edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
[Volume:624;Page:19165] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received from the Hon Peter Dunne and Dr Paul Hutchison applications under Standing Order 373 for an urgent debate regarding reports that the flu vaccine that was recently purchased by Pharmac is ineffective against one of the strains of the influenza virus. These applications do relate to a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The matter is of genuine public concern and this is evidenced for instance by the fact that there were three questions on it to the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister this afternoon. But action to address the issue has been announced. While these steps are in train I feel that there may well be other and better parliamentary means of addressing the issue over the next few days such as through the financial review debate which is imminent the general debate and further parliamentary questions. I have therefore decided that on balance this matter does not require the immediate attention of the House today by way of an urgent debate. The applications are accordingly declined.
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:17887. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments 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. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19093] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
Anderton(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Gallagher  
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer  
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton  
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor  
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hawkins  
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hereora  
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs  
Pettis(P) 
Wong  
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Key (P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Duynhoven  
Locke  
Shirley  
Teller: 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J 
Simich(P) 
Hughes  
Noes 43 
Adams(P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander  
Donnelly(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry  
Turia(P) 
Baldock  
Franks  
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair  
Smith M 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman  
Smith N (P) 
Tisch  
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Robertson H V Ross: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19180] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind people in the gallery that this debate is within Parliament. I urge members on the cross benches to be mindful that they do not interject on each other because it muffles the microphones—Speaker’s ruling 57/5. And there will be no more noise from the gallery.
Goff Phil: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goff Phil: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20632] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: 
 In which case I move  
That the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you. The question—
Vote: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4941] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 105 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11365] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Noting that next week is the last week before Parliament goes into its first adjournment for the year can Dr Cullen indicate to the House whether we can expect to see the seabed and foreshore legislation tabled in the House during the first week back after the adjournment or perhaps it would be sometime during that 4-week block.
Personal Explanations — Parliamentary Privilege—Jim Peron 
Personal Explanations — Parliamentary Privilege—Jim Peron 
[Volume:624;Page:19353] 
Personal Explanations 
Parliamentary Privilege—Jim Peron 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Two weeks ago I raised the issue of an American bookseller Jim Peron in Parliament. I described him as a paedophile which according to the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 is “a person who displays paedophilia.” paedophilia being “sexual desire directed towards children”. Today I tell the House that I stand by that description. My comments were intended to be a warning to the Government about an abuse of the immigration system by a person who should not have arrived here and who should not be allowed to stay in this country. Instead I have been personally attacked for using parliamentary privilege by apologists for Mr Peron. I described him as a paedophile because he is a sick individual who has promoted the cause of sexual relations between adult men and boys. Anyone who promotes sexual relations between adult men and boys should not be allowed citizenship residency or even a temporary visa. 
I support my earlier comments with the following evidence. First a copy of a publication called  
Unbound 
 which was published by Free Forum Books a store in San Francisco owned by Mr Peron in the late 1980s. Second the publication contains proof of his connection to it. Mr Peron was the editor of that publication and contributed articles to it. Third through the publication Mr Peron promoted paedophile activities paedophile writings and the use of young boys as sexual objects. Fourth he published pictures of naked boys. In my opinion that is the work of a paedophile. I will repeat this statement this afternoon outside Parliament.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19531] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not think that point of order can properly be raised on this question because the question is phrased very generally. If of course a subsequent supplementary question impinged upon a matter that involved Mr Peters and the court then of course— 
Dail Jones 
: It doesn’t! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member cannot possibly say that until he has heard the supplementary question. This question is phrased very generally indeed and it is quite impossible to conclude from it that there is a potential conflict of interest. There might well be in a supplementary but the member will have to wait for that and then the point of order might be properly raised.
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14574] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15405] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6914] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: The Greens support this bill. I refer members to the excellent comments made earlier in debates on the bill by my colleague Sue Kedgley in earlier debates on the bill.
