edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Worth Richard: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12807] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have become increasingly concerned in the course of this debate about the presence of strangers in the House. I would like to deal with that if I might. It is my understanding that the Government officials who are here should not be here and I would like to refer you Mr Assistant Speaker to the relevant provisions of the Standing Orders and to ask for your considered ruling with the intent that those strangers withdraw until that ruling is available. The starting point for what I wish to say is Standing Order 7/3 which refers to strangers. I am aware that the Clerk may have taken a provisional view on what I am about to say. 
Darren Hughes 
:  
Speaker’s Rulings 
 or the Standing Orders? 
RICHARD WORTH 
:  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. How could it be 7/3 if it is not a Speaker’s ruling? I am being interrupted in my point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will just say two things to members. Firstly points of order are to be heard in silence according to Standing Order 84(3). The point of order is to be heard in silence provided that the member making the point of order is terse to the point and does not bring any controversy into it. That is the first thing. 
The second is that there should be no interchange between members during a point of order. I want to rule on the point of order— 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I would like to complete the point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. You must surely hear the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please continue. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I want to make just two quick points of order but I do not really seek that the Clerk distract you while I am making these points because I am sure he can advise you later. 
I was referring to Speaker’s ruling 7/3 “Ministers are entitled to have officials present in the Chamber during questions.” That appears to be the only Speaker’s ruling that is broadly relevant. [ 
Interruption 
] The issue comes back it seems to me to Standing Order 42—for the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the House or whatever he is—under the heading “Speaker controls admission” “On behalf of the House the Speaker controls admission to the Chamber the lobbies and the galleries and may from time to time issue rules setting out who may be admitted to those areas and governing their conduct there.” Now I am not aware that there is in respect of a reading of this type any relevant ruling that would permit those officials to be here. I am concerned because here they are recording with their crabbed hands what they are saying when there is available to them through the offices of Hansard a full transcript of what may be occurring. I seek your ruling on that Mr Assistant Speaker. I think it is not appropriate they are here.
Field Taito Phillip: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7607] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Briefly this is a good bill. It will improve the Reserve Bank’s ability to carry out its functions in both the monetary policy and banking supervision areas. It does not alter the objective of monetary policy which remains the key area of promoting price stability. The changes will strengthen the board’s role in monitoring the performance of the governor and further enhance the Reserve Bank’s accountability and independence. 
Previous speakers touched on the significant changes this bill proposes. One of those changes which the previous speaker covered to some extent is the removal of the deputy-governor from the board and the requirement that the board publish an annual report setting out its assessment of the performance of the governor and the Reserve Bank. Those amendments have been through the select committee process and are designed to give more prominence and focus to the board’s role and to strengthen the accountability of the governor in the performance of his or her duties. All of that will contribute to improving the performance of the governor the directors and the Bank itself. It is a very good bill and I am very happy to speak in support of it. I commend it to the House.
Clark Helen: Motions — Silver Ferns Victory 
Clark Helen: Motions — Silver Ferns Victory 
[Volume:610;Page:7131] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House convey its congratulations to the Silver Ferns on becoming the world netball champion after beating Australia in the final of the championships in Jamaica yesterday.  
The Cabinet managed to finish a little early to watch the last 15 minutes yesterday having had electronic updates throughout the game. It was a wonderful moment to see the Silver Ferns come through triumphant. We all remember the endings of two previous major contests—in Christchurch in 1999 at the world championships where the game went in the last minute and a similar thing happened in Manchester at the Commonwealth Games. To see this team star like it did yesterday was a triumph. I am sure the House will join with me in offering congratulations.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: 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:9973] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Richard Worth to new section 12(1) in clause 6B be agreed to.
Franks Stephen: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22088] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It may be that many of us have assumed that consent had been obtained. I know that when I first heard those kinds of displays and knew that they were against the Standing Orders we were told that approval had been given by the Speaker. If approval has not been given then perhaps it could be sought because it is very difficult for the Speaker to enforce order of that kind. I seek the leave of the House to overlook that gallery rule although I do it reluctantly and with a great sense of objection that Mr Benson-Pope should try to cover his tracks by pretending to have a great interest in this bill.
