the health industry who were working in the mental health area. But he is not taking a call and others are flabbergasted to find out that at a time when his caucus is falling to pieces rather than take a call on this bill he is in Invercargill speaking to 40 people about a school review there. The Minister of Education had 700 at his meeting. The Leader of the Opposition dallies while Rome burns and does not come to the Chamber to speak about the bill. I think that says volumes about the commitment of the National Party to mental health issues. 
Darren Hughes 
: What about his deputy? 
MARK PECK 
: Indeed his deputy! His deputy had quite a lot to do with this area of policy as well. He has not said a word about it either. But for the Leader of the Opposition to ignore this bill is outrageous. There are better things he could have been doing with his time rather than spending it in Invercargill talking to 40 people. He could have been here talking to the bill. 
This is a good bill and I am delighted the House is passing it. It is a step in the right direction in providing good care for those with mental disabilities.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7551] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a second time.
Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19064] 
Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16468] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the Care of Children Bill to say that its replaces the Guardianship Act which is now 35 years old. Family patterns and practices in the Family Court have changed substantially in that time. This bill takes into account the need to open up the processes of the Family Court. 
I would like to say that I could never have supported Judith Collins’ first amendment that she proposed which involved mandatory reporting to and involvement of parents when young children come to a medical practitioner seeking advice on pregnancy and seeking support for a possible termination of pregnancy because it would not have worked. It would have been an appalling thing to do. It has been in legislation for 35 years and has been largely unchallenged for that time and I am very pleased that we will be voting as a majority not to support that amendment. 
I think that the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Care of Children Bill has been largely outstanding. It has certainly put the rights of the child at the forefront and that is where they ought to be.
Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation from European Parliament 
Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation from European Parliament 
[Volume:606;Page:3849] 
Thursday 27 February 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Visitors 
Parliamentary Delegation from European Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that a parliamentary delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand from the European Parliament led by Mr Robert Sturdy is present in the gallery. I am sure that we welcome them.
Swain Paul: Points of Order — Upper Hutt Premier Rugby Team—Swindale Shield 
Swain Paul: Points of Order — Upper Hutt Premier Rugby Team—Swindale Shield 
[Volume:627;Page:21945] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move without debate Government motion No. 3. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13291] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 8C be agreed to: 
to omit subsections (3) to (6) of section 50A and substitute the following new subsections: 
(3)Before making a recommendation under subsection (1) in relation to any proposed regulations the Minister must: 
(a)do everything reasonably practicable on his or her part to consult with the persons or representative organisations likely to be substantially affected by the making of the proposed regulations; and 
(b)ensure that the parties involved have been given sufficient time and information to make an informed contribution. 
(4)Nothing in subsection (3) requires consultation in relation to specific fees or charges or the specific levels of fees or charges so long as the fees or charges set are reasonably within the purview of any previous consultation. 
(5)Nothing in this section requires a strict apportionment of the costs to be recovered for a particular function or service and without limiting the way in which fees or charges may be set a fee or charge may be set at a level or in a way that is determined by calculations that involve an averaging of costs or potential costs.
Adams Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Adams Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9182. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
 PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
: When does he expect the committee to report back on its inquiry into New Zealand’s political economic trade and cultural relationship with Latin American countries? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee): 
 As chair the question of when the committee reports back is not one for me to determine but for the whole committee to resolve at a time when the inquiry has been completed. 
Paul Adams 
: What were the terms of reference for the inquiry and why were those particular terms of reference chosen? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The terms of reference are quite wide reaching and in effect allow us to inquire into all aspects of the political economic trade and cultural relationship with the countries of Latin America. They were chosen after consultation with members of the business community and after discussion with the Latin American ambassadors in New Zealand and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade but they were ultimately adopted by the committee. They have been interpreted in such a way to allow the widest possible inquiry into all aspects of this issue. 
Dail Jones 
: As a member who attends the trade section of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—and I am saying that because of any personal interest that might be raised as a result of this question in terms of the Standing Orders—I would like to ask if in view of the fact that this is an inquiry into Latin American trade and there seem to be difficulties in getting more information in New Zealand there is any possibility of the committee travelling to South America to be fully briefed on the issues involved? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister cannot answer that question. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As the member pointed out he is someone who attends the committee and this issue has been one that we have discussed and raised with the Clerk’s Office. I submit to you that it is perfectly proper for me as the chair to answer to the House as to what actions we have taken in that respect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the question. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: As I indicated previously the issue has been discussed within the select committee. There is a feeling that it would be beneficial for members of the committee to conduct the inquiry to some extent in person rather than at long distance. The difficulty we have is that at the moment the rules for travel preclude travel for select committees to destinations other than Australia.