Alexander Marc: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21460] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just wonder whether a copy of the speech made by the member who has just sat down will be made available for purchase later. It was absolutely riveting stuff. It had the crowds in the rafters jumping up and down—stunning! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. I am going to call someone who may just by chance speak to the bill.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 June 2004. Volume:618;Page:13633. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What is the total new expenditure on research science and technology in this year’s Budget and how does this compare to previous years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 The new expenditure this year is over $50 million which is the largest dollar increase in science ever. Since becoming the Government Labour has increased funding for science by more than 40 percent. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has private sector expenditure kept pace with this rate of Government expenditure? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer is “probably”. To date we have only the increase for the 2 years between 2000 and 2002 but that increase was a remarkable 32 percent. The Government and business are both putting their money forward and investing strongly in the nation’s future. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why despite increased funding has the country’s largest Crown research institute gone from profit to loss under Labour and the Health Research Council’s acceptance for high-quality applications gone from 40 percent in 1999 to 15 percent currently; and are these not examples of why Labour cannot be trusted to spend taxpayers’ money well? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In respect of question No. 1 because it is investing in the future. In respect of question No. 2 which was about the Health Research Council because the quality of applications has soared—notwithstanding a 60 percent increase in health research funding in the term of this Government. In respect of the third question self-evidently not.
Peters Winston: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Peters Winston: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6636] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This matter arose simply because a member who quoted an answer given yesterday in the House got the answer: “I didn’t say that.” and then you said that the Minister had answered the question. How he could have done that having denied that he had made the quote in the first place is beyond me. From my point of view my party is looking very hard at the question of whether we should elect a new Speaker and get some straight-out neutrality in this House.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15458] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I certainly do not need to make a ministerial statement. I regret the fact I appear to have misread my own notes. If I can read my handwritten version—it is not easy to read my handwriting—it states: “The Reserve Bank has raised interest rates and has done so because growth is so strong.” That is factually correct. The Reserve Bank has raised interest rates on a number of occasions this year because growth is so strong. [ 
Interruption 
] Wait little man wait! Goodness me! The member should quit while he is ahead—OK? He should just calm down. The word “today” was inadvertently used by myself. I certainly regret the fact if I might have caused the Governor of the Reserve Bank—[ 
Interruption 
] There was no announcement about interest rates today. No announcement is made until tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no point of order involved.
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18725] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 To address the matters the member raised in order: firstly last evening I gave an undertaking as the Minister in the chair to circulate physical information to explain a Supplementary Order Paper. I did that. The document was reproduced in my office and distributed via the parliamentary messengers. I note that one of the member’s own colleagues handed him a copy—not a Labour member a National member—during the course of the earlier debate in the House. The member implied that he was left out or for some other reason did not receive a copy. It is equally possible that the member simply did not clear his mail or that his staff failed to do so. Whatever the explanation I think he does himself and the House a disservice by the comment that he made. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Don’t be so pompous. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Minister is speaking to the point of order. There will be silence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He should stick to it then. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I was ruling on that. I ask Mr Brownlee to please stand and withdraw that remark. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw the remark. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No we are in the middle of a point of order. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Secondly the matter the member raised beyond that is a matter for debate. Mr Paraone quite legitimately introduced it into the debate by way of Supplementary Order Paper but it is a matter for debate. I repeat what I said to the Committee before you were recalled Madam Speaker: the newly created urban hapu were established by Parliament on the advice and with the full agreement of Ngati Awa in the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act. The member suggested that somehow that is a new creation. 
I would also like to assist the member because he made what I think is a very pertinent comment in his previous contribution: that this matter is ultimately one for Ngati Awa. I have a communication dated today sent directly to me on behalf of Ngati Awa in the name of Professor Hirini Mead the chairman of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa. He said that Ngati Awa: “… has adopted a more open and inclusive attitude towards the establishment of hapu. More importantly how Ngati Awa determines its internal structures is a matter for it to decide. There is no one classical iwi model to follow.” Professor Mead made that comment in support of the proposal in this legislation because it constitutes part of a carefully negotiated settlement. We are being asked to respect the will of Ngati Awa. That is what is being put in front of Parliament and it is the will of Ngati Awa. I agree with the member that it is for Ngati Awa to decide. They have decided. Now the question is whether that member and all members will respect their wish and the negotiation that has been concluded.
