edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Connell Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Connell Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19321] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question is set down to the Minister of Forestry. I note that he along with most members of the Government is not here today so I seek leave of the House to have the question carried over.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16891] 
11.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: What moves has the Government made to increase the number of students with special education needs receiving additional teacher and learning support? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Education (Adult and Community Education))  
on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Education 
: 
 Today I announced that the number of special education students receiving additional specialist teacher support and time will increase from 550 students to 1000 a year from next February. The Government is committing $18.3 million over the next 4 years to address the needs of students who are not adequately supported through existing initiatives such as the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme known as “ORRS”. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: How does this announcement of extra provision supplement the existing education support? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Around 7500 students with very high needs receive support through that scheme—about 800 more than in 1999. This Government also established the School High Health Needs Fund which supports another 250 children. In total the special education budget has risen from $279 million to $436 million a rise of 56 percent since 1999. This Government takes people’s special needs seriously.
Hide Rodney: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15500] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is that the position Mr Brown is in? He can now move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Putting a date in the referral motion is quite acceptable but he will need to seek leave to change the committee which I believe he will do in his second address.
Benson-Pope David: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9376] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Connell Brian: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Connell Brian: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4567] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The National Party supports this title. We see very little that we can disagree with. In fact we would like to talk more about what we do agree with. I say to members that the word “Unauthorised” was carefully chosen and carefully considered because this bill is about protecting law-abiding road users. People who are engaged in authorised activities have nothing to worry about. In particular I am thinking about car enthusiasts and people engaged in authorised rallies. It is those people who engage in unauthorised activities who should be concerned. I say to members of the Committee and to members of the public listening that if they are not engaged in illegal activities then they have nothing to worry about. If they are not breaking the law while in charge of a motor vehicle they have nothing to be concerned about. 
This legislation is not—and the title reflects this—about catching drink-drivers. We have law for that. It is not about catching unlicensed drivers. We have law for that. It is about stopping people who are hell-bent on breaking the law in a reckless manner and putting lives at risk in a manner that will destroy the quality of life of people who generally should be able to have a quality of life that is undisturbed. For example people who move on to lifestyle blocks should not be subjected to these types of louts racing up and down the streets or the roads and causing considerable distress. We support the title. “Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing” is exactly what we are targeting. With that I commend it very firmly to the Committee.
Vote: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14278] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; United Future 8. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 54 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (2) the following new paragraph: 
(c)the pawnbroker may sell the goods in any other way that it can reasonably be shown to get a realistic price for the goods.
Urgent Debates Declined — Floods Lower North Island—Government Response Minister of Immigration — Resignation 
Urgent Debates Declined — Floods Lower North Island—Government Response Minister of Immigration — Resignation 
[Volume:615;Page:11224] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Floods Lower North Island—Government Response 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters under Standing Order 373 from Gerry Brownlee relating to the resignation of the Minister of Immigration; from the Hon Bill English Rod Donald and the Hon Brian Donnelly relating to the announcement of a 5-year moratorium and on the school review programme; and from the Hon Peter Dunne relating to the Government response to floods in the lower North Island. I take Mr Dunne’s application first. Without in any way wishing to minimise the importance of the flooding I think that if I were to have accepted an application on that subject it would have been last week when the crisis was at its height. The Government response to flood relief will unfold over the next few months and can be explored by the House in other ways. I do not accept an application for an urgent debate today. 
Minister of Immigration — Resignation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The other two subjects both relate to particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Not all ministerial resignations lead to an urgent debate but I accept that in the circumstances of this one there are grounds for a debate today. The announcement from the Minister of Education on the school review programme is also of sufficient importance to justify a debate today. Thus I have two subjects that would justify a debate today. In those circumstances I have to choose under Standing Order 375 which subject should be given priority as the most urgent and important. It seems to me that a change in educational policy of this nature is in substance the more important of the two issues. With regard to the resignation two inquiries are in train. These may give rise to further information that the House can address in the future. I therefore give priority to the applications relating to the school review programme from the Hon Bill English Rod Donald and the Hon Brian Donnelly. As the first such application was from the Hon Bill English I call upon him to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In accepting your ruling I ask whether you have considered the fact that the two inquiries you speak of into matters relating to the resignation of the Minister will not in fact inquire into activities in the Minister’s office will not inquire into the behaviour of the Minister and will not inquire into the behaviour of the Prime Minister in that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point. I can accept one application. I have accepted Mr English’s.