Cullen Michael: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9967] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the second reading of the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill be postponed until after private and local order of the day No. 1.
Catchpole Brent: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6881] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I am rising to speak to Part 1 because I have just listened to National’s Tony Ryall speak about how unstable unsafe and unreliable electricity is. Sure it is dangerous but I have to remind Mr Ryall and the National Party that Auckland suffered huge blackouts during the 1990s. It was not as a direct result of the weather or of anything other than poor management and poor supply. The poor supply was a case of the companies holding back on their upgrades of the lines because they wanted to retain all their profits and they failed to see a catastrophe coming. All of a sudden one line blew. That put extra pressure on other lines and they blew. As a result Auckland was without power. Generators from outside Auckland and from overseas had to be brought in. A ship was even docked in the port to supply power to Auckland. 
If that is the direct result of bad weather and bad supply then I really have to question Mr Ryall’s intentions. We all accept that electricity is unstable but it also relies on the good management of the supply companies. In that case New Zealand First supports this part. We see it as providing much-needed security for electricity supply as a good and a service. We therefore support this bill.
Carter John: General Debates 
Carter John: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11931] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? I have ruled on that matter.
Ryall Tony: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15186] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is correct there was a noise from this side during the casting of the vote but I draw your attention to the fact that there was also one most inappropriately made from the Government side only a few words earlier. I think that if you are going to warn members on this side you should be warning members opposite. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. The warning goes to all members in the Chamber—both sides.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6570] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker . 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is it a new point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: With respect Madam Speaker you have not ruled on the question of the translation. My understanding is that as a member of this House I am entitled to ask for a translation and I am asking for it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind the member there is no right to ask for a remark in English to be interpreted. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well how two-faced is that! 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask Mr Brownlee to stand and apologise for that remark. I am asking the member again to stand withdraw and apologise for that last remark. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw the remark. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to withdraw the remark and apologise. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: With respect Madam Speaker— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I apologise and I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Why was the Minister not required to apologise for his offensive remarks? Why is it that people on this side of the House get different treatment from the Chair when there are different people in the Chair? It is not acceptable. If the Minister was required to withdraw a remark he should be required to apologise for that remark. It was offensive and it continues to be offensive. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member quite rightly was asked to withdraw and apologise. I have ruled on the previous matter. I call the Hon Matt Robson.
Barker Rick: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21641] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The points made by the Hon Lockwood Smith are well made. Firstly it would be unacceptable to have 318 cases before the High Court jamming it up. That is exactly why we are here passing this legislation. Secondly the issues around the process of designation and removing entities do deserve good consideration and that is what the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is looking at now. We welcome the member’s input and the committee’s views. 
Finally I will comment on Mr Locke’s amendment which seeks to omit the expression “2 years” and substitute “1 year”. That would shorten the time recommended by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in its report and the Government will oppose that amendment. We could very well wind up in exactly the same position we are in now whereby we would have to come back to the House to pass legislation to extend the time. Of course that would be a nonsense so we will be voting against that amendment.
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17098] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else.
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:16098] 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: Following his reply to my oral question on 7 October 2004 what did he consult the committee’s independent specialist adviser about? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 I consulted the adviser about the names of submitters not on the previously agreed list but whom individual members wanted the committee to hear. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the chairman deny suggesting that Nanaia Mahuta be heard and not telling the committee about that? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I did not deny that I suggested Nanaia Mahuta be heard. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: During the chairman’s consultation with the specialist adviser did he recommend that Nanaia Mahuta be heard without consultation with anyone else? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I was given names by several committee members and in the same manner that they were forwarded I forwarded Nanaia Mahuta’s name to the specialist adviser.
