edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Income Tax Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 195 to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
Cullen Michael: Income Tax Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 195 to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11775] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion at the Business Committee I wish to seek leave for the procedures to be followed in passing the Income Tax Bill. I seek leave for Supplementary Order Paper 195 relating to the Income Tax Bill to be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration.
Newman Muriel: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Newman Muriel: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4047] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek some clarification. I was of the understanding that once a vote is started it cannot be interrupted. I wonder whether the Assistant Speaker would mind clarifying that point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I have heard as much as I need to hear and I thank all the members for their contribution.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18854] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 14 be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Smith Murray: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Murray: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6108. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I provide notice that pursuant to note 2 of Appendix A to the Standing Orders I intend to share this speaking slot with my colleague Gordon Copeland. Each of us will take 5 minutes.
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15588] 
11.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When she met with the Thai Prime Minister ThaksinShinawatra in July to discuss progress on a trade deal between New Zealand and Thailand did she raise any concerns regarding environmental and labour standards and human rights abuses in Thailand; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The New Zealand Government has raised trade and environment issues in the context of the negotiation of the trade agreement and the approach we are taking was canvassed in my meeting with Mr Thaksin. 
Rod Donald 
: Why is her Government negotiating a preferential trade deal with a country that routinely exploits child workers and flouts International Labour Organization conventions on child labour? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government acts in the belief that if Thailand’s economy grows through trade its living standards will rise and Thais will be able to negotiate better pay and conditions. 
Rod Donald 
: Did the Prime Minister ask Prime Minister Thaksin what benefit he and his family are likely to gain from a preferential trade deal with New Zealand given that they personally own at least 10 percent of the Thai stock exchange as well as vast assets in unlisted companies? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. 
Rod Donald 
: Did she ask him why he suppressed information about the bird flu outbreak in Thailand until after it had spread to neighbouring countries and infected large numbers of workers; and is that the kind of behaviour her Government rewards with a preferential trade deal? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No nor can I see any relationship of that to the primary question. 
Rod Donald 
: Is the Prime Minister confident that the removal of the 19 percent tariff on this Nike jacket which was made in a Thai sweat shop and sells in New Zealand at Rebel Sport for $160 would reduce its retail price and lift the 78c hourly wage rate paid to the women clothing workers who made it; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Whether that reduces the price will be entirely a matter for competitive forces here in New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Prime Minister any reason to believe that if New Zealand took action to prevent the sale of products produced in Thailand that may reduce the 78c-an-hour wage rate? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It almost certainly would do so if the Thais could not export their goods here. 
Rod Donald 
: I seek leave to table an article from the Melbourne  
Age  
from 3 July—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask Mr Donald to start again. 
Rod Donald 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Age 
 from 3 July which highlights the conflict of interest Prime Minister Thaksin has in relation to trade deals. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is.
Mackey Moana: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11450] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6977] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Stewart Barbara: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4463] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to speak against the title of this Prostitution Reform Bill. To me reform implies there are increased health and safety requirements. However I cannot see anything in the bill that will safeguard the men women and children who are involved in the sex industry despite this attempt to normalise prostitution by writing in health and safety requirements—such as that applying in any manufacturing workplace. There is no way that anything that happens behind closed doors in a brothel can be managed by the owner in the same way as in a manufacturing environment or any other workplace in New Zealand. 
The women mainly involved in the sex industry in this country deserve to be safe but I cannot see anything in this bill that does that. Any building that is used in a manufacturing environment or for the sale of goods must meet the requirements of the building code and be registered for the business. The registration is usually checked on a pretty regular basis—at least annually. I believe that if this bill was really serious about health and safety for prostitutes then the same building safety regulations would be in place and some external agency could go in and check on them. But unfortunately they are not. I know that the buildings that are used for these purposes are normally not up to reasonably good safety standards. I believe if this bill was serious it would ensure that there were regular checks and also registration to ensure the safety of the people working in these buildings. 