Ardern Shane: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:13741] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to Dr Cullen talking just a moment ago about the economic policies of the National Party. I am sure one could ask what that has to do with the Border Security Bill but this is what it has to do with it. A series of events took place that brought the Government to a position where it decided it needed to introduce this bill. The first one was the major assault on the US. It is amazing how Dr Cullen distances himself from the US at the moment but the major assault on the US on 11 September 2001 resulted in this Government—and many Governments around the Western World—deciding that there needed to be another look at border security. There is nothing wrong with that; it sounds like a sensible thing to do.
Copeland Gordon: Tabling of Documents — Petition of Larry Baldock MP and Gordon Copeland MP 
Copeland Gordon: Tabling of Documents — Petition of Larry Baldock MP and Gordon Copeland MP 
[Volume:625;Page:20221] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the 203000 signatures collected seeking a referendum on the question: “Should the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 be repealed?”. 
Document not tabled.
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10000] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can the Chairman reassess his decision? My colleague here an ex – school principal has been seeking a call for a long time to talk about the effect of enforcement officers in schools.
Beyer Georgina: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11987] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I have heard the debate this evening and I am very pleased to stand here and support this bill. But in doing so I must say I have respect for those members who speak contrary to this bill; they give balance to the argument. This bill is about choice. 
Debate interrupted.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:614;Page:10336] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 A similar bill the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill has made no progress in this House since February 2001. It stands in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs and it is a little inexplicable that a bill should sit unattended for so long on the Order Paper. It would seem that this is an ideal opportunity for the House to take the Committee stage of that bill and I seek leave for that to happen now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.
Robertson H V Ross: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17949] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say that a member must just cast the vote. So if the member did say that I would ask him to desist in future and to make sure votes are cast correctly.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3555] 
2.  
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What progress has the Government made in establishing further centres of research excellence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce today that contracts establishing a further two centres of research excellence have been signed bringing the overall total to seven. The National Centre for Advanced Bio-Protection Technologies based at Lincoln University will receive $9.6 million and a one-off capital grant of $5.7 million. The National Research Centre for Growth and Development based at the University of Auckland will receive $13.1 million and a one-off grant of $5.2 million. Overall the Government has allocated $123 million in a mix of operating and capital funding for the seven centres. By contrast the National Party has no policy whatsoever on centres of research excellence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last sentence was out of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table National’s research science and technology policy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dianne Yates 
: How are the new centres of research excellence contributing to the knowledge wave in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Both centres will be research leaders in their field and will thereby make that contribution. The National Centre for Advanced Bio-Protection Technologies is developing a New Zealand Biotron research facility. That will allow research in bio-protection to be carried out in a fully contained secure environment above and below ground level. The facility will be only the third of its kind in the world. The centre will also be investing in a gene discovery unit which may enable us to discover new antibiotics. The National Research Centre for Growth and Development is investing in a new screening system that allows the fast analysis of cells at a speed and accuracy that will place the centre at the forefront of that area in the world. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If the Government is so committed to research excellence why has the proportion of the gross domestic product spent on research and science dropped over the last 3 years and why in last year’s Budget did the nominal figure—the raw figure without taking even inflation into account—for Vote Research Science and Technology get cut? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not have the figures with me but I am happy to send them to the member. However I can say to him that $123 million was not being spent last year on centres of research excellence. It is now being spent on those centres and I am still waiting for that member’s policy.
Heatley Phil: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15716] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to continue this debate particularly along the lines on the issue of consultation. Members may be interested to know that although we have been debating one particular levy this Electricity Commission being set up under this bill has the potential to put in place seven different levies that will ultimately hit consumers and whether those consumers are the levy payers or the taxpayers the reality is that they are the mums dads and businesses in this country.
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6508] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There is a certain truth about the schedules. Here we have amendments to the third schedule of the Customs and Excise Act related to the so-called Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. The theme of this debate this afternoon has been whether this bill in any way reflects the ability to achieve what its title is all about—injury prevention rehabilitation and fair and adequate compensation. The schedules which are clearly and squarely related to the excise theme that runs throughout this bill—the tax—clearly show that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the parent bill’s basic aims or purposes. That is a hugely worrisome revelation. 
