edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8519] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say that I did not invite any member of the police force to do anything. I made it perfectly clear that I was not going to interfere in this way at all and that maintains my position on that subject.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question Time—Presence of Prime Minister  
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question Time—Presence of Prime Minister  
[Volume:611;Page:8441] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question is really addressed to the Leader of the House. I have had a look at the questions for today and I have to ask him whether the Prime Minister intends to visit the House this week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member that I know because of a phone call I had from the Prime Minister that her plane was late. She is due down here in about 5 minutes.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3784] 
12.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: What commitment is the Government making towards business development for Pacific people? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Acting Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 The Government provides $930000 annually to the Pacific Business Trust which this week opened a new office in Porirua. The trust has already helped hundreds of Pacific businesses and individuals by providing advice and support.  
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What services does the trust provide? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The trust offers businesses funding support and advice research funding scholarships and art awards. It is extending its reach through partnerships with other businesses and organisations such as WestpacTrust and Business Porirua. 
John Key 
: Will the Minister be seeking a preferential tax rate for Pacific Island corporations or is that something that is solely reserved by this Labour Government for Maori organisations; if not why not? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have pointed out repeatedly that when questions are being asked they are to be answered by the Minister they are addressed to. Lianne Dalziel was sitting there and yelling out through that answer and I say that what you apply to the Opposition side of the House you should apply to the Government side of the House.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do and questions will be heard in silence. That one was. There was a comment made before the answer but after the question had been finished.  
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am pleased to report that many Pacific Island businesses are doing extremely well under the present funding arrangements.  
Paul Adams 
: In the light of reports that one particular Government development for Pacific peoples—Niu FM—is already in trouble after less than a year in operation when will the Minister’s Government be releasing a report into alleged mismanagement of the radio station? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can report to this House that there have been some difficulties at Niu FM but I am very pleased that Pacific radio is broadcasting daily around the country.
Robertson H V Ross: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20989] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The additional amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 45(3) is ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 46 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “to the offender”.
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16346] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I just to want to make our position clear. We have used a split vote and we will probably use it again but we have never used it on the basis that we will not divulge who voted for and who voted against. 
Simon Power 
: Nobody is saying we won’t. Give us a ring and we’ll tell you. 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Power that I am not prepared to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Brown was speaking. He had the floor on a point of order. I just want to clarify the matter. It is actually very simple. The point is that the House can give leave as it so wishes and that is exactly what it has done. Mr Power is right as Mr Burton has reinforced that the member has the right to take the matter to the Standing Orders Committee and I certainly suggest that he could do that. However I assure the member that everything has been done correctly. There is no intention on anybody’s part to stop a member from doing anything but the House has taken the action that it did and it had every right to do that. If the member wants to know how individual members have voted he will have to contact them individually. It is not a matter for the Chairperson to look behind the numbers in any party vote. If a member calls a party vote the Chairperson or the Speaker for that matter has no right to know who did not or did vote.
Barnett Tim: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16639] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Event: Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 
Event: Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 
[Volume:627;Page:22227] 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I want to take this early opportunity to clarify and put in context a statement I made in the House this afternoon in relation to which the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade subsequently tabled an edited document. 
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade refused to release to me under the Official Information Act notes claimed to have been taken at a meeting I had with a group of visiting US senators. A confidential summary of notes taken at the meeting was eventually made available to me but it contained none of the Minister’s claim. Under the Privacy Act part of what the Minister has claimed was released to me. 
The allegation by Labour that I proposed a US-funded campaign to change our antinuclear legislation is utterly untrue. To the extent that the note released by Mr Goff implies that I wanted to invite a US think tank to run such a campaign in this country is equally untrue. New Zealanders will note that Mr Goff continues to refuse to release the full notes from the meeting because he knows that any balanced report of the discussion will show his Labour Government in the poorest of lights.
Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill — Third Readings 
Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6400] 
Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bills read a third time.