To me reform gives the impression that something is better than it was. This bill does nothing to promote the safety of the men women and children who are working in this industry. Reform implies that this work is a legal safe career choice but there is no safety inherent in the bill. I would like to think that safety included safety of the environment. There is nothing in the bill that does that. If the work is legal then the industry really needs to follow the same requirements as any other workplace. The health and safety measures in this bill imply the industry is self-regulating but without the interference of some other body those measures cannot be enforced. The bill has a very serious flaw in this area.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10557] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules be agreed to. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedules agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4400] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 61 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 16(1) be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:622;Page:17621] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House I will be moving urgency for the following business to be debated: the remaining stages of the Aquaculture Reform Bill the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill; all first readings on the Order Paper; the introduction and first reading of the Prisoners and Victims Compensation Bill; the Government notice of motion relating to the setting up of the special select committee to review the constitution; and the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and possibly the Identity Citizenship and Travel Documents Bill. The Law Society has requested that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill be done under urgency next week. If the above business is concluded the adjournment debate will be moved. The motion will include the House sitting dates for 2005.
Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5496] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I recommend the title of this bill to the Committee. This bill is about amending the Resource Management Act in a very positive way. In fact I am tempted to consider as an alternative title the “Resource Management Reform Bill” because we are moving in the right direction albeit slowly and with some very small steps. Unlike the Prostitution Reform Bill which is going in the wrong direction and does not have a right to use the word “reform” in its title in the case of this bill that would be good. 
I want to begin by thanking the officials who have helped us through the process on this bill. It has been an informative process for me and continues to be in this Chamber. This bill has opened my eyes to a whole new gamut of power plays and political stunts as we have sought to serve the public of New Zealand by getting this bill finally through the House—and that will happen. We are very encouraged by the progress we are making today and we look forward to the bill finally passing later on. 
The title of the bill is significant. This is the No. 2 amendment bill. We look forward to the continuation of this process with perhaps the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3). I do not know whether the bill will be called that but we will continue the process of reform. We are constantly thinking up and generating ideas for how the Act can be improved in response to our consultation with people across the business and planning communities and with the general public. 
I want to make a quick response to something that the Hon Nick Smith said earlier. He questioned our claim that we were getting limited notification into this bill. Nick Smith needs to understand that just drafting something does not necessarily get it through into the legislation. The Hon Nick Smith could write things all day long and he still would not change a single dot of the law. We fully understood that the Government had already drafted something but we are assisting in getting that part of the legislation through in this bill and we are very proud of that. People have wanted limited notification. Even the National Party itself which initially put forward the idea should be thrilled today that limited notification will finally be seeing the light of day in law. 
We have enjoyed the cooperation we have had from the Minister Marian Hobbs and I commend her today. We will continue to enjoy working with her and working on improvements to the Act.
Worth Richard: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4055] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It had not been my intention to take a call in respect of this very important bill but I would like to say on behalf of National members in the context of opposing this legislation that in terms of where Donna Awatere Huata stands and where National stands there are significant points in common. National stands for educational excellence. We do not see in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) structural frameworks anything that is reflective of that position. 
The bill itself may be without merit. That is certainly the position that National has taken. But the underlying ethos of the bill which is all about choice and a commitment to not dumbing down our system is something that we passionately believe in. It is a source of sadness that a number of schools have chosen to desert the NCEA framework and instead to pursue other options in the context of achieving favourable outcomes for pupils at their respective schools. If I look at for example what has gone on in the schools in my electorate that have opted for non-NCEA options I see it is readily apparent from schools of excellence like Auckland Grammar and other schools that there needs to be a commitment given to standards in education that stretch and challenge pupils to higher standards. 
I simply say that in seeing the end of this bill we should all do so with a sense of sadness that we have been committed to a pathway that is consistent with dross and not with excellence.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11299] 
11.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Ministry of Social Development’s Work and Income Service doing in the Auckland region to assist professionally qualified migrants find suitable work? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Work and Income has a number of programmes to assist migrants into work. One of these is a partnership between Work and Income and the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. This has been very successful. Already almost 200 people have participated in the programme with over half getting permanent work in their relevant professions. I would like to record my appreciation for the contribution by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and its members who have made the programme a success and I look forward to seeing it grow in success over the years. 