Simich Clem: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8420] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Prebble. I require the Hon Mark Gosche to withdraw and apologise.
Carter John: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
Carter John: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:615;Page:11341] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker I know that the House at the end of the day can do just about anything it wants I guess by leave but you may need to take advice from the Clerk. But I wondered in the circumstances whether it is possible to seek leave to amend the records in order to show that the Greens did want their vote recorded. That might be an easier way than recommitting the bill. I do not know that anyone would be keen to go back into Committee. But the member could seek leave. It may mean we have to suspend the Standing Orders and I do not know that we would agree to that necessarily. But anyway it is just a thought.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16469] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to.
Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9859] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I note that there are some suggestions in this clause that clause 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004 and that clauses 8 15 and 35 come into force on 1 July 2006. It seems to me that if clause 8 were allowed to come into force on 1 July 2006 it would give effect to universal microchipping throughout New Zealand coming into effect on that date. I believe that that is contrary to the wishes of the Local Government and Environment Committee certainly in terms of the compliance costs and in terms of the priorities that this legislation is trying to achieve and they are to diminish the number of preventable dog attacks. In my view that provision is inappropriate. 
However the select committee did consider the other two options. Clause 15 deals with microchipping dangerous and menacing dogs and the select committee was in agreement with that. Clause 35 refers to dogs that have been impounded—that they also be microchipped—and there was no great objection to that. But the question of universal microchipping needs further debate in this Chamber. Given that the select committee heard all the submissions and agreed that it was inappropriate to have universal microchipping as suggested by clause 8 which would bring it into being in New Zealand on 1 July 2006 it is highly relevant to this commencement date to talk about universal microchipping and the fact that it certainly is not a priority in terms of reducing unnecessary dog attacks. 
There are many things that should be done prior to the enormous expense incurred by having clause 8 coming into force. It is for that reason that I think it is important the Committee takes note of the amendment that I have put forward regarding clause 1A and that is to omit from subclause (1A) the expression “8”. Undoubtedly the select committee noted that the most important measures in terms of preventing unnecessary dog attacks centred on owner responsibility much better nationwide enforcement and a clampdown on irresponsible owners. It is the irresponsible owners whose dogs often do not have either collars or discs and they are also very unlikely to have microchips. Besides we know that all dogs will be required to have collars and discs even if they do have microchips. Not only is this an extra cost and compliance but it will be over and above the requirement for all dogs to wear collars and discs which is the status right now. 
But we have learnt that it is the irresponsible dog owners the ones who have unregistered dogs and whose dogs do not have collars and discs who are very unlikely to conform with the requirements for microchipping. I believe that the Minister is quite out of place when he provides in clause 1A for clause 8 to come into effect on 1 July 2006.
Collins Judith: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Collins Judith: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10295] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The Families Commission that is to be set up under this bill will not save one child. It will not save one family. Not one family will be left intact because of this commission. Twenty-eight million dollars of taxpayers’ money—not Government money but taxpayers’ money—will be wasted to pay off a debt that Labour owes to United Future. The sum of $28 million is the price of New Zealand families. Not one family will be saved by this bill or by anything in it. When I look at the bill I can see how we can save taxpayers $28 million. I suggest that children need love discipline and boundaries. They need to know who they are. They need to know their whakapapa. What they do not need to know is who their mum’s latest boyfriend is. They need education. They need to be healthy and absolutely to have hope. 
United Future members have told us today that they have a vision. Well I think their vision was a faulty one. They need to have their eyes looked at because I am sure their vision did not tell them that they would be pushing for—not just supporting but pushing for—a bill that talks about everything except mum dad and the kids; or even mum and the kids with dad being an active father. Nowhere in this bill does anyone talk about the family unit as it actually is. Everywhere it talks about families being whatever people think they are. It is a bit like the word “Maori” which has become debased over the years because now—under a Labour Government and previous Labour Governments—Maori is no longer about blood. It is all about how one feels about it. 
When I look at this bill as a mother— 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: We give in! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
:—I am absolutely disgusted with this Government and with United Future. The Minister says he gives in and so he should because what does he know about being on the 4 o’clock morning shift? People who have not been there should not talk about it and people like young Darren Hughes—a very nice young boy who is trying to interject—should not talk about things they know nothing about. My mother was brought up in a solo parent family with seven little children during the Depression. If you ever said to my mother who is now dead—
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:607;Page:5033] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following the House rising today it will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 29 April it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) The Consumer Protection (Definition of Goods and Services) Bill and on Thursday 1 May the third reading of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill. Wednesday 30 April will be a members’ day.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18845] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Barker Rick: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20622] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek to clarify to the House that I have mistakenly said to the House that we would require the bill to be reported back by October 2005. That is incorrect; I picked up the wrong draft of the speech. There will be no qualification on the report-back time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you for the clarification.
