edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Street Maryan: Standards and Conformance Bill — First Reading 
Street Maryan: Standards and Conformance Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1023] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this bill not requiring my full 10 minutes because it is very straightforward. It is in fact much more straightforward than the previous speaker would understand. I wish to underscore a couple of points about the bill perhaps for the benefit of the previous speaker. 
It is very clear that the infrastructure of this country requires updating in order to comply with international standards norms and practices. The updating that this bill contains—that is amendments to the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972—is not of the dramatic order that the previous speaker suggested. If there are concerns then surely they will be addressed at the select committee. But I would like to pick up on one of the previous speaker’s points and that is the point about compliance costs. 
There is a statement in the explanatory note of the bill that talks about business compliance costs but the purpose—and I am sure it will become blindingly obvious during the course of select committee submissions—is that because we are going to be correcting an anomaly in the current provisions we will be moving to reduce compliance costs. We cannot have two bodies responsible for accreditation. We need to have one. Hence the move towards the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. 
Australia moved to use that system some time ago and we are doing the same as Australia. I think that the bogey of business compliance costs the member raised is mythical and it will be up to submitters I suppose to demonstrate during the select committee process the extent of those costs. It has been said that it is not possible to quantify them so I will be interested to hear just how detrimental these administrative changes will be. 
Fundamentally it is essential that our standards and the infrastructure that underpins health standards specifications for products testing of products and safety and environment standards are protected by this updating of current legislation. I look forward to addressing that matter at the select committee deliberation.
Brash Don: Election Petition — Tauranga 
Brash Don: Election Petition — Tauranga 
[Volume:628;Page:1020] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to congratulate Mr Clarkson on having his election to this House confirmed. We were always confident that he did in fact comply with the rules that apply to the election of members of Parliament. I think his confirmation is something that we in this House can certainly applaud and we wish him all the very best. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Event: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — First Reading 
Event: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1020] 
Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee
Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — First Reading 
Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1020] 
Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee
Election Petition — Tauranga 
Election Petition — Tauranga 
[Volume:628;Page:1020] 
Election Petition 
Tauranga 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I seek leave to present the report of the High Court on the Tauranga electoral petition. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. I hereby present the determination of the High Court in the matter of an electoral petition relating to the Tauranga electoral district. Paragraph 150 of the determination reads as follows: “We certify under s 243 of the Electoral Act 1993 that at the trial of this petition the Court determined that the election of the respondent Robert Moncrieff Clarkson as the member of Parliament for the Tauranga electorate was not void.” Copies of the determination are available from the Bills Office and will be published on the High Court website. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to congratulate Mr Clarkson on having his election to this House confirmed. We were always confident that he did in fact comply with the rules that apply to the election of members of Parliament. I think his confirmation is something that we in this House can certainly applaud and we wish him all the very best. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Wilson Margaret: Election Petition — Tauranga 
Wilson Margaret: Election Petition — Tauranga 
[Volume:628;Page:1020] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I seek leave to present the report of the High Court on the Tauranga electoral petition. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. I hereby present the determination of the High Court in the matter of an electoral petition relating to the Tauranga electoral district. Paragraph 150 of the determination reads as follows: “We certify under s 243 of the Electoral Act 1993 that at the trial of this petition the Court determined that the election of the respondent Robert Moncrieff Clarkson as the member of Parliament for the Tauranga electorate was not void.” Copies of the determination are available from the Bills Office and will be published on the High Court website.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
[Volume:628;Page:1019] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been raised by the Hon Murray McCully relating to questions not being distributed. I wish to rule on that matter. Questions for a future sitting are not distributed nor is an Order Paper circulated until the previous sitting ends. If this sitting ends before 1 p.m. any questions lodged this morning will be distributed; otherwise they will not. That is the normal procedure. It is not the subject of any deal or political interference at this time.
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
[Volume:628;Page:1019] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
Madam SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been raised by the Hon Murray McCully relating to questions not being distributed. I wish to rule on that matter. Questions for a future sitting are not distributed nor is an Order Paper circulated until the previous sitting ends. If this sitting ends before 1 p.m. any questions lodged this morning will be distributed; otherwise they will not. That is the normal procedure. It is not the subject of any deal or political interference at this time.