Dave Hereora 
: How does this work experience programme assist migrants to find work? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Because the Chamber of Commerce takes a lead role in the programme it opens up opportunities for migrants to gain work experience in the New Zealand context. The prospective employer gets a better understanding of migrants’ abilities and creates a situation more likely for a successful employment outcome. The programme is so good that in the last week the Chamber of Commerce has been approached by 40 new employers interested in the scheme. I look forward to the chamber having continued success. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: If Work and Income is making an effort to assist professionally qualified migrants to find suitable work would the Minister give a categorical assurance to this House that this will not be done at the expense of our own citizens? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Some of these migrants are citizens of New Zealand but I want to give that member an unqualified assurance that it is not at the expense of any other group. In fact this Government and Work and Income have been outrageously successful. We now have the lowest unemployment record in New Zealand for 16 years and we should all congratulate the service on that.
Vote: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Vote: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:13989] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 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. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Power Simon: Speaker’s Rulings — Members’ Speeches—Termination 
Power Simon: Speaker’s Rulings — Members’ Speeches—Termination 
[Volume:622;Page:18041] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before my colleague Brian Connell leads off the debate for the National Party I seek a point of clarification. Earlier during this session I sought a ruling from you as to whether a member’s speech was terminated at the point that the member resumed his or her seat. You said that you would come back to me on that. I am not asking you for that ruling now. I just wondered in what time frame we can expect the ruling to be made.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12996] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3834] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 8.
Hutchison Paul: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hutchison Paul: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10857] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There is certainly nothing progressive about that diatribe of denial we heard from Matt Robson. Several hours ago we heard the queen of spin addressing the people of New Zealand and making her annual statement. It was quite fascinating. Unlike the previous years there was no mention of the upper half of the OECD not one and no mention of the knowledge wave. She has gone silent. Certainly she was talking about them in previous years. 
Why does she not mention the upper half of the OECD? Because under this Labour Government New Zealand will never get there. There is just no prediction possible of how this Labour Government’s policy setting will get New Zealand into the upper half of the OECD. What we have seen over the last few years has been some growth—growth despite the Government not because of it. In many respects this Government is almost like an alcoholic. We have seen Labour members absolutely overdosed on serendipity and it has gone to their heads. Instead of really disciplining themselves on the policy of growth what do they do? They do the very opposite of what world economists are telling us to do. What did they do? They brought in the Employment Relations Bill. Compliance costs have absolutely gone out of the window. There is the taxation policy and finally there is lack of choice in education. Let us just look—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12574] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Motions — America's Cup—Support for Team New Zealand 
Motions — America's Cup—Support for Team New Zealand 
[Volume:606;Page:3339] 
Wednesday 12 February 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
America's Cup—Support for Team New Zealand 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That this House expresses its support for Team New Zealand and sends its best wishes for a successful defence of the America’s Cup 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18529] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fact I know that it was Mr Prebble but I decided because of the fact that he is a long-serving member that I would ignore it. As Speaker I am entitled to do so occasionally. I wish there were not these pointless points of order which are pretty irrelevant.
Donald Rod: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Donald Rod: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7284] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate to be extended by the amount of time which parties have not been able to utilise as per the allocation done by the senior Government whip. In the case of the Green Party we have been able to use only 22 minutes of the 36 minutes allocated to us. I would like briefly to make the observation that there appears to be a perverse incentive during this debate whereby if one behaves well one misses out on time and if one behaves badly one gets extra time. I think that wider matter needs to be addressed by you in consultation with the Business Committee but for now I seek leave for extra time to enable us to get our fair share of this debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I take the leave which I will do immediately I point out that there was no Business Committee agreement on the allocation of time for the estimates debate. Indeed the allocation of the time for the estimates debate was never discussed at the Business Committee. If the whips work out agreements it is incumbent on them to settle disputes about them and not have the time of the House wasted by agreements being litigated on the floor of the House. Both Mr McGee and I were present at the Business Committee. Leave is sought to extend the debate. Is there any objection? There is. 