Vote: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9574] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 160 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 1 be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9211. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might think that but that is not what the Standing Order said. There is a different approach when people are referring to members than when referring to people outside the House. Members should be temperate but on the other hand members can say things about people outside the House. They must reflect on whether they are really wise to make those comments but that is their judgment. As far as inside the House is concerned it is a very easy matter to rule on.
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to have a debate on the matter set down in the question I submitted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to have that debate. Is there any objection? There is.
Catchpole Brent: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15985] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) validates a number of pieces of subordinate legislation that are either falling short in their time or need clarification. But one issue that I would like to take up is the late inclusion of another item that is going to expire by the end of this Parliament unless members validate it. I find that action is typical of this Government. At the last minute it suddenly throws in an item that it has suddenly remembered is falling out of date and that happens with a lot of legislation. Members see Supplementary Order Papers coming in on last-minute issues and they find that disturbing in a very big way because they do not have time to consider those items carefully when the Government does that. Therefore we ask this Government to stop adding additional items that members have not been able to go through. New Zealand First is prepared to support this bill going to a select committee but when the Government starts throwing in items that members have not had time to consider then we will really reconsider that support in the future. 
It really concerns us that we are unable to consider items in caucus and go through our process when items are just thrown in at the last minute. So I ask the Minister whether in future he would not mind just taking a little bit more time to advise members in advance so that they can look at items a little more closely. I see the Minister acknowledging that and I appreciate it. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee and we look forward to participating in the extended select committee process to further examine its parts. But as far as adding bits to it goes I ask the Government to please make sure that it advises members in advance.
Sowry Roger: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
Sowry Roger: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
[Volume:615;Page:10998] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is an interesting issue and I hope the member does write to you about it. The chief Government whip Mr Benson-Pope is required by the Standing Orders to accept Mr Hide’s word in this House but he clearly did not. He clearly went out of the House and anyone who read either the  
Dominion Post  
or the  
New Zealand Herald— 
not just the Christchurch  
Press— 
saw Mr Benson-Pope adamantly claiming that offensive language had been used by Mr Hide. That now appears to have been nothing more than a political stunt but it does bring Parliament into disrepute particularly I have to say when someone—who as a whip is the Prime Minister’s right-hand man—is prepared to use Parliament in that way.
Barnett Tim: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17438] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will respond to Nick Smith with the facts of the situation as opposed to his fantasies. First of all in terms of the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act the Justice and Electoral Committee was quite prepared to make that change. We were advised that the agency was looking at its nomenclature and at whether it would list out all of its various registration processes at which stage things might change. Otherwise we would have been happy to do that now. 
The member is quite mistaken in terms of the Family Proceedings Act. In the bill before the Committee in the amendments to the Family Proceedings Act the words “husband” “wife” and “spouse”—the marriage language—are paralleled by the words “civil union partner”. That change was made by the select committee which was quite clear that marriage had a certain vocabulary attached to it and that civil unions should not mix and mess with that vocabulary. 
In terms of whether civil union is gay marriage it seems very odd to me that the great majority of people who will benefit from this institution are heterosexuals. I do not know how they can possibly be labelled as gay because civil unions are there for heterosexual de facto couples and for same-sex couples. Civil union is not a gay institution and it is not marriage; it is civil union. The only people who can move from civil union to marriage are a man and a woman who were originally in a civil union. 
So what we have is a new inclusive institution open to same-sex and to different-sex couples. We then have a number of various and different legal processes around that. For example a new category of celebrant is established—a civil union celebrant—so that marriage celebrants are not conducting both types of ceremony. More generally I think that Mr Smith has failed to point out that the strength of what the submitters to the select committee said about marriage is that marriage is not made by the law alone. The Marriage Act is very simple legislation. Marriage is made by its history its tradition and its culture and nothing in the Civil Union Bill affects those. We have a new institution created in the 21st century that will develop its own tradition and its own culture. 
 We do not know how many heterosexual couples will take it up. We do not know how many same-sex couples will take it up. That will determine the nature of the institution. A comparable law is the civil solidarity pact in France open in the same way to different-sex and same-sex couples. Fifty percent of the couples who use it are lesbian and gay and 50 percent are heterosexual. So civil union is a new institution a new name and separate to marriage. That is what it is all about.