Sowry Roger: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9022] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have quoted the first sentence of Standing Order 301—and you are right—“The member in charge of a bill can require that all amendments in that member’s name to a provision be put as one question.” The second sentence states: “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of a bill is taken ahead of other amendments at the same place of the bill.” That is the issue. My colleague Mr Worth has rightly asked for the Speaker to be recalled because the voting order of the amendments is wrong. What we are contending is quite simple. If the Minister wants the amendments to be taken as one that is fine and should be done upfront. But once you start to take other amendments then you cannot take the Minister’s amendments as one. If that were the case and if that is the advice you are now getting then it was wrong that in the Gambling Bill we just debated for example our amendments were ruled out of order because the Minister’s amendments were taken as one upfront. If the Minister decides to take his or her amendments as one question the question has to be taken either at the end or at the beginning. Standing Order 301 is quite clear. It has to be done at the beginning. 
We are seeking clarification on that point. Otherwise—let me put it this way—we will always argue for an individual’s amendments to be taken before the Minister’s and therefore no amendment would be ruled out of order and we would always have votes rather than amendments ruled out as being inconsistent with the bill. That is why the Standing Order is worded like that. We cannot just pick and choose depending on the bill. I also emphasise—[ 
Interruption 
] The junior Government whip can yell out all she likes. That is fine for her it seems during a point of order but I do not think that it is acceptable. 
My other point is that you have been asked for the Speaker to be recalled.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Tariff Reductions Transmission Gully Crimes Act 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Tariff Reductions Transmission Gully Crimes Act 
[Volume:612;Page:8886] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Murray Smith wishes to debate an announcement by the Minister for Social Development and Employment that section 59 of the Crimes Act which permits reasonable force against children will be repealed. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but as the Minister indicated that a time frame of 2 years and legislation will be needed to effect it there is no ground for an urgent debate on it today.
Visitors — Delegation from the Senate of the State of California United States of America Members of the Committee of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from the House of Commons United Kingdom 
Visitors — Delegation from the Senate of the State of California United States of America Members of the Committee of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from the House of Commons United Kingdom 
[Volume:621;Page:17012] 
Visitors 
Delegation from the Senate of the State of California United States of America 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the senate of the state of California United States of America is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that delegation to be welcomed. 
Members of the Committee of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from the House of Commons United Kingdom 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I also have pleasure in informing members that members of the Committee of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from the House of Commons United Kingdom are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that delegation to be welcomed.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4269] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last comment I think is offensive and should be withdrawn. I want the last comment withdrawn. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I intend to rule on the matter now because I do not think the member will in any way be disadvantaged by what I say. I can rule on the point regarding Standing Order 100 at once because this was briefly discussed at the Business Committee on Tuesday. The No. 2 bill is not the same in substance as the No. 1 bill when that bill received its first and second readings. The bill has been considerably changed since it went through those stages. However the member has raised a very serious point. He has asked me to give a considered ruling and I will give that consideration and will rule in the House in due course.
Hunt Jonathan: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3628] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I put the question I emphasise to members that there are two questions to be put. I will go over them before I put them. The first question is that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. Having voted on that issue the question then is that the bill be now read a second time. I intend to call a personal vote on both questions.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6306] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 19 be agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Prebble Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19597] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 It is a very interesting point. I was intrigued that we were having a vote as that had to mean someone was voting against the bill. As New Zealand First had not spoken it struck me as unlikely that it was voting against it. But in fact New Zealand First did call for a vote. When one calls for a vote there are other Standing Orders that say that a vote is supposed to follow a call for a vote. So I think that the member actually does need to ask for leave because he needs to withdraw the fact that he called for the vote. I saw that the Clerk was giving you contrary advice but I actually think the appropriate course of action once a member calls for a vote is for a vote to be held. The saying used to be that a vote in the lobby had to follow a voice vote. The member voted against it by voice and then called for a vote and then a lobby vote—which is this—has to follow it. It seems to me that the appropriate action is for Mr Donnelly to ask for leave which I am sure we will give him. That is my suggestion to the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am advised that that is the rule for a personal vote but not for a party vote.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6271] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 July 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 July 
[Volume:627;Page:22131] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 26 July 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 On Tuesday 26 July in answer to a supplementary question to question No. 7 I gave figures relating to the number of backlog cases investigated by the fraud and investigations unit of the Immigration Service. I have since been advised that those figures were not correct. I will provide the correct figures to the member and to the Clerk’s Office as soon as they come to hand. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for his explanation; that is fine. But seriously is this the first opportunity he has had to make that explanation? Has it really taken from question time on Tuesday through to the end of question time on Thursday to find out that he had this problem? Did he have that statement in his pocket when he came into the House at 2 o’clock? Did he have it at any stage yesterday—perhaps last night? For the Government to try to bury its mistakes at little moments when that may not be noticed is not a fair use of the Standing Orders at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. The Minister was required to make a statement as soon as the matter came to his attention on the day. He has done that. The matter of course is not open to debate.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17821. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6571] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. That in itself is the end of the matter. It is disorderly to continue to argue with the Chair on a matter that has been ruled on. I so warn the member.