Debate resumed.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17248] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
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 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Procedure 
[Volume:616;Page:12365] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the consideration of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) to include the consideration and adoption of amendments to the Local Government Act 1974 foreshadowed at the Business Committee meeting last week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7781] 
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 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to insert new clause 3A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 3 the followingnew clause: 
3AApplication 
This Act shall apply for the period from 14 August 2002 to 6 August 2003.
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11655] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph 3(a) the words “31 December 2004” and substitute the words “1 April 2004”.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:627;Page:21897] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think it is most unlikely the bill will pass before the election. I am not aware of any applications by Australian trout to enter our waters but of course we are keen that people can have access up our waterways to get to the trout.
Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:613;Page:9837] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Donna Awatere Huata 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the acting leader of the ACT party that ACT’s parliamentary membership has changed and that Donna Awatere Huata is no longer a member of ACT for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly under Standing Order 34(3) Donna Awatere Huata is from 11 November 2003 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes. 
At this point at least no question of the member’s seat becoming vacant under the provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 arises. That Act sets out certain conditions and procedures under which a member can be expelled from the political party for which he or she was elected. The acting leader of ACT has indicated an intention to invoke that legislation. Whether that is possible is a matter that does not arise at this time. 
ACT now has eight members of Parliament. I will therefore consult with the Green and ACT parties about the seating to be occupied by them in the Chamber. The Business Committee will need to reconsider the allocation of questions. I will reconsider the allocation of first and second reading and general debate speaking slots. I expect these matters to be settled by the end of this week. In the meantime the present allocations will continue to run though the Green Party now the third largest in the House will be called ahead of ACT to vote and to speak in debate. Allocations of funding to ACT and to Donna Awatere Huata will need to be readjusted to reflect the new party balances. This is a matter that I will attend to on advice from the Parliamentary Service Commission. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I heard you correctly you indicated to the House that the Green Party is now the third-largest party in Parliament. I do not believe that is so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I should have said fourth. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was my point of order. The error was clearly a case of wishful thinking on the part of some people or a typographical error. But when I get up for a point of order I expect you if I am asking for one at the same time as another member to respect the issue of seniority in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Absolutely; I always have. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You didn’t then! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I always have done except that time. As this ruling involved the ACT party I felt obliged to call the acting leader of ACT for a point of order first. But I take the member’s point. He is technically correct.
Hobbs Marian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5350] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee and that it be an instruction to the committee to present its final report on or before 5 September 2003 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during questions for oral answer—and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). 
 referred to the Education and Science Committee
Ewen-Street Ian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Ewen-Street Ian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8858] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would like to seek the leave of the Committee for my two colleagues Jeanette Fitzsimons and Sue Kedgley to give speeches on this particular clause. There may be members from other parties in the Committee who wish to speak and who feel they have been unfairly shut out of the discussion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The closure cannot be debated. Members must seek leave for themselves. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I seek leave to make a further contribution to the Committee in this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. I will put the vote. All those in favour say “Aye”; to the contrary— 
Simon Power 
: This is the vote for the closure? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes.
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 
[Volume:607;Page:4503] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three separate papers pages 2520 3135 and 3186-87 to do with the citizenship of Samoa bill introduced on 24 August 1982 showing that the Labour Party supported the bill—
Ogilvy Bernie: General Debates 
Ogilvy Bernie: General Debates 
[Volume:610;Page:7239] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 Today I want to share the fact that life is not a game of Monopoly. My brief appeal today is for every member of this Parliament to stop playing Monopoly with other people’s precious lives. Yesterday a very small number of brave MPs attended a meeting and heard and saw heart-wrenching graphic life-and-death stories from some mums and dads and friends of people who have been murdered in this country. Each of them expressed the point that as a result of a vicious murderer they were now innocent victims of what is no more than a gutless justice system. As a result in their minds people are saying that the murderer is out of jail but they the victims are still in jail. They made a very strong plea for all MPs and this Parliament in particular to give actual meaning to the words “Life means life.” 