Brown Peter: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5740] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification because this is a contentious bill and I just want to be assured that if members take only 5-minute calls and sit down at the bell they will not lose their second third or fourth calls. Some of my members want to refute what is being said here from time to time.
Smith Nick: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17025] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The debate in respect of the bill has been contentious. The deputy leader of the National Party Gerry Brownlee raised a point of order. During the course of his point of order there was a whole series of quite loud interjections on which no action was taken. When Mr Brownlee eventually saw that the Chair was standing he resumed his seat. It seems to me that the action taken by the Chair of the Committee to eject the lead spokesperson for the National Party on a bill that is being considered under urgency is quite an extreme measure.  
I note that the speaker who was interrupted—which gave rise to this incident—was the leader of New Zealand First Winston Peters. I could list at least 10 instances in recent weeks in which Mr Peters himself raised points of order that were no more than political points that interrupted the flow of speeches or questions and you have tolerated those. I think that the judgment to exclude the deputy leader of the National Party our lead spokesperson is excessively harsh in the circumstances and that for that reason he should be allowed to return and continue to participate in this debate.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:613;Page:9787] 
Thursday 6 November 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Dog Control Amendment Bill the Forests Amendment Bill and the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I notice that the Order Paper is relatively light and that the workload of the Government could be completed very early this year. Can the Minister tell us whether there is more legislation in the pipeline that may be put through the House under urgency—for example the foreshore and seabed legislation—and if not can he tell us what the Government’s intention is to sort out that particular problem? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer the first part of the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No I do not anticipate any legislation before Christmas as the member would be aware if he had read the submission of the Waitangi Tribunal which is on the website.
Benson-Pope David: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4087] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6305] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 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 13 be agreed to: 
to add the words “and the Commerce Select Committee”.
Smith Lockwood: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4105] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have delayed raising this point of order until now because I did not want in any way to be questioning your decision to accept the closure. I would like you to reflect on a very important issue. A senior colleague left the Chamber in disgust having waited for some time to speak on probably the most important debate— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member is relitigating the— 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I am not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have put the closure. It is my decision and there is no debate on it. It is a matter for me to decide and I have decided. The matter cannot be relitigated. I warn the member about relitigating. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member that it had better be a new point of order. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: My point of order relates to the general issue of the acceptance of closures. I have made it very clear— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry; the member will be seated. There is a clear Standing Order on closures and it is the Chairperson’s call. I have addressed that and I have called the closure correctly. The member cannot relitigate the closure issue. I warn the member that raising points of order that have been ruled on and that I have dealt with is in itself disorderly. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have been a member of this Parliament for 19 years. There is no member of this Parliament who has served as a Cabinet Minister longer than I have. I do not raise a point of order for no good reason. I accept absolutely that it is the Chair’s perfect right to accept a closure. I am not disputing that in any way at all and obviously a Chair has to weigh up certain reasons for accepting a closure. My plea however is that where debates are of huge moment to the whole of New Zealand—and I do not want to refer to the specific issue here; let me just leave it as a general case—the Chair considers that fact when weighing up whether to accept a closure. That is my point of order and I trust it is not out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have taken those matters into consideration. That is how the decision was made.
Newman Muriel: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16480] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your clarification. In Appendix A of our Standing Orders under the heading: “Committee of the whole House” it is stated that members are allowed up to four speeches of no more than 5 minutes each. I know that in my particular case I spoke on the first clause of Part 1 and Part 1 contains 22 clauses. It concerns me that Government members are already seeking the closure when in fact there are members of the select committee that discussed this bill who have not even had an opportunity to speak. I seek your ruling Mr Chairperson that you will abide by the Standing Orders and allow members of the Committee to have up to four speeches on each part of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for her contribution and refer her to Speaker’s ruling 70/1 which talks about whether there is relevancy whether amendments are in order or whether there is tedious repetition. The Chairperson is the sole judge as to what number of speeches should be given.
Brown Peter: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: New Zealand Sign Language Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13774] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is just a matter of clarification. If members have to speak more slowly will the clock go a little more slowly? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately no.