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
[Volume:628;Page:1013] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I do not want to put you in a difficult position either but I ask that you protect the rights of the Opposition parties in this matter and after making due inquiry give us an assurance that the machinery of the Clerk’s Office and the House will operate free from any sort of political interference by the Leader of the House—ably assisted no doubt by Mr Copeland and his cronies. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any rebuttal of that remark. I thank Mr McCully; we shall proceed as though that point was never raised.
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
[Volume:628;Page:1013] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I just wanted to comment on the remarks made about so-called shonky deals done with the support partners of Labour and also on the reference to the machinery of the House. The House does have a machinery for dealing with this question. It is called the Business Committee. This matter was raised at the Business Committee—not this week’s Business Committee but last week’s Business Committee. 
Opposition parties have had about 8 days’ notice to raise the matter of whether question time should occur and when it should occur. They have made no representations in that regard at all so I think it is actually quite perverse of them to get up and raise a point of order on the matter today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Copeland for making that comment. I note the point raised by Mr McCully. I have no knowledge of the issues you raise at all; nor should I have any knowledge because I proceed exactly as I should. As far as I am concerned I have an urgency motion that does not allow for or show any question time at all. Until that is changed through other mechanisms I shall proceed along those lines. 
I am informed that questions are not distributed beforehand. They have been on one occasion by mistake and I guess that is what is happening. But to get more information I suggest that perhaps the question should be raised with Madam Speaker.
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
[Volume:628;Page:1012] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise an important matter with you relating to the fact that the Clerk’s Office has not published questions for today in the normal fashion. Members will be aware that there was some contention as to whether the House would be in a position to begin a new sitting day at 2 o’clock which would therefore necessitate question time. The practice in the past has always been for questions to be received in the normal manner so that Ministers can prepare their answers and members their supplementary questions and therefore be prepared for question time whether or not the House completes urgency. 
 Today the questions have not been published. I am told that they have not been forwarded to Ministers’ offices and the Clerk’s Office advises that it has been instructed—presumably by your office Mr Speaker—not to distribute the questions. It seems to me that that raises a rather interesting question of whether the Clerk’s Office has had some sort of private communication from the Leader of the House about the Government’s intentions with regard to the urgency motion. 
I put it to you Mr Deputy Speaker that the Office of the Speaker and the Clerk’s Office should stand above and beyond the political manipulations of the Leader of the House and well away from any shabby deals that the Government has done with the minor parties that prop it up in the Chamber. It seems to me that it would have been proper for the Clerk’s Office to distribute questions in the normal way and to act in every way in the normal fashion and to not take any political advice from the Leader of the House or anyone else. 
It is pretty obvious to members now that the Leader of the House has had to abandon his wish to have question time today and that he will have to abandon the notice of motion I know he wanted the House to address. That is quite a substantial victory for Opposition parties. But I ask for your assurance that in future we will not have political judgments being passed through to the Clerk’s Office or the Speaker’s Office and that the machinery of this House particularly as it relates to questions and the urgency motion will operate above and beyond those sorts of political considerations.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1057] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank both members for their comments. That is why I think it is a serious matter and why there has to be clarification of what the jurisdiction of the two roles is. That is why I am happy to take it under further consideration.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1056] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I think the contribution we have just heard takes this consideration one step further. Madam Speaker the point I raise is that in the ruling you are about to bring down it seems to me that you need to address your two distinct roles: your role as the Speaker of this House charged with maintaining the order of this House and the conduct of its proceedings and your associated role as the chair of the Parliamentary Service Commission. It strikes me that many of the issues raised relate to that role rather than to the role of Speaker. 
The question that I think will need to be addressed because it will come back and back and back is where the link is between those two positions—in other words what the accountability is to Parliament for the work you do as chair of the Parliamentary Service Commission. I am not aware for instance that the members’ handbook is a parliamentary document in the same way that the Standing Orders are so strictures laid down there may not have the same status as the Standing Orders. It would be useful for your ruling to clarify that matter because it may save some future excursions of this type.