Benson-Pope David: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4262] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand in support of this bill and urge its rapid process to the Primary Production Committee.
Copeland Gordon: Standing Orders 
Copeland Gordon: Standing Orders 
[Volume:627;Page:22357] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Well I think that Deborah Coddington spoke for marginally longer than Peter Brown. I simply say that United Future supports this motion including the split voting procedure set out in Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
Motion agreed to.
Swain Paul: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Swain Paul: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9663] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of brief comments about Part 1 as we start to get into the guts of the bill. I am extremely proud of this landmark legislation which suddenly now transforms the way in which we deal with and manage transport across New Zealand. I also want to pay a quick tribute to my former transport Minister colleague Mark Gosche who did a lot of the work on the bill. 
I think there will be a lot of talk in this part and other parts about what the bill does or does not do. I do not like to be uncharitable but I want to remind the Committee just how many bills the National Government introduced in its 9 years in Government to try to improve land transport in New Zealand. It was zero zippo zilch not a sausage and not a single bill. It is important therefore as we work our way through the bill to realise that during that time not one single piece of land transport legislation came forward from the National Government. 
Of course the National Government started to think a little bit about land transport. Do members remember the Better Transport Better Roads strategy whereby National was going to corporatise and then privatise all the roads? There were howls of derisive laughter from local authorities which was one of the reasons why National got chucked out. 
I do not like to be uncharitable so I want to move on and note that this part includes the purpose clause. As my colleague the co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons said it is about a multimodal approach to transport. There are not many people in New Zealand—in fact only a very few narrow-minded people—who want to go back to the tired old days of the benefit-cost ratio. That thing was pilloried up and down the country by territorial local authorities that said nothing could be built in New Zealand unless there was a benefit-cost ratio of around four or so. It was heavily predicated on road accidents and fatalities which meant very little could be done anywhere—for example in Auckland. We have been able to make some progress in Auckland only because of the multimodal broader approach taken in the legislation. 
I also want to point out Supplementary Order Paper 165 in my name which in the immortal words of the Hon Stan Rodger contains “mainly minor technical amendments”. There are a couple of things in there. I am particularly pleased now about the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper introduces the word “efficient” into the purpose clause. Given that there has been a lot of comment in the media about that I think it is really important that the select committee thought about and worked on it. There has been a lot of consultation with the parties who have been involved in supporting the bill and I welcome that particular inclusion. 
This is a good bill. This part starts to define how we will shift transport in New Zealand and how we will solve some of the problems. I commend it to the Committee.
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13915] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the New Zealand First policy on the foreshore and seabed as set out by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on 25 June 2003 in  
Hansard  
Volume 609 at page 6565 which is absolutely consistent with what we are doing today and if the Hon Ken Shirley were a gentleman he would apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15938] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 5; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: 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:9989] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 3 deals with the sale of products. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: It does deal with the sale of products. If a restaurant permits smoking and all of a sudden customers do not go to that restaurant because they would rather go to a restaurant that does not permit smoking then soon the owner will wake up and decide that his or her restaurant will become non-smoking. We do not need legislation continually coming in that dictates where we will eat or smoke. Thank you Mr Chairperson and seeing as I have been pulled up so many times I shall sit down.
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6668] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The usual ruling is that the third speaker in a debate is from a Government party either the Labour Party or the United Future party and a New Zealand First member is the fourth speaker. I understand that it is possible for United Future or for the Labour Party to concede its position as to its speaker. If I am informed by the Labour Party or by United Future that that is the case obviously we will not get the call. However I want to make that clear so that we do not lose our position in this situation.