Gallagher Martin: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21892] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14554] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in response to the questions asked by Mr Carter. I can assure him that the timing of the royal assent after the third reading of this bill still enables us to meet the 1 October introduction date. Depending on how long the Committee busies itself with this stage I am informed by Dr Cullen that the bill is scheduled for the third reading this week. That will enable the royal assent to be given later this week or early next week. In terms of the Catch History Review Committee process that is not compromised because it can happen after 1 October so there is no issue. Once the lodgment has happened the hearings can take place after the introduction date without any difficulty. 
I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee and Mr Carter in particular for their cooperation. A great deal of work has had to be done and it has been good to address an issue that has long needed tidying up as one would acknowledge. I am sorry that this legislation was not considered in the last sitting of Parliament; that was because of events beyond my control but I am pleased to have it on the floor of the House now for immediate progress. 
I also want to thank members for the very fulsome level of support—to have 109 votes to 9 in the first debate was pretty impressive. Although anyone listening to the debate would have found it hard to fathom whether National and ACT members did in fact support the bill clearly we are progressing it because along with other recommendations the select committee requested we do just that. We also took to heart the recommendations of the select committee in terms of ex gratia payments to and negotiations with some adversely affected parties. 
I guess this debate will proceed apace because the fact that most of these issues took place in the 1990s when National was in Government is not lost on anyone. I am delighted that we are finally making such good progress on this matter.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Civil Aviation Authority—Surveillance 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Civil Aviation Authority—Surveillance 
[Volume:619;Page:14513] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to Speaker’s ruling 149/4. The then Associate Minister of Transport Harry Duynhoven in December 2003 and the Civil Aviation Authority director John Jones have vehemently and repeatedly said to Parliament that their agents were not tapping into telephones and taping calls. They denied that. I knew those answers to be false. I said they were false in December last year in a parliamentary question to the Minister and I said they were false in February this year at the select committee.
Burton Mark: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Burton Mark: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:609;Page:7081] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:610;Page:7981] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week is an adjournment week. When the House resumes on Tuesday 26 August the main items of business are likely to be the remaining stages of the Gambling Bill the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the Consumer Credit Bill.
Peck Mark: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
Peck Mark: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6711] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I want to take just a very short call on this bill and say what an extraordinary debate it has been punctuated by quite a bunch of inaccuracies and scaremongering. I support the bill.
Hughes Darren: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15626] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter John: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Corrections to Answers 
Carter John: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Corrections to Answers 
[Volume:618;Page:13962] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I want to seek the leave of the House and let me explain very briefly what it is about. There has been a number of occasions recently—which are becoming more regular—when the answers given by Ministers have been inaccurate. The Standing Orders state that Ministers have to come down at the first possible opportunity and make those corrections to the House. The consequence of that is that the member who asked the question often is not here when the corrected answer is given. As a consequence I seek leave that we suspend the Standing Orders so that Ministers when they make any correction to answers that were given incorrectly give those corrections at the beginning of the next question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to suspend the Standing Orders. Is there any objection? There is.
Williamson Maurice: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19906] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I think that we now have a process we could follow that will make this stage go quite quickly. I can give the Government and the Minister an assurance that National Party members do not intend to take too much time on this if we could get just one thing from the Minister. I would ask him to take us through some of the key parts of Supplementary Order Paper 353. 
In particular the amendment that I am very concerned about is to clause 51. It reinserts paragraph (a) to regulate the use of railway lines and so on. I understand that the clause is in Part 2 and that we are doing this part by part so Madam Chairperson may want to rule me out of order. But all I can say is that the Minister knows very well that Oppositions can delay bills for a long long time if they want to. We do not want to. We want to work cooperatively; we really do. We think that we got this pretty well tidied up in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I ask the Minister to take a call to give us a brief explanation. It does not need to be earth-shattering thunderous or something that will make the front page of the newspaper tomorrow—we just want a little bit of a description. 