Power Simon: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Power Simon: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1056] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I may be able to assist Mr Hide. I wrote to you Madam Speaker on 8 September 2005 outlining the National Party’s concerns about Labour’s advertising breaching the  
Members’ Handbook of Services 
 rules. On 20 September 2005 you advised that the matter had been referred to the Controller and Auditor-General who is investigating the matter and on my last inquiry was due to make a decision on the nature of his report at the end of this month. It does raise the issue as to where this leaves the House and its members in interpreting those rules prior to the release of that report.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1056] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his speech. I repeat that this is not a matter of order. Of course it is a serious matter; that is not denied at all. It is a matter however for the Parliamentary Service Commission upon which there are representatives from all parties and from whom of course the Speaker takes advice before any decision is made. The matter is currently before the Parliamentary Service Commission and it will be dealt with there. However because it is a serious matter I am happy to look at it again and to give a Speaker’s ruling on the basis of a further consideration of what role and particular responsibility the Speaker has in this instance.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1056] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I think the matter is much more serious Madam Speaker than you allow for. As Speaker you and you alone are the Minister responsible for that budget. The rules on the allocation of that budget are very very clear: the money can be spent only on parliamentary business. We have heard over the past few days that the Labour Party for three or maybe four elections has been using something like $440000 of taxpayers’ money supplied for parliamentary business in order to fund its pledge cards. That is not the reason New Zealanders pay their taxes. 
We have a situation whereby the money has been misappropriated from the Prime Minister’s leader’s fund. You as Minister are responsible for that fund. To the public and certainly to me it looks as though that fund has been used as a Labour Party slush fund. [ 
Interruption 
] Members may want to call out on the first day. 
This matter raises some very serious questions for the Speaker of this House such as when did you Madam Speaker first learn that that money was being spent on the pledge cards when it was clearly inappropriate that it be spent; what involvement did you have in OK’ing that expenditure; and indeed did you involve yourself in distributing those pledge cards? Finally how come you have not called in the Auditor-General to investigate that spending and required the Prime Minister to repay that money to the taxpayers of New Zealand as Jim Anderton and Marian Hobbs were required to do? I think this is something about which you owe an explanation to this House—and indeed to the public of New Zealand—and not something that should be shuffled off to the Parliamentary Service Commission.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1056] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Apart from the fact that this matter is being dealt with elsewhere obviously the spending made by the Labour Party on this matter is not a proceeding of the House. I am sure the House as a whole would not wish to take responsibility for the spending of any particular party within it; that is a matter for the Parliamentary Service Commission. The fact that the Speaker is the chairperson of the Parliamentary Service Commission ex officio does not make anything done by that commission a proceeding of the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1055] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The contention of that Standing Order is most certainly that the Governor-General may put the most appropriate construction upon the proceedings of the House. The question that arises in this case is whether there has been a corrupt use of funds provided for a parliamentary purpose. Surely to satisfy the requirement the Governor-General might have to be able to put that favourable construction on the House’s proceedings makes this a matter that can be considered as part of the Standing Orders.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1055] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I must congratulate the member on his inventiveness in trying to bring this matter under Standing Order 23 because the part he most refers to “the most favourable construction” is that an approach being made to the Governor-General—previously made to the Sovereign—for him or her to put the most favourable construction upon the proceedings of the House. That has nothing to do with the Parliamentary Service Commission’s allocation of funding—any more than the use of that funding by the National Party to erect billboards has anything to do with the Governor-General putting constructions on the proceedings of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that points of order are heard in silence. I am sure most members if not all members would like to stay for the entire proceedings.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1055] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling but you may like to offer the House some advice on a subsequent day as to how this cannot be considered a matter for consideration under the Standing Orders when we look at the words contained in Standing Order 23. More particularly when we look at the section on page 2 of David McGee’s  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 entitled “Functions of the Parliament and the House of Representatives” we see there are four paragraphs and at least two of them make it abundantly clear that this expenditure which has the scrutiny of Parliament applied to it should fall under the Standing Orders. To dismiss the matter like that dismisses a very important Standing Order that you as Speaker are required to uphold.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1055] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point of order. As he may be aware it is not a matter of order or a matter for this House but a matter for the Parliamentary Service Commission. It is on its agenda tomorrow.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Election Expenses—Allegations of Misuse of Parliamentary Funding 
[Volume:629;Page:1055] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order with you under Standing Order 23 for which you as Speaker have particular oversight. It is to do with the allegation of corruption and misuse of parliamentary funding by the Labour Party for electioneering expenses. 