Swain Paul: Taxation (Base Maintenance and MiscellaneousProvisions) Bill — First Reading 
Swain Paul: Taxation (Base Maintenance and MiscellaneousProvisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18067] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 This is very interesting. Here we are at quarter to 10 on a Friday morning arguing down to the wire with the National Party about something Labour and National both agree on. That is quite an interesting tactic being employed by the National Party. 
I want firstly to congratulate the Minister of Finance. Of course I am not the only one to do this. I understand that on 95bFM recently John Key when asked who his politician of the year was said it was the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. We all agree on that. I say to John Key that the Labour Party membership fee is only $11 and all is forgiven. He would be a good Labour Party member. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Good State house boy. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes he is a good State house boy so he would understand Labour’s very good housing policy. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Income-related rents. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes of course he understands income-related rents. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That’s how he got here. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is indeed how he got here. We share John Key’s enthusiasm for the work the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has done in the finance portfolio and we support John Key in his support for the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
This is a good measure in a good bill. It is kind of understandable that the ACT party opposes it because it just does not like tax full stop. It is hard to understand New Zealand First because sometimes those members do like tax and sometimes they do not. 
Darren Hughes 
: They’re not even members of the Kiwibank. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is right. It is sometimes hard to understand what their position on tax is. They are very enthusiastic about having a lot of tax go into things like inquiries. They call for inquiries virtually every day of the week. They call for inquiries on this royal commissions on that and investigations into the other—taxpayers’ money going into those kinds of things—but they have a strange and odd view when it comes to other matters. 
This is really an important measure as part of the Government’s tax policy work programme. As members will know part of that programme—it is not just about tax—is about promoting growth and innovation. I hear a bell; I think it is a message from Auckland that my time may be up. There are lots of things I would like to talk about on the fabulous work that this Government and this Minister of Finance have done but I think it is sufficient to say that this is a thoroughly good bill. It is well supported from outside and I look forward to its speedy progression through the House through the select committee and ultimately through Parliament.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Malaysia—Prime Minister 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Malaysia—Prime Minister 
[Volume:624;Page:19509] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Prime Minister of Malaysia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. We also wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
The Hon Dato’ Seri Abdullah accompanied by the Prime Minister entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Pettis Jill: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12332] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 This is a good bill that has had considerable debate in the House during this urgency process. The important principle underpinning this bill is that of artistic freedom. The bill will absolutely ensure that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra can operate without ministerial direction in all artistic matters. We are incredibly fortunate in New Zealand with the calibre and quality of the Symphony Orchestra. 
I am pleased to support this bill. It has had huge discussion during the urgency motion. I think the best thing we can do now is move it on and have it passed so that New Zealanders can continue to enjoy the high-quality music we have come to expect from the orchestra.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16854] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill now read a third time. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 18 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 6; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Power Simon: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15572] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 As speakers before me have indicated National will oppose the first reading of the Historic Places Amendment Bill. We have some grave concerns about the way in which the Government is attempting to restructure the governance arrangements of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Although the explanatory note to the bill states that the Government is keen to increase and strengthen accountability measures it is clear from the provisions of the bill that the Government wishes to increase its stranglehold on the trust in a way that would see its independence and frankly its credibility threatened because of the way this bill proposes to adjust governance arrangements. 
The explanatory note states: “The Trust’s governance arrangements are strengthened by among other measures reducing the size of the Trust Board from 11 to 9 members”. Although members on this side of the House would on the face of it applaud fewer positions on Government boards and the like what concerns us more is that when one reads further through the explanatory note it states that the bill would increase the number of Crown appointments from three members to six on a board of nine members. So six members out of a total of nine would be Crown appointments. 