Some of the amendments are so obvious it is not funny. Of course one would want to change the definition of “Authority” from the Land Transport Safety Authority to Land Transport New Zealand. That is correct. Then there are other things such as amending clause 92(1)(b) to omit the unneeded cross reference for example. Of course there will not be any political concern about that amendment. But I repeat some things that the select committee after intense discussion and consideration had agreed to take out—for example clause 51(a)—have now gone back in. The Minister may have a perfectly logical explanation and say that that paragraph had to go back in because it did not stay in so I will make it clear now: we will cooperate. There will be hardly any speaking from us at all. We will go with this bill as it is if the Minister could give us a very brief explanation as to what is going on. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Shortly I will do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question is that Part 1 be agreed to but first of all we have the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 to be agreed to.
Jones Dail: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Jones Dail: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6266] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 As understand it the title of the bill is to be the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act whereas some members still seem to think it is called the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill. One of the amendments in the select committee was that this bill be called the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act in due course. 
New Zealand First’s criticism of this legislation—and New Zealand First will support it—is that this concept was introduced a couple of years or so ago with a great deal of fanfare by this Minister. He said it would change everything but we find that the Government could not even agree on the name of the legislation. It is such a simple matter that one would have thought that the ministry the Minister and the Government could have got it right but no they could not. This whole legislation is an example of how this Government has failed to give officials enough support and encouragement to do their work. That is why this legislation has had to come back to the Committee. It is so symptomatic of the whole situation that even today we have a bill that went to a select committee with one name and came back with another. New Zealand First will support the legislation but from time to time we will give it some degree of criticism. 
One of the things we will raise in connection with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and in particular with this Minister’s role is how one might develop the area at Whenuapai in Auckland to take trade and enterprise into account bearing in mind the imminent closure of the Royal New Zealand Air Force airbase at Whenuapai. That is something that an organisation of this kind could be involved in and perhaps should be involved in. As a member of New Zealand First I will take a close interest in it.
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:17895. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8946] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new section 38A(2)(e) in clause 18 be agreed to.
Peck Mark: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Peck Mark: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12993] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa Defence Cooperation 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa Defence Cooperation 
[Volume:607;Page:4421] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Stephen Franks seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 a proposal to enter into a deed of settlement with Ngati Awa. An urgent debate is an opportunity to consider something that has occurred not something that is about to occur so the application must be declined on the ground that it does not relate to a particular case of recent occurrence.
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21682] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In listening to those contributions I feel moved to move that the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill be referred back to the Law and Order Committee so that it may be strengthened and improved in respect of information-sharing legislation so as to enable the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development to be able to provide all necessary information to the courts. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is completely out of order. It is not a point of order and he cannot do that. [ 
Interruption 
] You did not seek leave; that was the problem. You moved and you cannot do that. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you for your guidance. I seek the leave of the House to move that the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill be referred back to the Law and Order Committee so that it may be strengthened in order to give greater powers to the courts. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Donnelly Brian: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14317] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I do not have a history of purely and simply playing games but this case does disturb me. Why do we take the voice vote in the first place? The reason why we have a party vote is that purely and simply on the voice at times it is impossible for the Chair to decide the numbers one way or the other but in this case it was quite clear that there was no vote in favour of the Ayes and there was one vote in favour of the Noes. If for example there was a mumbling along the lines that some parties were in favour of the Ayes I would be quite happy to accept that that would then logically lead to the opportunity for a party vote. However regardless of the sophistry of Dr Cullen there was no Ayes vote and that really is the decision that we have to make. We are not doing it for triviality; we are doing it for the precedent it will set for this House.
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19715] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Standing Order 8. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Beyer Georgina: Third Readings 
Beyer Georgina: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9140] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Notwithstanding the concerns raised by the member who has just resumed his seat I would like to say that this is good legislation. We are proceeding with caution in the management of new organisms while preserving opportunities. That is a responsible approach I would have thought. I support the legislation.