Last year the Prime Minister refused to meet the Auditor-General to discuss the report he produced on this particular issue after he had investigated the $21 million Government advertising programme. Dr Brash agreed to meet the Auditor-General but such a meeting did not take place because the Prime Minister refused to do so. We now know that the Prime Minister must have had constructive knowledge at least of the fact that the Labour Party was relying on that funding for its election pledge card and the pamphlet that went with it. So the question that arises for you is when a request will be made to the Labour Party to repay those funds to ensure that the integrity of Standing Order 23 is upheld and that the very best construction on the proceedings of the House can be maintained.
Mackey Moana: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Moana: Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1349] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 What a lot of bluster from Tau Henare the member of this House who has been in so many different political parties that no matter whom he meets in New Zealand he can honestly say to them that at some point in his political career he has agreed with them. I am sure his career will not end with the National Party. I am sure that the Hon Tau Henare will move on and find greener pastures as his career history shows he is wont to do. 
Mr Henare raised the fact that there are a lot of National Party MPs in the House tonight so I want to say one thing: we have all noticed the fact that the National Party members sit here as though they are at the movies. They come down to the House in droves and sit here as though they are in a movie theatre. Labour MPs have work to do. I do not know why the National Party MPs have no work to do. When they come down to the Chamber they do no work; they sit in here as though they are at the theatre or the movies. They fawn over whoever is making a speech standing up and saying: “Wasn’t that person absolutely wonderful! I really concur with everything he said.” But when are they going to do some work? 
That was an interesting speech from the Hon Tau Henare. He talked about too much regulation but which party is the first party to jump all over the Government whenever anything goes wrong? What happens whenever there is any question about there not being enough rules or about the Government not being clear or specific about what it required of early childhood providers when giving out Government funding? The first time something goes wrong in the early childhood sector one can guarantee that the National Party will be all over it. 
Debate interrupted.
Woolerton R Doug: Securities Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Securities Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1338] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the order of speaking in this debate it should be a National call that comes next; after the Labour member. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You are absolutely right. I am not sure whether I did not see Pansy Wong or whether she did not stand. I take your word for it but I have called Doug Woolerton. We will catch it up pretty quickly. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker and to return your politeness I will not take very long at all. 
I just want to pick up on a couple of points that Mr Connell raised. He is right to say that it is very hard to track down people who are engaged in insider trading whether they are looking through binoculars at the Auckland wharf or whatever they are doing. But there is another side to the coin. 
Of course people must have confidence to invest to be entrepreneurial and to start up businesses and carry them through in a tricky environment in today’s business world. But there is another side to this which is that the people investing—the mum and dad investors—must also have confidence. If we are to become a country of investors rather than a country of spenders then the ordinary investor needs to be confident that it is not just the insiders in those businesses who will make the money. I say with due respect that that has been the perception since 1987 and the public has been scared away from our stock market. People have been too scared to invest in shares securities or any of those sorts of things. They are going into property. We know what the Governor of the Reserve Bank thinks of that and we know what the spokespersons on finance on both sides of the House think about that. It is not wise. So we also must have confidence that the average Kiwi can invest in business through the stock market without those sorts of things happening without all of the profits going to insiders and without the perception that he or she has to be on the inside to win.
Woolerton R Doug: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1325] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a short call to say that New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill to select committee and will make just a couple of comments on it. One of the things that we cannot help note is that there has been a marked increase in the number of bankruptcies of what we shall call private people—not through a case of going broke through some enterprise they have started up not through a turn for the worse of circumstances that their businesses be they large or small have been involved in but just through sheer what I would call consumerism. They have gone out and spent and spent. I think that says a lot about our society. I think it is a tragedy and I am pretty sure that I know what sort of people end up in this situation. To me they need help at an earlier stage. 