I have left it to the very capable Georgina te Heuheu and Paul Hutchison to outline other details relating to our opposition but I will just ask how and on what basis could the governance of the trust be strengthened by increasing Government representation on the board. Once again this Government has formed the very ideological view that the Government knows best how to govern arrangements and boards such as this and that it is not for the public or any other organisations to make appointments that would accurately reflect those with an interest or a stake in this particular trust. Instead the Government in all its benevolence will know exactly who should make up the members of that board and with the majority of those members being Government appointments who is most appropriate to sit on that board. 
Members on this side of the House say that that is not good enough. This Government cannot resist constantly digging its fingers claws and clutches further into organisations everyday life foundations and the like that do a pretty good job without the Government interfering in their day-to-day governance arrangements. I think as members on this side of the House do that the Government is selling the Historic Places Trust short by saying “We know best.” Members on this side of the House dispute that strongly. I endorse the comments made by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu—our lead speaker on this bill—and Dr Paul Hutchison. I reconfirm that National will be opposing this bill.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6638] 
8.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: Is the New Zealand Customs Service doing its part to stamp out the international trafficking of illegal drugs across the borders of our major trading partners? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Yes New Zealand Customs Service drug investigators recently responded to a call from Australian authorities in the investigation of large-scale cocaine trafficking into Australia possibly using New Zealand as a transit point. The operation resulted in the arrest last week of 20 people in Sydney Denmark and the United States for conspiracy to import cocaine. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is there evidence that New Zealand is being used as a transit point to get drugs into other countries and what additional support is the Government providing in the fight against international drug trafficking? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes intelligence available to the Customs Service shows that New Zealand continues to be used as a transit point for bulk drug shipments into larger drug markets such as Australia and the United States. This Government has allocated an extra $1.9 million in this year’s Budget to boost a customs drugs team in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch—which means 12 specialist investigators and four intelligence analysts to help combat the worldwide drug problem. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Minister concerned that rising instability in the Pacific—as the current situation in the Solomons demonstrates—is hampering efforts to curb international drug trafficking in our area; and if he shares that concern has he made specific proposals to his colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade about ways in which New Zealand might act to alleviate that problem; if so what are they? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The issues raised by the member are of concern. As yet we have nothing to suggest that the instability in the Pacific has had an impact on the drug trade in New Zealand. However New Zealand and Australia continue to work through customs organisations—for example the Oceania Customs Organisation—to help ensure the quality and integrity of customs organisations throughout the Pacific.
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18843] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member there was an incident earlier when a member had to withdraw and apologise. The member was responding to an interjection. So by way of advice to the Committee I say to members that interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the call. In that case members were interjecting on each other and that can lead to disorder.
Tamihere John: Third Readings 
Tamihere John: Third Readings 
[Volume:620;Page:16131] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of this legislation and in doing so I acknowledge that National will not support it. It does not support the infrequent sojourns of its leader coming down to the House—it does not support many things in the House but it does not propose anything either. This is most regretful. What National does do however is that it does support us. Roger Sowry the outgoing shoe salesman who is due to set up business in Levin as a salesman said that the Labour Government must now step up and show some direction. That is exactly what this legislation does. Roger Sowry has also renounced as he rightly should have the Bradford reforms. We have had to unbundle those and we are putting in a regulator as we had to in telecommunications and so on and so forth. So we are a Government of solutions and I commend this legislation to the House. I just wish that New Zealand First would support the legislation rather than being mean-spirited as usual. 
I conclude by saying that the great genius and legend in his own mind Brian Connell who is about to take a call—I cannot recall what seat he represents nor can his constituents—said this: “I think the electricity reforms of the late 90s under Max Bradford were ill conceived. National has accepted that we got it wrong with these reforms.” That is what he stated in the  
Ashburton Guardian 
. 
Brian Connell 
: It was the  
Timaru Herald 
. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Well in the  
Timaru Herald  
as well. But he neglected to add that National also got it wrong when it confirmed his nomination for the seat. I commend the legislation to the House.
Chadwick Steve: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6746] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 This is a technical bill that I am proud to support.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20980] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to the heading to clause 16 be agreed to.