As I said earlier on in relation to the components of the 39c plus GST per litre that is taken from petrol it is very interesting that individuals such as Paul Adams of United Future have also picked up the key point that there would have been no need to alter those schedules in the first place if the modelling the Government had chosen was a competitive model because undoubtedly the costs—if any—would have gone down. Instead we have seen them consistently go up and we have once again seen the Labour Government use euphemisms when it is really taxing the people of New Zealand. 
More importantly the Government had the opportunity to use the 18.5c component that went to the Crown account to bring some degree of equity into the reasoning behind this bill. That option was very much backed by submissions from the Automobile Association Business New Zealand and I am sure from Federated Farmers. All of them are aghast that this Labour Government has increased the amount allotted to accident compensation by over 100 percent when the opportunity was there to take this motor vehicle excise duty across from the Crown account. 
Again that is an opportunity lost but it is even more of an opportunity lost that this bill has not used realistic relative rating in terms of assessing the amount. For instance the Government has totally ignored third-party risk. Mr Rennie a leading barrister involved with accident compensation reform pointed out that if for instance a bus driver drove over a bank and injured 40 passengers the funds would come from the employer’s levy but the funds for the 40 people injured would come from this part of the levy which is totally inappropriate. The signals this bill has perpetrated are totally inappropriate in terms of realistic risk rating and as Business New Zealand said they absolutely do not reflect commercial actuarial reality. That theme runs right throughout the bill that this Labour Government has perpetrated—a lack of reality and a grab for tax.
Cosgrove Clayton: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17787. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to begin by picking up from where the previous speaker left off and to thank the ministry officials and our clerks. I thank them for the work they did under great pressure of time. I also thank them for enduring—and I am sure they know what I mean when I say this—the Primary Production Committee especially the lengthy dissertations from Mr Woolerton. At various times of the evening he regaled us with various theses he had on various issues particularly to do with salsa and seafood. 
The third reading debate has been very interesting. I have listened to the Opposition speakers and they have spent their time criticising Government members for not taking calls. Well on this side we actually wanted to listen to and analyse what was being said over there and to progress the Government’s business. What did we get? The Opposition rolled out the big guns. We heard from Phil Heatley. The Opposition dredged up Sandra Goudie from the bottom of the sea—the orange roughy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No— 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. And what did the Opposition have to say on this legislation? I commend Mr David Carter for his leadership of the select committee but I have to say that some of his comments were right around the edges. He knows as well as I do—and all the select committee members do—that the 20 percent to Maori which was one of the two major issues is unfinished business. It is unfinished business from and progresses the spirit of the 1992 deed. He knows that. He knows what his former Minister of fisheries and Maori affairs was on about; the Waitangi Tribunal referred to that. He also knows that the other major issue was security of tenure and that that has been dealt with. Now as the Green member has said we have security of tenure for 20 years with options and rights of renewal for our marine farmers. 
I thank my colleagues who I know are enjoying my speech. I thank the members of the select committee because this bill demonstrates again as I think Mr Woolerton said that the Primary Production Committee acts in a collegial way. We actually get on with the business. I commend the bills to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18914] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I heard what the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui said regarding the translation and I want to echo the views of Richard Prebble and Gerry Brownlee who said that when we have a document that we want to endorse—and in fact in National’s case we will be supporting this legislation—it is important that we can understand it. I do not understand Maori I do not speak the language so I think it is incumbent upon the Maori Affairs Committee when reporting back to provide a translation in this bill that accurately reflects the Maori text for the benefit of those of us who want to support the legislation. That should be done for any legislation containing Maori text. 
I say to the Minister that when I look at the bill I do not know whether the English version is the same as the Maori version. Maybe he can take another call and tell me. I heard what he said but as somebody who does not understand the language I say that we certainly would expect that what has been written in English does translate what is written in Maori. That is our concern. I think the select committee should have done a translation. It would have been a courtesy to do a translation so we would be able to understand exactly what is meant. All the Minister needs to do is to say yes or no as to whether the English translation reflects what is in Maori. A yes or no would help me quite considerably. I note that there are six and a half pages in Maori and there are five and a bit pages in English. I do not know whether the translation is accurate so I would be interested specifically in what the Minister can help me with.
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14319] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The point is to get exactly right what you did because what you did was exactly what you are supposed to do as the Chair. That is you called certain votes one after the other. You explained at the start you would call votes down to the point where a party seeks to speak on that particular vote and then up to that point any previous votes are actually put. You had not actually reached the point where any votes had been put but you proceeded to the second or third on the list and Mr Tanczos quite properly asked for the vote on Communications Security and Intelligence to be put separately which in my view he is entitled to do. It may have been a fraction late but he sought support for that to happen. It was granted. The vote was put. You declared the voice vote. He has now called for a party vote and that is the point we are at. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I tell Mr Tisch that that is absolutely correct. I said in the beginning that I would call the votes slowly. If any member wants them put in any other way than the way in which I am calling them it is up to the member to say so which is exactly what Mr Tanczos did. I will now put the party vote on Vote Communications Security and Intelligence.
Power Simon: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19936] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 During the Committee stage I listened to Rick Barker’s explanation of the definition “architect”. Although it was imaginative I find myself in agreement with the Tisch amendments and with the comments and contribution made by Stephen Franks in particular. It is easy in this environment to be certain about what the term means. It is easy to dismiss the concerns of Mr Franks and Mr Tisch with a wave of the hand and a “Don’t be silly; that will never happen.” attitude. Well I recall similar assurances being made about the foreshore and seabed legislation. We heard: “Don’t worry that will never happen.” We were told that the issue would never be back in the courts. We were told that the Maori Land Court would never make a determination that would make life difficult for members of Parliament—because the bill passed with such complete certainty! There was no equivocation or ambiguity. [ 
Interruption 
] New Zealand First! That is right the legal mind of Dail Jones has already been questioned by Judge Williams. 
I find myself wanting to conclude National’s remarks in the third reading debate on the Registered Architects Bill by saying that yes we support this bill but not without reservations in particular those contained in the Tisch amendments. We are concerned about the fact that this Government’s view of how others will interpret legislation does not affect the way the courts may do or will interpret legislation and it is the height of arrogance to assume that the legislation is so unambiguous so certain and so clear that it will not be questioned. So although Rick Barker stands and makes dismissive gestures about examples of the word “architect” being used to describe those in other professions or trades who may have incorporated that word into their titles the proof will be in the pudding. Mr Tisch made a contribution to try to clarify some of those issues. That contribution was dismissed outright by this Government and time will tell whether the Tisch amendments were right or wrong.
Worth Richard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7765] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chair. My speech is being misrepresented. I would be grateful if the member who was present when I made the speech accurately represented its content. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a debateable point. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: No it is not. With respect it is a question of fact.
Wilson Margaret: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Wilson Margaret: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12896] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 3) the Coroners Amendment Bill (No 2) the Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill (No 2) the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 3) the Employment Relations Amendment Bill the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 2) the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3) the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 206.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question Time—Authenticity Question Time—Information in Minister’s Possession 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question Time—Authenticity Question Time—Information in Minister’s Possession 
[Volume:623;Page:18468] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that if the member looks carefully at the ruling he will see that the question has to be authenticated. That of course does not make it accurate. Often the authentication may be a newspaper story and I am sure from his vast experience in Government in the past the member will understand that on occasion what is said in newspapers about a Government is not necessarily correct but it is sufficient to authenticate the question. It does not prove it is true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising what is a good point of order and a serious one. I just say to him that the Speaker also relaxes the rules on authentication for supplementary questions if he looks at Speaker’s ruling 142/8. The Speaker’s ruling the member referred to is a consequence of the way the Standing Orders are drafted as he admits. This is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee to consider if the member wishes to raise it there. I would encourage him to do so as I think he has raised an interesting point.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15883] 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her reported statement in respect of her speeding motorcade that she “was not aware of what speed they were doing” and does that mean she was not aware that her motorcade was breaking the speed limit? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As I have advised the member before Ministers are not commenting on matters currently before a police investigation. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Prime Minister refusing to be interviewed by the police when she forged a painting can she confirm to this House that she is prepared to be interviewed by the police on this matter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have advised the member Ministers will not be commenting on any matters currently before a police investigation. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is one of the interesting things that we have in the House where the Prime Minister is quite happy to tell the press that she was not aware of the speed at which the motorcade was travelling. She is quite happy to do that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: The point of order is that the Prime Minister was quite happy to tell the press outside this House but is not happy to confirm the statement in the House. The implication is that the statement outside the House was not correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Benson-Pope David: Business of the House 
Benson-Pope David: Business of the House 
[Volume:609;Page:6945] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: Earlier in the day leave was sought and granted by the House for Graham Kelly’s valedictory address to occur on Tuesday 22 July at 5.30. I seek leave to change that date to Wednesday 23 July at the same time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. It will be so set down.