I am pleased to see that this legislation will encourage early intervention. It will encourage a more open and transparent system and a system that will be a lot faster. Those are all things that we applaud. We want to see this bill go further so we will be supporting it to select committee.
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1318] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this House has no confidence in the Government led by the Rt Hon Helen Clark because she leads a political party that has shamelessly ransacked the public purse to fund its election campaigns and has absolutely no coherent programme to lift the living standards of all New Zealanders.  
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion not agreed to.
Clarkson Bob: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Clarkson Bob: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1311] 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will have another crack. Under Speaker’s ruling 36/4 I have been misrepresented. I would like to bring the member’s attention to the fact— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can only say what the member said and then state the actual case. It is very specific what the member can do. You can only say that what the member said was incorrect and then correct it. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: The member said that I went to court with a figure of $10200. That is totally incorrect. If the member has been educated and can read— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is all the member has to say and his word is his bond in this place. You have now corrected what the member said—what the member said was incorrect . 
BOB CLARKSON 
: He is incorrect. Can I say the true figure? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: If the member could read and he had read the papers the day before the court case he would know the figure was $18600. We were advised by the judge and by my barrister to take all the arguable items out of the figure which is why it came down to $10200. The final judgment given by the three judges was $18160—a lesser figure than I started with. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much.
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:629;Page:1286] 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: Does he have copies of my letter to him as chairman relating to the committee’s inquiry into Television New Zealand; if not who has the copies that he referred to last week? 
SHANE JONES (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could the chairperson explain what determined this letter from last week to be a “so-called letter” and “not relevant” and therefore able to be ripped up by him? 
SHANE JONES 
: I have responded to the member’s letter. He has been invited to raise his concerns at the committee which is the appropriate place to deal with his anxieties.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:629;Page:1284] 
11.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is he satisfied that the Overseas Investment Commission considers and protects New Zealand’s national interest when deciding on the fate of sales of strategic infrastructure such as the port of Lyttelton? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: Yes under new overseas investment legislation that came into effect last year criteria to assess a benefit to New Zealand were made more comprehensive to ensure that the value of sensitive New Zealand assets are recognised and enhanced by an overseas owner. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that all our ports have had their security beefed up principally at the behest of the Americans and is he also aware that in the USA I think six ports are up for sale and the Americans are endeavouring to ban them principally for security reasons and if he is aware of that does he not think he should take a closer look at the sale of the port of Lyttelton? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are no specific criteria in the Act relating to national security. However the general law for example biosecurity and customs legislation applies to the port regardless of the nationality of the owner. If the member has specific concerns about this issue he could take it up with the Minister of Finance. If he has matters that go to international affairs he might like to talk to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:629;Page:1283] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your assistance on this matter pursuant to Standing Order 369 and Speaker’s ruling 145/2 as I see that I am to raise this issue with you during question time. I put in a question this morning for the Minister for Social Development and Employment when I asked whether he had been advised of any reports that stated he had misused his ministerial position. There is a report in  
Investigate 
 magazine that makes that allegation. That question was ruled out of order after it had been in the Clerk’s Office for about an hour and I understand that you may have had something to do with that decision Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some assistance so that that question does not get ruled out of order again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I had no knowledge that the member had put in a different question before I received the list of questions that were to be put then I was informed as I was on several other questions—as I often am—that there had been an alteration to those. I personally have nothing to do with that. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to ask my original question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question was ruled out of order by the Clerk’s Office but the member can seek leave to do that. The member has sought leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:629;Page:1277] 
5.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What Work and Income protocols exist to support people representing New Zealand internationally while absent from New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Government’s obligation to pay income support usually ceases when the client leaves the country. 
Hone Harawira 
: E tautoko ana te kawanatanga i nga kaitakaro o Aotearoa i a ratou e tu ana i nga whakataetae o te Ao nga whenua e tuohu nei ki te Kuini o Ingarangi ranei a mena ae he aha nei te awhina ki a ratou i Te Tari Kore Mahi? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Have New Zealand athletes been supported by the Government while competing at Olympic or Commonwealth Games; if so what assistance are they given by Work and Income? 
] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Not that I am aware and my understanding is that under current legislation I do not have any discretion in such matters. 
Hone Harawira 
: He aha tana whakamarama ki te take o Kahukura Bentson kaimekemeke Maori mo Aotearoa kua tonoa kia whakahokia tana penihana i a ia e whakataetae nei mo Aotearoa i nga kemu o Manchester i te tau 2002 a kua tono ano hoki kia whakahokia taua pehihana i a ia e whakariterite ana i Canberra mo nga kemu e tu ana ki Melbourne?  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What explanation can he give for the fact that in 2002 Kahukura Bentson a Maori boxer was made to repay the income benefit he had received while representing New Zealand at the Manchester Commonwealth Games and that he has again been asked to repay the income benefit he received during a build-up tournament for the Melbourne Commonwealth Games in Canberra? 
] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Can I repeat that my advice is that under current legislation I do not have any discretion in these matters. I would be happy to investigate the particular incidents raised by the member should he provide me with the details.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Parliamentary Service—Speaker’s Role 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Parliamentary Service—Speaker’s Role 
[Volume:629;Page:1267] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On Tuesday last week points of order were raised relating to expenditure from Vote Parliamentary Service. I undertook to reflect on the responsibilities of the Speaker to this House for the subject matter raised in the point of order. I do not intend to respond on a point of order to the submissions put forward as to the propriety of the expenditure in question. This is under examination in other ways and for the reasons I am about to set out is not appropriate for a point of order. 
Until 1985 a Government department responsible to a Minister delivered services to Parliament and members. In 1985 members were given responsibility themselves for the administrative services they needed. A commission consisting of the Speaker and members was set up and the Parliamentary Service responsible to the commission was created. In 1989 when the Public Finance Act was reformed the Speaker became the responsible Minister for the Parliamentary Service. This means that the Speaker plays the role of a Minister in accounting for the activities and expenditure of the Parliamentary Service. Written questions may be put to the Speaker about the Parliamentary Service and the Speaker attends estimates hearings for Vote Parliamentary Service. 
Points of order relate or are supposed to relate to matters of procedure in the House on which the Speaker can rule—see Speaker’s ruling 19/1. They are not a means of examining Parliamentary Service business—see Speaker’s ruling 15/2—any more than points of order are means of questioning Ministers on the administration of their portfolios. 
The Parliamentary Service Commission meets each month. Every party is represented on the commission. Any member with concerns about Parliamentary Service matters may take up those concerns with the commission. In addition members of Parliament always have the constitutional right to utilise the ordinary procedures of the House such as written questions estimates and financial reviews to examine matters of policy and administration relating to the Parliamentary Service but such matters cannot be raised as a point of order because there is nothing in them on which the Speaker as Speaker can rule.
Speaker’s Statements — Parliamentary Service—Speaker’s Role 
Speaker’s Statements — Parliamentary Service—Speaker’s Role 
[Volume:629;Page:1267] 
Tuesday 21 February 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Parliamentary Service—Speaker’s Role 
Madam SPEAKER 
: On Tuesday last week points of order were raised relating to expenditure from Vote Parliamentary Service. I undertook to reflect on the responsibilities of the Speaker to this House for the subject matter raised in the point of order. I do not intend to respond on a point of order to the submissions put forward as to the propriety of the expenditure in question. This is under examination in other ways and for the reasons I am about to set out is not appropriate for a point of order. 
Until 1985 a Government department responsible to a Minister delivered services to Parliament and members. In 1985 members were given responsibility themselves for the administrative services they needed. A commission consisting of the Speaker and members was set up and the Parliamentary Service responsible to the commission was created. In 1989 when the Public Finance Act was reformed the Speaker became the responsible Minister for the Parliamentary Service. This means that the Speaker plays the role of a Minister in accounting for the activities and expenditure of the Parliamentary Service. Written questions may be put to the Speaker about the Parliamentary Service and the Speaker attends estimates hearings for Vote Parliamentary Service. 