Carter Chris: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter Chris: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17007] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15649] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification of exactly how the votes on clauses 1 and 2 will be taken. Will they be taken together or separately? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I was just starting on that point. The question will be put separately on clause 1 and then on clause 2.
Peters Winston: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17639] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I clearly was not here when you applied that ruling but my real point is this: we are members of Parliament engaging in public debate in a debating chamber so surely members should have the right to interject if they feel moved to do so rather than have a restrictive environment in which no one may interject at all. Some of the views about to be expressed today are offensive to various members. I think that in the true tradition of a parliamentary democracy members have the right to reflect what their opinions might be even if that be by way of interjection. With the greatest respect I think to do anything less than that is to deny people their rights in this Parliament.
Pillay Lynne: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6535] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 This bill is business friendly. It reduces unnecessary compliance costs and other impediments to business. It is important that the ongoing improvement of business law continues in this country. We have received many comments in response to and in support of this bill from many many people—from the Institute of Directors and the New Zealand business society Business New Zealand and from Westpac the Financial Services Federation and many more. This bill is good for business and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Points of Order — Member’s withdrawal from Chamber ; Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
Vote: Points of Order — Member’s withdrawal from Chamber ; Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
[Volume:609;Page:6227] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Nick: General Debates 
Smith Nick: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8552] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The piece of information the Minister has relates to my personal affairs. Under the Privacy Act and under the Standing Orders of the House any official papers can be required to be tabled. Either the Minister is now saying the information is incorrect and he does not have the courage to table it— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is out of order. The member is a long-standing member of Parliament and he knows he cannot doubt another member’s courage. The member will apologise for that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw that statement. But this is an important issue. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member has not apologised yet. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will apologise if that will fix the problem. I simply say that Mr Harry Duynhoven in his speech made certain statements about my personal affairs that were incorrect. He said he had a piece of paper to back them up and that he would table it. My colleagues heard that. I think he should act on his word; otherwise the House should reflect on why he is not prepared to do so.
Tisch Lindsay: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19597] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Does he need to seek leave to change the New Zealand First vote? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No he does not because we now do not have a vote. I have not announced the result.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17080] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 50 be agreed to: 
to omit from the heading the words “or cancelling”.
Swain Paul: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16044] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am required to make a very small contribution in reply to that member because if he were to read clause 8 of the bill he would see that the employee is not entitled to be paid at time and a half. It is quite clear in the legislation. That is one of the reasons we are doing this. It was one of the criticisms that if someone were sick on a public holiday and at home that person could be paid at time and a half. The legislation cannot be any clearer than this: the employee “is not entitled to be paid at time and half”. It cannot be any clearer than that. 
If we are reduced to having a debate in Parliament where not only do members not read the bill but they do not understand it then there is very little point in us carrying on with the discussion. I urge members to read the bill before they get to their feet.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22332] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9099] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before Mr English spoke you reprimanded the House and said that this is an important constitutional debate and that you would insist on the highest standards. I waited because I thought perhaps you did not intend to break up Mr English’s speech and would reprimand members now at the conclusion of his speech. We saw two extremely unparliamentary actions during his speech. The first was made by the co-leader of the Green Party. He walked between Mr English and yourself conducted a conversation with the Clerk then came back and started to make gestures towards the Opposition like a soccer hooligan. The second grossly unparliamentary action was the Attorney-General deciding to stand in the gangway—standing is completely out of order when interjecting—and heckle Mr English as she walked ignoring you. I believe that those two members should be reprimanded by you for their conduct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will do that because I thought that the interjection should not have been made in that way. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise for interjecting. 
Hon Margaret Wilson 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Donald broke one of the traditions. One does not go in front of the member when one is 
moving in that way. I think the point was validly taken.
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19997] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19190] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Administration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven   
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke   
Shirley(P) 
Barnett   
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams   
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole   
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7249] 
A party vote 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Vote agreed to. 
was called for on the question  
That  
Vote Education be agreed to.