Collins Judith: General Debate 
Collins Judith: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16557] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As someone who is utterly passionate about health I am a bit concerned. We should get the medics in to see to that poor member.
Mapp Wayne: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8818] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am taking the first opportunity to do this. I appreciate that a comment I made earlier probably went too far and I do seek to withdraw and apologise to the member in the chair—the member promoting the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you.
Barnett Tim: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill — Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8805] 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4248] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Obituaries — Hon Michael Aynsley Connelly 
Hunt Jonathan: Obituaries — Hon Michael Aynsley Connelly 
[Volume:611;Page:8183] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 27 August 2003 of the Hon Michael Aynsley Connelly CMG QSO who represented the electorate of Riccarton from 1956 to 1969 that of Wigram from 1969 to 1978 and that of Yaldhurst from 1978 to 1984. Mick Connelly was Minister of Police and Minister of Customs from 1972 to 1975 and also Minister of Works and Development and Minister of Statistics from 1974 to 1975. He was a past president of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of New Zealand. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with his wife Margaret and all of the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Jones Dail: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12748] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation. I appreciate the comments by the chairman of the Law and Order Committee about the excellent work my colleague Ron Mark did on the select committee. Really the select committee as a whole should be complimented for returning a bill back to the House so quickly. I see that this bill was introduced to Parliament on 30 March 2004. The closing date for submissions was 14 April 2004 and here we are again on 6 May considering the second reading. Parliament can really get a move on when it wants to. It shows that we are very concerned about this issue. 
I suppose an important reason for this legislation is that we do not want any of the people involved with this inquiry to put up excuses at a later stage that the inquiry did not have adequate resources and information and that somehow they were barred from getting things that might have helped them reach a conclusion. From experience one knows there is only one thing worse than an inquiry and that is an inquiry into the inquiry. We have any number of situations—one possibly before the Justice and Electoral Committee at the moment—whereby inquiries seem to have a life of their own because people come up with all sorts of reasons why the previous inquiry was not conducted properly and fairly. 
New Zealand First somewhat reluctantly supports this legislation to make sure that there can be no excuses about the information available to the inquiry. Protections have been put in place which is excellent. Perhaps at some stage a Labour member could tell us whether there is meant to be another Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage as has been mentioned to New Zealand First. Obviously we will have the opportunity to look at that later on. 
This was just a brief speech to support the bill and we look forward to it proceeding as promptly as possible.
Hodgson Pete: Transport Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Transport Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14910] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move 
 That the Transport Legislation Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 for consideration that the committee report the bill by 29 October 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 191 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8999] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not think that you put that amendment correctly and I do not think that it has been appropriately identified. When you identified the amendment you did not refer in fact to what the planned change was. The planned change as I have it is the “Supreme Court and Repeal of Appeals to the Privy Council Act 2003”. You did not put that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We have three amendments. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Supreme Court Act 2002” and substitute the words “Supreme Court and Repeal of Appeals to the Privy Council Act 2003”.
Robson Matt: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robson Matt: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9241. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barnett Tim: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Barnett Tim: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8304] 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will speak briefly as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee to which this bill is to be referred for public consultation and detailed consideration. The timing of the bill could barely be better. The select committee has been considering the Supreme Court Bill as Mr Worth has just mentioned for the past 5 months. That debate has raised a whole series of matters that are touched on in this legislation or are within the ambit of the debate that undoubtedly we are going to have around those issues. I am sure I can speak for the whole select committee when I say that we are keen and ready to address these matters. We are also currently out for consultation on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Additionally as that bill is to revise the whole complaints system relating to the legal profession it is highly relevant that in this legislation we are looking at a new complaints system relating to judges. 