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:613;Page:9938] 
3 
.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to  
GEORGINA BEYER (Member in charge of the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill) 
: Has she received any positive feedback from her Wairarapa constituents regarding the scheduled advancement of the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill through its second reading today? 
GEORGINA BEYER (Member in charge of the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill) 
: 
 No and neither have I received any negative feedback. 
Marc Alexander 
: In light of the fact that the passage of this bill will release $5 million from the Montfort Trimble trust to the Masterton district for further reinvestment in forestry what sort of reaction does she expect to face from her constituents if she allows this bill to be delayed a second time for the sake of progressing the anti-choice smoke-free legislation? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: I have no intention of delaying the bill any further. Whatever the House may decide is up to the House.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19712] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House for the 2½ hours that was lost last evening as a consequence of a Minister not being present in the House—when Standing Order 38 requires a Minister to be in the House during all sitting hours of the House—to be made up on Thursday 5 May. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Leave is denied.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Jim Peron—Leave for Members to Apologise 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Jim Peron—Leave for Members to Apologise 
[Volume:625;Page:20370] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the interests of fairness I seek leave because of the attack made by Rodney Hide and Matt Robson on my integrity for those members to have time to apologise to me on the issue of Jim Peron. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member cannot seek leave for other people. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: But I should should I not? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The Standing Orders do not permit that.
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:17760. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 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 6 as amended agreed to.
Carter David: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Carter David: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19352] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I say at the outset that this legislation will spell the death of United Future because what we are witnessing today is the dodgiest legislative process that I have ever seen in my time in this House. There is an urgent mess to tidy up with the Building Act and the Government is trying to avoid scrutiny and media damage by not passing the bill under urgency thereby dodging the select committee process. Instead the Government comes into the House and says that it will refer the bill to a select committee for 8 working-days. 
The Government knows full well that by introducing the bill at 5 o’clock on Thursday 17 March as the House is about to rise for an adjournment week this legislation will not go to the Government Administration Committee until at least Tuesday 29 March which means that this Government supported by United Future is giving the Government Administration Committee 2 days— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: How many days? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is giving it 2 working-days to consider this legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] Murray Smith says that that is not the case. 
Murray Smith 
: It won’t even pass its first reading by 29 March. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I say to Murray Smith that that is exactly my point. The legislation will not be debated and finalised until 29 March yet the Minister has instructed the select committee to report it back by 31 March. It is an absolute outrage. 
The second point that I make for Mr Murray Smith concerns the name of the legislation. The Government could not be dodgier if it tried. The explanatory note states that the bill amends the Building Act. To anybody who has been here for any length of time that means that this legislation should be called the “Building Act Amendment Bill”. But Murray Smith of United Future and the whole of the Labour Government are so embarrassed that they have dreamt up the name Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill and have put the bill not in the name of the Minister for Building Issues—now the Hon Chris Carter—but in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson. Members cannot tell me that Pete Hodgson is now the ninth Minister for Building Issues that we have seen during this Government’s administration. Jim Anderton Lianne Dalziel George Hawkins Steve Maharey and John Tamihere have all been associated with the mess that the Labour Government has made of the building industry in 5½ long years. 
The sad thing is that the leaky homes mess was on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 day after day. 
Debate interrupted.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:20799] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I note that George Hawkins the Minister of Internal Affairs is not in the House so I seek leave for the question to be set aside until the next sitting day on which he is present. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Simich Clem: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21574] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendments are to clause 14 in the name of Rod Donald and are to omit the expression “25” and substitute the expression “10” in subclause (1)(a)(i) and (ii). These amendments are inconsistent with decisions already taken and are therefore out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) of subclause (1)(a) the expression “100” and substitute the expression “10”.
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16930] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Seeing as this is quite an extraordinary situation we have here with effectively a new bill just tabled and available for Opposition members perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could have unlimited time—with the first Opposition spokesperson having equivalent unlimited time—so that he can go through and explain the changes and the detail given that the select committee could not give a full report back to the House and that we will move into the Committee stage on this very important bill without having done it justice at the second reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought that the first two speeches have unlimited time. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Sowry Roger: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9023] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Point of order—
Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
[Volume:625;Page:19752] 
Points of Order 
Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your assistance in relation to Standing Order 366(4). Ninety overdue answers to written questions are due in from the Associate Minister of Social Development and Employment the Hon Rick Barker. Fifty-odd of those questions relate to fraud within the department and benefit fraud and we have had no reply to 90 of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please write to me about that matter so I can deal with it.