Carter John: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10419] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Following discussions at the Business Committee and with representatives of the various parties I seek leave for this bill when it has concluded its second reading to proceed to its Committee stage and third reading. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Commonwealth of Australia—Minister for the Environment and Heritage Italy—Parliamentary Delegation United Kingdom—Constitutional Affairs Committee House of Commons 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Commonwealth of Australia—Minister for the Environment and Heritage Italy—Parliamentary Delegation United Kingdom—Constitutional Affairs Committee House of Commons 
[Volume:621;Page:16593] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in also informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of Italy led by Ms Gabriella Mondello is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
McNair Craig: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
McNair Craig: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4457] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In rising to speak on this bill I want to begin by pointing out that the promoters of this bill say that its fundamental purpose is to protect or safeguard the individual rights of prostitutes. Would that be the reality of passing this legislation or would it effectively work to expand the opportunities for prostitution as an industry? I ask that question of those individual members who are wavering or who are on the fence on this legislation. Bills that are put to a conscience vote deal with complex moral and ethical issues yet one simple question must be posed: do we want prostitution to increase? In other countries including Australia where the prostitution laws have been liberalised the activity has flourished. I believe the problems associated with the industry could also potentially increase including child prostitution trafficking in women violence against prostitutes and blatant advertising for both the services provided and the recruitment of prostitutes. 
In speaking to the title one title could be the “Opening up the Trafficking of Men and Women into Prostitution Bill”. That could be a different title because that is significantly what the legislation will do. My personal opinion is that we have a regime that is too loose. As far as immigration is concerned we have seen a lot of different people coming into this country who should not be coming in. The regime is loose enough as it is and I believe that this bill will not help whatsoever. This bill allows for decriminalisation of prostitution and in my view in whatever form it is passed we will see more prostitution. I really believe that that is a fact. This legislation will allow for the increased exploitation of women and I do not believe that any amendments will stop that. I see where Dianne Yates is coming from—I see what is in her heart and I see the purpose of what she is trying to do—but at the end of the day we have to make sure we do not water the bill down in any way. I believe that we have to vote against any amendments to the bill because the whole bill needs to be thrown out and we need to look again at reforming prostitution by starting from square one. 
Reform is desirable if we are to eliminate a double standard. Currently the demand is legal and the supply is illegal. Changes are essential in order to protect and empower women in the sex industry. The bill is not the answer to that. It does little to minimise the activity by restricting entry into the profession or encouraging prostitutes to leave the industry. Law plays a major part in determining behaviour. That which is unpunishable by law becomes increasingly accepted by society. Prostitution is a trade that has always been around; so have burglary and drug trafficking. Does the logic follow that we may as well decriminalise those activities in order to protect the people involved in them? I think not.
Hereora Dave: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8709] 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5511] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Standing Order 140 “Effect of carrying of closure” states: “(1) When the question for the closure is agreed to the question under debate is put without further amendment or debate.” The question under debate at that point was clause 2 and the amendments to that. It was put immediately and in following that Standing Order it has been the practice of this House that the subsequent motions are all put and continue through till the House rises or if the number of amendments is sufficient to get past 7.30 the Committee simply continues on to the next item of business in the Committee stage.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6880] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8966] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to correct you but in fact there is a very clear answer to the question that Mr Brownlee raised and that is Standing Order 112. That is a matter awaiting judicial decision. No a member cannot get up and cite a criminal record in that situation. Standing Order 112 is there because we do have free speech and that is one of the limitations on us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is absolutely correct and I apologise to him. I misheard the original comment. Standing Order 112 does still apply but there is the right of free speech in this Chamber with very very few exceptions.
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: 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] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Speaker some concern has been expressed that Opposition members were not given their right to speak in the second reading debate. As a result there has been a long debate in the Committee that has necessitated your recall.
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:620;Page:15672] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think in the interests of decorum in the House it would be better if the advertisement being shown by the Green member was put down on the seat beside him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. He is not displaying it at the moment. I think he has just found a resting place for it.