Matters that affect the judiciary are inevitably of constitutional importance as noted by the Minister. Such matters do deserve rigorous consideration and I can undertake on behalf of the select committee that we will do our job and do it very well.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16481] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17871. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 39(1) the words “(other than an intelligence and security department)”.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8395] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that it may be in the Standing Orders but in the past it crept there because people had to be away through necessity whereas today it has become with our Prime Minister a matter of habit. In some weeks she turns up 1 day out of 3 then shoots through to open swimming pools. It may be creeping towards becoming a convention but I would like the matter referred to the Standing Orders Committee to ensure that it does not gain any more credence or currency in this Parliament. Frankly against international examples in terms of performing as the Prime Minister in front of the House she is a disgrace.
Robertson H V Ross: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5014] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is good to see the member doing his homework. I refer him to Standing Order 301 which states: “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill.” I now wish to continue the voting. As members are aware there is an amendment in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to add a new subclause (2). That amendment is now out of order because the Minister’s amendment has been agreed. Her amendment is therefore inconsistent with the previous decision. The next amendment is in the name of the honourable Bill Gudgeon. That too is out of order as it is also inconsistent with the decision that has already been taken with the passing of the Minister’s amendment. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is a very strange ruling. The fact is that the Committee has certainly made an amendment. It now accepts the Minister’s amendment but that does not mean to say that the Committee if it were of a mind could not make further amendments to the bill. It is not inconsistent. I know that there are times when an amendment is inconsistent as a consequence of a decision made but this is not inconsistent. It means that if Georgina te Heuheu’s or Bill Gudgeon’s amendment were accepted that would then become the name of the bill. It does not mean that there is an inconsistency; it just means that the Committee has since moved on and changed its mind. It is not a matter of whether there is a conflict; it is a matter of the Minister’s amendment being one form of wording and the Committee deciding whether there is to be another form. In that case I think we should be putting Georgina te Heuheu’s amendment. If that is passed then we might want to consider Bill Gudgeon’s amendment and the Committee will decide on both accordingly. 
Jim Peters 
: A consideration of the Minister’s amendment alongside that of my colleague Bill Gudgeon’s in regard to the language used will show a similarity of purpose and language intent. Therefore there is no inconsistency. In view of that not being inconsistent with the Minister’s intention there seems to us to be no reason that Bill Gudgeon’s amendment cannot proceed and that there is nothing inconsistent with the language that is used with regard to the total meaning of the Minister’s language. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I again say that the Committee has decided on the title and it cannot go back over that. It means therefore that the other amendments are inconsistent. It is a longstanding tradition that where that happens that is what takes place. I am the sole judge of relevancy.
Mark Ron: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9393] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I draw your attention to the commencement of proceedings today. We have an unusual situation whereby the Speaker is in error but of course according to the Standing Orders the Speaker is not to be challenged. When we commenced proceedings this morning the Speaker rose and declared that we were commencing the interrupted date on the third reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill and he stated: “When the House rose Mr Ron Mark was speaking and had 5 minutes 30 seconds remaining.” That is precisely the procedure that should have been adopted a few moments ago. The explanation made by the junior Government whip—that people were not paying attention—is irrelevant because the Speaker did not repeat those very same words with regard to the second reading of this bill so there has been an error in procedure. 
The problem we are left with as you quite rightly acknowledge is that members are aggrieved that their speaking rights have been curbed. We have a breach of the Standing Orders failure to comply with procedure and failure to follow the legislative procedure. That is in error. Unless the Government whip can come to some understanding with Mr Ryall that redresses his grievance then I am sorry but Mr Brent Catchpole has already indicated that he will move that we recall the Speaker. That is the only way in which we can get out of Committee and back into the second reading of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have not heard from the senior Opposition whip the honourable member John Carter and I intend to listen to him.
Worth Richard: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20632] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You are interrupting me again when I am in the midst of a vote but I will take your point of order. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I am very much obliged. Is a report-back date proposed by the Minister for the referral of this bill to the Government Administration Committee—which comes to National as a bit of a surprise? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. The report-back date is something that should be indicated by the Minister moving the first reading motion. We have covered that ground and we know when the bill will be reported back which is 6 months hence—that is the outside date.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Breach of Privilege—Television One 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Breach of Privilege—Television One 
[Volume:625;Page:20656] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but he is relitigating the matter upon which I have already ruled. If he has written to me again of course I will follow the correct procedure.