Hereora Dave: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hereora Dave: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12655] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to contribute to this debate and acknowledge Matt Robson’s introducing of this member’s bill which basically formed the substance of the Government introducing its own bill. Having said that I do think it is also necessary to acknowledge the select committee members who dealt with the submissions. To Helen Duncan the chair and Mark Gosche who took over and the members of the committee I extend my thanks for their support during that time. 
The provision for 4 weeks’ leave will come into effect on 1 April 2007. That is a commitment that Labour has undertaken to achieve and we certainly look forward to the opportunity for those workers to have that extra time to socialise with their families. After all the intention and principle of introducing such legislation is to improve quality time for workers and their families. I do think it is timely that we are looking at introducing such disciplines because at the end of the day it is important that we acknowledge family and having that opportunity to socialise. We are in an environment that is moving towards 7 days’ trading and obviously with both parents now having to work that quality time is restricted. So I think this bill is a welcome beginning to introducing an opportunity for families to encourage and share each other’s company. 
The bill also separates out the confusion surrounding sick leave and bereavement leave. I know that in my previous occupation particularly with bereavement leave there was substantial confusion about when workers had the opportunity to take such leave and if they did qualify to take such leave how many days leave they were entitled to. So I think this bill gives some clarity andreduces that confusion. Also regarding sick leave we were looking at extending that leave from 3 days to 5 days but I think we have found a balance that is acceptable not only to workers but also to employers. It was appropriate that through some of the submitters who raised these issues we accommodated those changes as we progressed. 
I recall that the unions ran an extensive campaign to ensure that their issues were being recognised. I recall the postcards and I also want to acknowledge the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and the Service and Food Workers Union for their contribution in campaigning and ensuring that they are more than happy with the outcome of this bill. 
The 4 weeks’ annual leave provision is also important if New Zealand is to compete internationally and attract and retain skilled people. It will put the nation on par with Australia which has had 4 weeks’ annual holidays for 30 years and with the United Kingdom which introduced 4 weeks’ leave in April 1999. I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I support the direction in which we are going.
Robson Matt: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Robson Matt: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9506] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I have never seen a kiwi at night not even in captivity but I will be able to tell my grandchildren that I had pleasure of the rare sight of Doug Woolerton speaking in the House—a rare sighting indeed. I do not think I learnt a lot from it apart from the fact that in the end New Zealand First will vote for the bill yet there are significant criticisms. From the National speeches I did not learn much either but I congratulate Jim Sutton on a bill that is the very model of a modern major piece of legislation. The Labour-Progressive Government has delivered an industry-specific bill and that is another promise delivered on. National Party members certainly have problems and I think we heard them tonight with all the red herrings they were floating about this bill. 
As to the question of the grandmothers’ tax they know all about grandmothers because most of them have sold them to get here. That is the only thing I got out of that. The sherry tax of course is an anti – drink binge tax. That is what it is for. [ 
Interruption 
] If they are interested at all in the health of young people they might be interested in the statistic that between April 2003 and July 2003 there was a 90 percent decrease in the sale of light spirits. But they are not serious about that. What they are serious about is trying to see who is top dog and that was the battle between New Zealand First and National tonight as the great Prebble plan of bringing together National New Zealand First and ACT is clearly falling apart. I wish them well. They will all need wine to get over the fight they are having. I congratulate Mr Sutton on a very good bill and the work done on it.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15862] 
A party vote 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.