So today along with those who were there and together with my United Future colleagues I join their cries for justice. They meant there should be no parole ever again. Many of the murders we heard about yesterday were committed while the murderer was on parole or indeed on bail. As in the game of Monopoly “Go to jail.” means just that not: go on some well-kept visit or holiday programme for a few years. As in the game of Monopoly “Do not pass Go.” must mean that. There is no revolving door; the door is closed once someone is inside. As in the game of Monopoly “Do not collect $200.” means just that. No financial help for the murderer is required. As in the game of Monopoly I notice that everyone else can then go about their lives peacefully and gainfully. 
Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister stating that a dog that had mauled a child should be killed and the owner face serious charges and at the same time making a speedy promise to put legislation into place to stop vicious dog breeds—with which I believe that everyone agreed. But is there any urgency about the two-legged mongrels who have killed innocent citizens in this country? The answer is no. These victims come from next door. They come from every walk of life from all around New Zealand. They voted us to be here in this building in Parliament to be their voice. They are disillusioned—yes some even mentioned they were bitter—by our New Zealand justice system. They cried out against the liberal do-gooders who somehow have hidden themselves in this Parliament. 
As an MP I am ashamed at the lack of fortitude among us all. My colleague Marc Alexander in February this year in this Parliament called for a cross-party voice for these victims. I sincerely reopen that invitation to us all. New Zealanders want some hope from us. Let us return their trust by doing something together in this MMP environment. United Future members add their voice to the Sensible Sentencing Trust and to the tens of thousands of Kiwis who by the way have had enough. A life sentence must mean life with no parole. That surely is a clear common-sense message.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5072] 
The question was put 
that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) of clause 10 and substitute the following subclause: 
(1)The responsible Ministers or any other Minister or any person acting by or on behalf of or at the direction of any Minister or Te Putahi Paoho or a member of Te Putahi Paoho or a director acting without the authority of the board must not direct the Service or any subsidiary of the Service or any director officer or employee of the Service in respect of-- 
(a)a particular programme; 
(b)a particular allegation or complaint relating to a particular programme; 
(c)the gathering or presentation of news or the preparation or presentation of current affairs programmes; 
programme standards.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19830] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Simich Clem: General Debate 
Simich Clem: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16557] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. It should not have been raised.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Appointment of Crown Observer 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Appointment of Crown Observer 
[Volume:623;Page:18805] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the appointment of a Crown observer to Te Wananga o Aotearoa. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not consider that the addition of a Crown observer to the council requires the immediate attention of the House today. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to explore that. The application is declined.
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:20978] 
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 following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d).
Franks Stephen: General Debates 
Franks Stephen: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8552] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider whether this might not be worth a considered ruling because when a member says that he or she has a document and is prepared to table it in effect it is a double verification. It is a form of statement that makes it very hard to challenge what that member is saying. It is an attempt to give it absolute veracity. I ask that you consider when a member does that and then fails to follow through whether that member is either deliberately misleading the House or is reflecting on the character of another member in a way that is deliberately designed to leave an impression of absolute veracity that cannot then be tested. In other words it is beyond the scope of the normal situation where a member cannot be forced to table something. When a member has offered to table under these circumstances we may need a ruling stating that it will be unparliamentary not to follow through; otherwise we are left in the position whereby someone is essentially claiming absolute veracity and then cannot be challenged on that.
Coddington Deborah: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Coddington Deborah: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10147] 
8.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
Yes because they are all conscientious and hard-working. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does she stand by her Minister of Education’s school network reviews that could see up to 300 schools closed; if so what does she say to Blackball’s angry families who at a meeting with the Minister slammed Labour’s review of the West Coast as morally inept and socially naive? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I would say is that it would be irresponsible for the Minister not to be looking at school networks given the advice he has from his ministry that over the next 15 years there will be a net fall of 63000 in the number of primary school pupils. It would be irresponsible for the Minister to let schools drift to unviability like little yellow ducks. 
Simon Power 
: What messages is the Prime Minister sending to rural New Zealand—which provides this Government with its surpluses—given that according to reports Auckland is to get 16 new schools while the fate of 163 mainly rural schools lies in the balance as part of those network reviews? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand from the Minister that 70 percent of the children are in urban areas and Auckland of course is experiencing quite rapid population growth which requires the building of new schools. What this Minister has done is to get out and front up to communities to talk with them and listen to them from one end of the country to the other about the issues—not something his predecessors in the National Government did. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Joking aside about schoolchildren how can the Prime Minister look Blackball mothers in the eye when they are forced by her Minister of Education to send their children to a new school and how can she tell them that the closing of their school is in the best interests of their families? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I can say to the Blackball parents is that no decisions have been made about their school and that under ACT they would be lucky to get any free State education at all.
Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4527] 
Government Communications Security Bureau Bill 
Third Reading 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to retake the vote on the third reading of the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is not. I return then to the vote on the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to be pedantic but I raise with you a difficulty that the National caucus finds itself in in voting on this at this stage in that when this vote was originally taken approximately an hour ago we had 27 members of Parliament available to vote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is perfectly in order for the member to vote with that number. That is perfectly in order and I so rule.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (NO 2) — Third Readings 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (NO 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14198] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 91 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 25 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bills read a third time.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17410] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Civil Union Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 65 
Anderton(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke 
Simich 
Barker 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J 
Sutton 
Barnett 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Gallagher 
Maharey 
Tanczos 
Beyer 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard 
Bradford(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Hartley 
Mark 
Ward(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hawkins 
Okeroa 
Wilson 
Chadwick 
Hereora 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hide 
Peck 
Yates 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay 
Cullen 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel 
Hughes 
Ririnui 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley 
Roy 
Duncan 
King 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Dyson 
Laban(P) 
Shirley 
Pettis 
Noes 55 
Adams 
Dunne(P) 
O’Connor 
Tamihere 
Alexander 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy 
te Heuheu 
Ardern(P) 
Eckhoff 
Paraone 
Tisch 
Baldock(P) 
English(P) 
Perry 
Turia(P) 
Brash(P) 
Field 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brown 
Franks 
Peters W (P) 
Wang 
Brownlee(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Williamson 
Carter D (P) 
Gudgeon 
Robertson 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Heatley 
Ryall 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington 
Jones 
Smith L 
Collins 
Key(P) 
Smith M 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland 
McNair 
Sowry(P) 
Teller: 
Cosgrove 
Newman 
Stewart 
Mapp 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.
Brownlee Gerry: Motions — Presidential Election USA—Congratulations 
Brownlee Gerry: Motions — Presidential Election USA—Congratulations 
[Volume:621;Page:16594] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The New Zealand National Party also wants to join in the motion congratulating President Bush and Vice-President Cheney on their re-election for another 4-year term. The United States is one of the largest democracies in the world and it is always fascinating to watch how despite all the perceived difficulties the transition of authority from one administration to the other takes place—in this case the continuation of an administration. We hope that New Zealand is able to improve its trading relations with the United States. It is an important country. President Bush has won this election with the largest-ever popular vote in the United States. There was a huge turn-out to the polls. Although Mr Kerry has lost the election he was certainly instrumental in provoking a lot of thought about the state of the world and he should be congratulated on that. We would make the comment that perhaps the New Zealand media might have been a little slicker in understanding that the election was a choice for the American people rather than for the rest of the world. I conclude by once again congratulating Mr Bush and all his administration.
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12192] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. I want to thank members for their readiness to stand and support me on this legislation. It is interesting that an afternoon in the Chamber is quite an educational process for people. I want to say a special thankyou to members of the Education and Science Committee in the House at the moment: Lynne Pillay and especially Brian Donnelly who chaired the committee. [ 
Interruption 
] And Bernie Ogilvy; I apologise. There is no doubt that the bill is a better bill as a result of their work. 
I will express slight amazement at the Green Party’s voting. Their voting against the bill does not surprise me very much but their voting against the improvements made in the select committee—lining up with ACT and the National Party on that—really surprised me. This is a bill around which some unholy alliances have been built. That ACT and the National Party voted for teachers being paid while on strike is a really interesting and novel approach although not one that I would expect from them. 
One can work one’s way right back on this bill. There was a New Zealand Educational Institute official whose name I will not mention who when this bill was first mooted indicated to me that this measure is what the private sector had always done and the current position had to go some time. This bill makes it very clear that people do not get paid to be on strike. That is the proper approach and as a long-term trade unionist I know that that is part of the deal.