King Annette: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
King Annette: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18861] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill provides for the regulation of the dairy industry under the Animal Products Act of 1999 and repeals the Dairy Industry Act of 1952. The safety and trade of dairy products are matters that currently come under the Dairy Industry Act but that Act does not provide an adequate legislative framework for ensuring product safety outcomes or an adequate legislative framework to facilitate trade in a risk-based management environment. The prescriptive and inflexible style of the Dairy Industry Act is inconsistent with the enabling style of legislation that is being used in modern risk-based legislation such as the Animal Products Act. 
There are two overarching public policy objectives for the bill: to manage the risk to human and animal health from the consumption and use of dairy products and to facilitate the entry of dairy products to overseas markets. The food safety administration in New Zealand is moving towards an environment based on the principles of food safety risk management in line with international trends. The bill will allow the dairy industry to operate in a risk-management environment and will provide greater consistency for the rest of the food industry. The bill also aims to facilitate the entry of dairy products to overseas markets by providing the controls and mechanisms needed for market access and the giving of official assurances. 
The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 29 June 2004. Submissions closed on 23 August 2004 and the bill was reported back to the House in September. This bill is supported by all parties in this Parliament. It is necessary to have this bill passed so that we can ensure that the new contracts and initiatives are in place by the beginning of the season. It is highly desirable to have this legal framework in place to make it easier for the dairy industry to accommodate new technologies and processing techniques. 
I commend this bill to the House and I thank the members of the select committee who looked at it in detail and reported it back with no change.
Mackey Moana: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21638] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Yates Dianne: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20092] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank Pansy Wong for her contribution on the Government Administration Committee. I just want to make three points. The first is that it is not valid to make comparisons with Australia because in Australia it is harder to become a resident but easier to become a citizen. In New Zealand it is the other way around: it is easier to become a resident but harder to become a citizen. That evens itself out. [ 
Interruption 
] If Dr Mapp wishes to take a call I suggest that he do so and not yell across the House. 
The second point relates to the comment that was made about babies. No baby abandoned in New Zealand would be stateless and we conform with international law and convention on that. 
The third point is that this bill makes it much easier for New Zealanders who wish to travel. Our passports which will be renewed within 5 years will have greater validity. We will uphold the reputation that New Zealand has throughout the world for our travel documents and the high reputation of our New Zealand population when we travel.
Barnett Tim: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14569] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12874] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
United Future 8. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:609;Page:6839] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Carter John: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3668] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just so the House understands it is because the bill is being reported back early that we are objecting and intend to vote against this motion.
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17144] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Deputy Prime Minister’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 to schedule 2 indicates his intention to vote against the schedule standing part. 
Schedule 2 not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of MetiriaTurei to schedule 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the item relating to section 24 of the Conservation Act 1987.
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14561] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 My understanding is that clause 65 was from the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) which included the highly migratory species the mussel spat and at that time scampi—hence clause 65 in a bill with only seven or eight clauses. When scampi was part of that greater bill clause 65 contained the commencement date for when the part that dealt with scampi would come into force which was “on the day on which the Act receives the Royal assent”. We split the bill and this present bill deals specifically and only with scampi. Hence there is a new commencement clause—clause 1A which states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” 
In other words the first clause clause 1A is correct for the purposes of this bill. Clause 65 is the old commencement clause in the part of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) that dealt with scampi. That is my understanding of the Minister’s explanation. Could the Minister confirm that is the case. If it is I assume that the National Party will vote against clause 65 just as the Government has proposed. Could the Minister confirm that is the case.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6907] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to.  
Ayes 67 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) of section 2(1) from the definition of  
goods 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Reviews—Targeted Policies and Programmes: Education Sector 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Reviews—Targeted Policies and Programmes: Education Sector 
[Volume:627;Page:21970] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider what “exceptional circumstances” might mean. The review of targeted policies and programmes was released by the Government at 4 o’clock in the afternoon on the last sitting day of the House before a 4-week adjournment. There was absolutely no chance that there would be questions on subsequent days through the questioning process. This is the first time the House has had any opportunity to discuss that review. I ask you what “exceptional” means. If it is a protection the Government can use under cover of a forthcoming recess to dump something it does not want discussed then I think that takes away some of the rights of the House. 
Accordingly I seek leave for the House to have an urgent debate on the review of targeted policies and programmes which was released by the Government late last month. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to have an urgent debate. Is there any objection? Yes there is.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20525] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I reprimanded the member for that at the time.