Power Simon: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18605] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the voting any further than I already have but before we get on to Part 2 the member Sue Bradford raised a very interesting point. I do not look for a ruling now but perhaps we could have a considered ruling from the Chair later in the piece. I believe Ms Bradford said that the Greens supported the bill during the select committee stage and that that was to be the interpretation to be put on its minority report. How can that be right? How can a minority report that opposes the majority view contain a view that supports the bill? It may well be that we need this matter clarified for select committees. I do not ask you to make a ruling at this point but you can see the dilemma that we are in. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is certainly my understanding that it is the committee’s role and I have certainly heard discussion on this previously.
Simich Clem: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Simich Clem: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10514] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have one amendment to clause 1 in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry. Ordinarily that amendment would be out of order because it is not a serious description of the bill in a narrow sense but in his contribution he did relate this amendment to the bill. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Roger Sowry to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the word “Holidays” and substitute the words “Government Restaurant Tax for Public Holidays”.
Power Simon: General Debate 
Power Simon: General Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19255] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the allocation of calls. In the general debate schedule I have in front of me the last call was to be taken by the Progressive Party. Moana Mackey a Labour MP took that call and I assume there is no difficulty with that. What I seek from you is some guidance as to whether in the next general debate Labour will have one call fewer and the Progressive slot will be inserted into that debate.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22172] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. From where I am sitting I could not hear what Dr Cullen said in his point of order. Could I ask him to repeat it please? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is getting a little silly. Could we please move on to question No. 5 now.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8697] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15193] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Parker David: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18129] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I found some of those comments irreconcilable. I too think this bill is good and it is good that the Government is bringing it to fruition. One of the outrageous statements made by the last speaker was his suggestion that it was this Government that had caused all the problems with native forests in his electorate. I remind him that it was his colleague Dr Nick Smith whose decision illegally to restrain logging in that area which was struck down by the High Court— 
Government Member 
: Denis Marshall. 
DAVID PARKER 
: No it was not. It was Dr Smith. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: As if you would know. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I do on this occasion because I was representing some of the neighbouring landowners down there. This is good legislation. I agree that it is a model we would like to see spread elsewhere in the country but I do not agree that there is no future for marine reserves outside this policy framework. I recommend the bill to the select committee and look forward to its progression through the House.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19680] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Standing Order 38 is quite clear in this respect. There is no quorum requirement at all now except of course that a Minister has to be present and presumably somebody has to be present in the Chair. Apart from that there is no requirement for anybody else to be present. When we did have a quorum requirement—as I managed to demonstrate quite conclusively once as senior Opposition whip—on a members’ day it was actually the responsibility of the Opposition rather than the Government to maintain the quorum. Mr Birch found that out much to his surprise when the Government withdrew from the Chamber after the Opposition had been threatening quorum calls. 
Last night was a most unusual situation where one party in a multiparty House refused to be reasonable about the conclusion of the business around members’ bills which the Government was perfectly prepared to see concluded. All parties were prepared to see the House rise at that point except for the ACT party and the Government was forced to use the only mechanism available to it to ensure the most orderly possible procedure—that is to ensure that a State dinner did not occur just a few metres away from the Chamber with members possibly going backwards and forwards between the Chamber and the State dinner. 
Finally I would perhaps have greater sympathy for Mr Prebble’s argument today had he not been on the 8.30 flight to Auckland last night.
Benson-Pope David: Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14984] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries)  
on behalf of the Minister of Finance 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13291] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
7E 
Insert the following new section 40B in the principal Act after section 40A: 
40BPrinciples of cost recovery 
(1)In recommending the nature and level of fees and charges to be prescribed under section 40A in any particular case or class of cases of beneficiary or other matter the Minister as far as is reasonably practicable must have regard to the following criteria: 
(a)equity in that funding for a particular function power or service or a particular class of functions powers or services should generally and to the extent practicable be sourced from the beneficiaries of the relevant function power or service at a level proportionate with their benefit from the function power or service: 
(b)efficiency in that costs should generally be allocated and recovered in order to ensure that functions powers or services are delivered at minimum cost: 
(c)justifiability in that costs should be collected only to meet the reasonable costs (including indirect costs) for the provision or exercise of the relevant function power or service: 
(d)transparency in that costs should be identified and allocated as closely as practicable in relation to tangible service provision for the recovery period in which the service is provided.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6861] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(4)The Minister shall present a report to the House within 6 months of Royal assent of this bill reviewing the level of financial penalties in comparison with penalties included in other commercial legislation.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18655] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3785] 
Points of Order 
Points of Order Raised out of Time 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I make this submission with regard to Standing Order 117 and I do so after question time. The matter was raised in question time by the member for Tauranga. The statement made by that member was “hiding under the skirts of a woman”. I am from NgatiPorou and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I presume the member wants to make a personal explanation. [ 
Interruption 
] Well there the matter ends. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not often do this but I raised a point of order on the Opposition last week about points of order being raised out of time and late. I said then that I think points of order must be raised at the time the matter occurs. The member clearly is referring to a previous question that was raised. It is now out of time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before the member leaves I understood that the member was saying that he wanted to make a personal explanation in which case he can do it at any time and waiting until the end of question time was the appropriate time. I did not see anyone in the House preventing the member from making a personal explanation if he wants to make it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member said to me that he did not want to make one. 
Debate on Iraq 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a different point of order. It was very helpful for you to tell the House that you have given an indication in the Business Committee that if there is a development in the Iraq situation you will allow it for debate. I would like to ask through you as that is your view as Speaker whether the Government itself has considered putting aside time to enable us to have a debate about the Iraq situation. I understand that we are now one of the very few Parliaments in the world that has not debated the issue. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Firstly of course 2 weeks ago we had a 14-hour-plus debate that included those matters. Secondly instead of having the Budget Policy Statement debate which is likely to take 2 hours next Wednesday—the Government is quite happy to spend 2 hours talking about its fiscal position and the state of the economy—the Opposition might be happier to spend 2 hours debating Iraq. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 That is a totally unacceptable suggestion from the Leader of the House. It appears he is saying to the House that if we want to debate Iraq we cannot debate his Budget Policy Statement and if we do want to debate his Budget Policy Statement we cannot have a debate about Iraq. That is quite unacceptable a total nonsense and not a suggestion that anyone really needs to take note of. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not really a point of order because of course anybody can deny leave to change that around.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9019] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Jones Dail: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6970] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: It is my practice to have a hot glass of water. I have been having a hot glass of water and steam comes off it. Being an asthmatic one finds that hot water going through one’s system is a good way of fending it off. I have been doing this for some time. There is that point. Also can one put Lemsip in the hot water? Does that take it out of the category of water? Would I not be able to drink water if it had Lemsip in it? That brings in the category of tea. What is the difference between hot water with Lemsip and hot water with tea in it? We need a very considered ruling on this matter.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8703] 
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 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 141 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14511] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents Bill) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 7; Progressive 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Chadwick Steve: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9907] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to be speaking on this bill and I listened to the previous speaker with great interest and with some concern. The Health Committee worked almost unanimously on this bill because we very much wanted to have a very robust cervical-screening bill. The issues raised by the member reflect the fact perhaps that Dr Lynda Scott who worked with us so well on this bill along with other members in the Opposition—all of us really—wanted to have a more robust cervical-screening programme. However the issues that they seem to be concerned about now pivot on the issue of informed consent. I believe that that is only operational detail and it should not change the construct of this bill. I accept that we need to do some focused work on informed consent.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4099] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 45 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.
Perry Edwin: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Third Reading 
Perry Edwin: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12776] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First this afternoon to oppose this bill. This view has been held by New Zealand First throughout all the stages of this legislation and continues as I address members today. Concealing convictions that are labelled insignificant by this Government and the Green Party carries many associated risks to the community. Many examples of these risks have been outlined during the debate. They include the risks to the employers of teachers—as we just heard from Mr Worth—and others in positions of high responsibility of not knowing what they previously would have known before this bill came about. The worst implication of this poorly-thought-out legislation is that it gives people legal permission to lie as we heard from the National Party. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: It does not. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: It does. People can lie to employers lie at their own will and the Government says that that is OK. This bill is nothing but touchy fluffy feel-good nonsense and it is doing nothing more than promoting and legislating lying. We in New Zealand First thoroughly believe unlike the supporters of this legislation that honesty is the best policy. Hence we cannot support this bill.
Prebble Richard: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7495] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I really have to ask that it be more than that. A United Future member is holding a conversation and obviously is not listening to you because every word that she has just said has gone over the air. For members’ own protection members who are going to sit in the House should be silent until all the microphones are no longer live; otherwise some member will be extremely embarrassed to discover that his or her conversation has been broadcast.
Prebble Richard: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Prebble Richard: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13513] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The problem we have in this case is that while what Dr Cullen says is correct this was a case when a serious reflection was made against a member. The point of order was raised at the time. I understand there was some disorder in the Chamber and it may well be that the noise was sufficient for you not to hear it. But other people did including listeners on the radio and we have a situation where Mr Clayton Cosgrove made a personal reflection against a member in the House—one that causes grave concern. You did not rule on the matter—I hope because you did not hear it—but now that you are aware that it was heard and raised at the time I think it would be appropriate for you to ask Mr Cosgrove to withdraw and apologise for making such an allegation against a member of this House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: At the time that Deborah Coddington was raising the matter we had had a discussion about the part and the issue of taxation and I honestly thought that that was what Deborah Coddington was raising the matter about. I think the matter would be cleared up if Mr Cosgrove were to withdraw and apologise.
Connell Brian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14556] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the commencement date of this legislation. I say “well done” to David Carter. He set a cunning trap for the Minister got him on his feet and flushed out the real agenda which is that the Minister wants this legislation in force by 1 October. I ask the Minister what the urgency is now. Good on David Carter because we got the true agenda out. 
The Minister is covering up for an inefficient ministry. This House was in urgency 4 weeks ago and this legislation was not taken up under that urgency motion. The reason it was not taken up was that the Minister could not get all his ducks in a row because of his incompetent ministry. Now we are being put in the position where we are being rushed. 
 I say to Mr Ian Ewen-Street that I have some sympathy with part of his argument. It is the argument that some of those fishers that do not like their quota will now be forced into a position whereby they will not have enough time to go through an appeal process. That will put them at a very significant disadvantage and will create the suspicion that the whole process is not sufficiently rigorous. 
I believe that rushing this legislation through now with undue haste is simply not fair and will damage the reputation of the fishery even further. Mr Benson-Pope can look down as much as he likes but he knows that this legislation should not be rushed through with this type of undue haste. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: The select committee asked us to. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I have just listened to one of the members of the Primary Production Committee who said he did not agree with that and now the Minister is saying the select committee asked him to. He is hiding the incompetence of his own ministry and is now blaming members of the select committee. That is a cheap shot. Why does he not just get his own backyard in order and stop penalising the people who make their livelihood out of this fishing industry? 
I agree that we need to manage the scampi fishery in a sustainable way. We do agree with that component of the bill but the Minister should have come clean in the first place. Thankfully David Carter has exposed him.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6553] 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What actions has the Government taken to streamline the regulation of hazardous substances? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Today I released a strategy to improve the operation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The proposals will simplify the transfer of existing substances to the new hazardous substances and new organisms regime reduce application costs for new substances and improve compliance and enforcement. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How does the hazardous substances strategy contribute to the Government’s goals of innovation and growth? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Overly complex regulation that is difficult to understand and comply with is a barrier to innovation. Under the strategy the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be able to assess low-risk applications more quickly and efficiently thus substantially reducing applicants’ costs. 
Larry Baldock 
: Will the hazardous substances strategy help to reduce compliance costs for private businesses in respect of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act; if so how? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The strategy will directly address the concerns that were raised in a survey of businesses and research groups and in a number of letters written to me as Minister and to groups such as the Environmental Risk Management Authority. By giving the authority more flexibility to assess low-risk applications the cost to applicants will be reduced substantially.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:606;Page:4059] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am grateful for the cooperation of the House. On Tuesday an arrangement was arrived at that enabled the House to rise early after completing a very substantial amount of business that day. If the member is offering to organise support for our dealing with the Committee stage of the Responsible Gambling Bill in say about 2 hours as happened with the Racing Bill I would be extraordinarily grateful.