Points of order relate or are supposed to relate to matters of procedure in the House on which the Speaker can rule—see Speaker’s ruling 19/1. They are not a means of examining Parliamentary Service business—see Speaker’s ruling 15/2—any more than points of order are means of questioning Ministers on the administration of their portfolios. 
The Parliamentary Service Commission meets each month. Every party is represented on the commission. Any member with concerns about Parliamentary Service matters may take up those concerns with the commission. In addition members of Parliament always have the constitutional right to utilise the ordinary procedures of the House such as written questions estimates and financial reviews to examine matters of policy and administration relating to the Parliamentary Service but such matters cannot be raised as a point of order because there is nothing in them on which the Speaker as Speaker can rule.
Burton Mark: Sittings of the House 
Burton Mark: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:629;Page:1434] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House has made extraordinarily good progress today. I seek leave for the House to rise a few minutes early and resume again tomorrow at 2 p.m. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:629;Page:1434] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House has made extraordinarily good progress today. I seek leave for the House to rise a few minutes early and resume again tomorrow at 2 p.m. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1434] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Tanczos Nandor: Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1427] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens oppose this bill absolutely. It represents just one more attempt to rewrite history and to subjugate the political aspirations of Maori to Pakeha hegemony. It seeks to unilaterally redefine the Treaty in accordance not with Maori values or the values of the Pakeha community but with ACT party values: private property rights and extreme individualism. It is designed to insult Maori and to inflame Pakeha anxieties—and there is considerable Pakeha anxiety about the place of Pakeha in Aotearoa New Zealand. 
This anxiety has been accentuated by the growing inclusion of Maori in political and cultural affairs. A growing awareness of the injustices of the past and the effects of our historical civil war has threatened many people’s conception of a nation built on peace. In part this is because the myth of our exemplary race relations and the “one New Zealand” catchcry have been demonstrated to be false. In the past many Pakeha were simply unaware of the decades of calls by Maori for their right to cultural political and economic self-determination. Today no Pakeha is unaware of this history of wrongs and attempts to right them. This awareness makes some people feel guilty and some people go on to resent that guilt. A common response to the cycle of guilt and resentment is to return to the historical amnesia that fuelled the problem in the first place. 
This bill is a classic example of that historical amnesia. It is an expression of deep-seated denial of the purpose of the Treaty which was in part to give Pakeha a right to be in Aotearoa. Along with that right came concomitant obligations. This bill sets out one view of the rights and entirely ignores the responsibilities. It perpetuates the myth that Maori gave up a thousand-year history of political and economic sovereignty without a murmur and it creates a new myth that the Pakeha of this country believe in the individualistic dog-eat-dog money first and people second values of the ACT party. 
The Greens are not in the business of defending such a redefinition and a weakening of what the Treaty actually means. I consider this bill to be an attempt to belittle what many New Zealanders see as a covenant between two peoples and to turn it into a hollow shell of itself. Pita Paraone referred to the two language versions of the Treaty which are contained in the schedules of the bill. Yet the bill shows no sign whatsoever that Mr Hide is aware of the meaning of the Maori version. Maybe that is why there is no translation of it in the bill. 
The Greens consider this bill to be a disgrace and we hope that it fails immediately.
Vote: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1421] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to.
Bradford Sue: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1421] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move That the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committeereferred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
Vote: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1421] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time.
Chadwick Steve: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1406] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call on the Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill but one could be forgiven for being slightly confused about the microchipping of dogs. The introduction of the bill was very profoundly put by its introducing sponsor Marian Hobbs and it really had nothing to do with dogs. This is simply a bill that came from the Trustees Executors themselves and it is sensible. It is a private bill and any Government of the day always supports a private bill when it comes to the House. That is democracy. So we are delighted to support this bill today. 
There is a very interesting bit in the bill about future-proofing with an Order in Council mechanism so that we will not have to relitigate it in the House. That is common sense. It is the sort of legislation that this Government is pleased to stand by support and promote. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.referred to Commerce Committee
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Vote: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1403] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee