edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20216] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I would like to thank my colleague Georgina te Heuheu for drawing out the point of the role of the law and mythology. Certainly one recognises that all peoples throughout the entire world have their myths legends and beliefs because this is part of the human condition. We have tried in this country as much as is reasonably possible to keep the spiritual world apart from our law. We do it for good reason. We do it because we want to treat all people equally irrespective of their beliefs. Difficulty occurs when people’s beliefs are elevated into the law. It is exclusionary—it excludes others in essence. 
I have heard the Prime Minister talk about one of the values of New Zealand being that it is a secular society and I happen to agree with her. We are a secular society. That does not mean to say that we are an irreligious society or that we are a society without beliefs. It is saying however that we do not put those beliefs into the law because the intent is that we treat all our citizens equally irrespective of the beliefs they might happen to have. That enables each person and each group to have their beliefs—to celebrate them to commemorate them and to pay observance to them. We treat that as standing outside the law of the land. So our secular society is another way of saying that we are all equal before the law. 
National has taken the view that the myths and legends referred to in the various schedules—for instance schedule 9 refers to the fire gods Pupu and Hoata and schedule 6 refers to islands disappearing as a result of karakia—do not have a place in the law of the land because they infringe the idea that we are all treated equally. As my colleague said we will not be using that as a reason to vote against the legislation but we are saying that settlements of this nature should not have those references in them. Moreover they are not even required. Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty do not require those references to establish their connections. They can do that by temporal references rather than spiritual references. That is the role of the law as opposed to the role of belief in our society. 
So I am taking the opportunity along with my colleague to say that we need to think afresh about this because it is about the values of our country. I have heard the Prime Minister speak of the importance of secular society. I presume she understands what she means when she says that which is that we are all able to be treated equally in our own country.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7637] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That point clearly shows why it is important to have some time between the report being tabled and people attempting to debate it because if people had actually read the report and read the evidence that was given from both the Solicitor-General and indeed—talking to their colleagues the members of the committee—the Clerk of the House they would know that the situation is whether a vacancy has occurred through an action. The taking of the action itself is not an illegal action. There is no breach of the law if a vacancy occurs and the member should understand that if he bothers to read the report properly.
Benson-Pope David: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 16 March 
Benson-Pope David: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 16 March 
[Volume:616;Page:11990] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 On that day the Rt Hon Winston Peters asked me which appeals to the Catch History Review Committee Jacqui Lowe sat on prior to March 2004. I gave the following response. “I am advised that Jacqui Lowe has sat on 23 appeals since January 2001. Information on her involvement in all proceedings since her appointment in 1998 is not immediately available but I will provide it in writing to the honourable member as soon as possible.” The more detailed information I promised to the member is now available and will be provided to Mr Peters today. More important I must make a correction to the first part of my response in that Ms Lowe has sat on 24 not 23 appeals to the Catch History Review Committee since January 1998.
Wilson Margaret: Business of Select Committees 
Wilson Margaret: Business of Select Committees 
[Volume:625;Page:20573] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20947] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; 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 3 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
3Purpose of this Act 
The purpose of this Act is— 
(a)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2009 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and 
(b)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2009 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal before the commencement of this Act.
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
[Volume:607;Page:4292] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I thank all the members who spoke who were forward-looking as to how New Zealand might contribute at the end of this conflict to relieving the misery of the Iraqi people and helping to rebuild that country. I want to state again for the record that this Government will not be assisting a war for which there was no case at this time. Faced with a choice between supporting peaceful and diplomatic means which were working and war which cuts off that process this Government made the only rational choice which was to choose the peaceful means. I believe we had the strong support of a majority of this House and the people of New Zealand in making that choice. This country will be relevant in supporting what happens at the end of this conflict to give Iraqis a better future. We will be urging the United Nations to be proactive in seeking a role and we will seek to work closely with other nations close to us like Canada that share our views on the appropriate way forward.
Robson Matt: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Robson Matt: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12990] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Whip—Progressive) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Burton Mark: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9244. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Further to the original point of order—firstly I was about to raise the point that Mr Donald well raised but secondly there have been 33 calls by my count on this part. That is by any measure a very significant debate around this issue. I have been listening for some time in my room and for some time in the Chamber. There has been considerable repetition in recent speeches. I think the closure motion is reasonably well put.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16008] 
8.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What recent reports has he received on small-business confidence in the Wellington region? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 In a recent survey of Wellington businesses the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce found that 73 percent of small businesses—those with fewer than 5 employees—had a very positive outlook. Similarly a recent BRC Marketing and Research business confidence survey found strong and growing confidence in the regional economy and a clear and growing majority of respondents were satisfied with the Government’s handling of the economy. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Did the BRC report see a decline in satisfaction among Wellington businesses on any of the variables surveyed? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yes one of the few variables that saw a decline was satisfaction with Don Brash as Opposition finance spokesman. This is consistent with another poll I saw on Friday showing further disenchantment with the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly Wellington business people are happy with the strong business performance of the economy under this Government particularly under its excellent local MP the Hon Marian Hobbs. The business people of Wellington are not looking for any mischief from any cast-offs from United Future. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that many small-business people in Wellington and elsewhere are very nervous—very nervous indeed—about the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill which has come before this House and is he aware that some Government members have said that it will have no effect on those businesses; if he is aware of both those issues will he support a Supplementary Order Paper exempting small businesses from the bill? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as the last part of the question is concerned it is not really in order. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No I am not aware of that.
Speaker’s Rulings — Members’ Speeches—Termination 
Speaker’s Rulings — Members’ Speeches—Termination 
[Volume:622;Page:18041] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Members’ Speeches—Termination 
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. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am ready to give an answer on the issue of when a member’s speech terminates. It is correct that when a member resumes his or her seat the speech is terminated. Although that should be obvious it cannot cover all cases because members may indeed resume their seat while speaking for a whole lot of other reasons. They may get cramp or something like that. For our purposes at the moment the member is quite correct that when members resume their seat their speech is ended but it is very much up to the Speaker to make a decision.
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5444] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Under Standing Order 145 Mr Anderton as leader of the party is the authorised person to cast that vote. Mr Anderton has cast the vote. That is his word and his word is accepted.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22171] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I now seek leave to table this document from Keith Locke which shows clearly that the Government at the time was not in support of Pol Pot at all but was seeking to give aid to the Kampuchean people despite the nature of the Pol Pot regime which is something totally different from what he told you when he sought leave in the first place. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the members both sit down. Leave has been sought to table a document. 
Keith Locke 
: I am allowed to make a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please be quiet. 
Keith Locke 
: I am allowed to make a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Would you please sit down. I will put the original seeking of leave. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Procedure 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10762] 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be postponed.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Stewart Barbara: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9891] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 The title of a bill should reflect the content of the bill and the title of the Children’s Commissioner Bill does that. It is appropriate and we are in no doubt that the bill is focused on the Children’s Commissioner. Although it may initially seem insignificant the manner in which something is worded such as the title of this bill can have really powerful implications. This amendment appears to reinforce the importance of the child and children and strongly suggests the idea of ownership. The amendment to the title also ensures that the title is congruent with that of other statutory office-holders—for example the Human Rights Commissioner or the Retirement Commissioner. So it fits in with the overall title of other such roles. New Zealand First supports this part of the bill. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22015] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Social Development be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Abstentions 20 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7. 
Vote Social Development agreed to.
Baldock Larry: Voting — Correction 
Baldock Larry: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:610;Page:7505] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I just want to clarity that result from the vote last night. By adding 1 to the Ayes how did it take 1 off the Noes? Could you clarify it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It did not. There was one person who did not vote.
Wilson Margaret: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 July 
Wilson Margaret: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 July 
[Volume:627;Page:22132] 
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.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:606;Page:3975] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On Wednesday 26 February 2003 the Hon Murray McCully raised a point of order concerning the processes for the acceptance of an oral question and the determination of ministerial responsibility. 
Standing Order 367 requires notices of oral questions to be delivered to the Clerk each sitting day and for 12 questions to be accepted. This process of acceptance may involve considerable negotiation and may involve Ministers indicating whether or not matters come within their areas of ministerial responsibility if there is question about this. 
A Minister’s word about his or her own portfolio responsibility area must be accepted. Where a Minister indicates a question is outside his or her area of portfolio responsibility or challenges its validity acceptance of the question must be reconsidered. If ministerial answerability cannot be adequately established the question cannot be accepted and would ultimately be disallowed by the Speaker if it were inadvertently accepted. 
In order to avoid this happening and to save the question for the member the Clerk’s Office goes to considerable length to negotiate rewording of questions. Like any process of negotiation this will of necessity involve some give and take. The Clerk’s Office will accept a question when it considers that it is in order. But ultimately it is the Speaker who must rule upon whether a question is in order. 
All issues relating to the acceptance of a question should be raised with the Clerk’s Office up until the commencement of question time in the House. Only during questions for oral answer in the House will I consider points raised about whether or not a question is in order and rule accordingly. If members or Ministers have any doubts about a question I expect them to be raised with the Clerk’s Office and resolved as far as possible through a process of negotiation prior to 11.30 am when the oral questions accepted for that day are published to the Parliament web site. 
In this regard I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 123/6. It is the oral questions printed and circulated with the Order Paper in the Chamber that are the questions for that day. Publication on the web site is a courtesy and does not give an oral question any particular status.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3741] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Tizard Judith: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tizard Judith: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20412] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: I move  
That the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee 
referred to Commerce Committee 
for consideration that the committee report the bill by Thursday 28 July 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions 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 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c) 
.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9973] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 12(1) in clause 6B be agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Railways Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Railways Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7421] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise briefly in support of this legislation and to respond to the specific comments made by the previous speaker about heritage rail operations. As the member for Dunedin South I am pleased to live in a city and to represent an area that has not one but two of the most important heritage rail operations in the country. Arguably the Taieri Gorge operation is the most important heritage tourist operation in New Zealand. Equally important is the Ocean Beach Railway heritage operation which is a smaller but none the less very enthusiastic and dedicated heritage restoration group like so many others throughout the country. 
I have had discussions about the concerns that were raised prior to the introduction of this bill—exactly the issues that were raised by the previous speaker. I am confident from discussions with the Minister—and I have communicated the information to those operations being aware also that the national heritage umbrella organisation has been involved in the formation of this legislation—that those operators who are so welcome and who contribute so much to this country’s heritage and tourism attraction will not be unduly penalised by this measure which is consistent with the proper protection of their own workers and volunteers and members of the public. In fact I am aware also of the ministerial discretion included in the bill that would allow for particular circumstances to be acknowledged and accommodated. 
So I believe that those concerns have been adequately met. I will certainly work to ensure that that is the case and in supporting the legislation I am pleased to recommend it for further consideration.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14867] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Ogilvy Bernie: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5116] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill. As a member of the Education and Science Committee I regard it as certainly one of the highlights of my introduction to Parliament to see my way through such a bill held in such affection. One of the things that certainly stood out during the time spent on this bill was the invitation to visit the National Library as well as the Alexander Turnbull Library. As we all went we became very conscious of the value the history and the tasks that everybody was doing there. In fact I was so impressed that I made a recommendation to the Clerk of the House that in the future when new MPs begin they all do a tour of the National Library in order to understand something of what is available both to us as MPs and to the nation as a whole. 
One of the things that I was most interested in and was able to see completed was that the legal deposit was extended to include electronic documents. That was a most useful inclusion and extension into this bill. Of course we have to realise—as those on the select committee realised and as those in the National Library will realise—that for those who live in far-flung regions of the country and are beyond practical access to local libraries resources such as a national database which is electronic and non-electronic and which is now accessible via the Internet has the potential to be incredibly valuable to everybody. Because of that we all felt very strongly that this had to be one of the highlights and purposes for strengthening this bill. 
The other thing that really stood out was the effort to share the treasures that lay within the library itself. I know that this bill does not address as yet at least this whole matter in full. It is one of those questions that will I think be a challenge for the National Library to extend itself beyond just what it has been doing in the past. I know it was the heart intention of one of those who made submissions that that certainly would be one of the great things that will occur as this bill is put in place. I certainly commend this bill to the House on behalf of United Future. As long as the present Government and future Governments think very carefully about the future of the library and the ways in which it best serves the citizens of this country this is a bill that will for ever be an encouragement for our nation.
Pillay Lynne: Third Readings 
Pillay Lynne: Third Readings 
[Volume:613;Page:10167] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
I am proud to stand in support of this legislation. This legislation brings into effect New Zealand’s part in a joint Australia – New Zealand agreement to remove a tax impediment to trans-Tasman investment. That is good for New Zealand.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8168] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Income Tax Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Income Tax Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12532] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 To reiterate briefly the bill represents the third stage of the progressive rewrite of the Income Tax Act. It introduces rewritten legislation contained in the first five parts of the Act and re-enacts the remainder of the Act. This means that Parts A to E which comprise about half of the total Act will be in modern language and style while other parts are in traditional statutory language and style. Those other parts will be rewritten in future stages. 
The Income Tax Act is said to be one of the most consulted Acts in New Zealand. In my experience it is also one of the most insulted Acts in New Zealand. The reason for rewriting the Act is to produce tax law that is clear plainly written and structurally consistent without substantially changing the policy content of the current Act. The purpose of course is to have tax law that is easy to use and to understand—which will save time and money. 
The bill is the largest to have been introduced into this House and it has grown during its passage. It is the result of years of work involving a great many people: drafters policy analysts tax experts lawyers professional associations panels language experts consultants of all kinds submission writers and now parliamentarians. I do have to point out though for members opposite that I am not aware of any special consultation with tangata whenua over the Income Tax Bill. It has been a monumental effort. While members will no doubt point out how big the bill is it is very small compared with the corresponding United States legislation which runs to many many more thousands of pages than this particular bill does and in this case the size of the country does not matter very much in terms of its tax legislation. 
 I am delighted the bill has reached its third reading. I would like to thank all those who contributed to it especially the drafters and analysts of the rewrite project team the members of the rewrite advisory panel the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their careful scrutiny of this large and complex bill and the various Ministers of Revenue who are my predecessors recognising in particular two current members of the House David Carter and Peter Dunne. I commend the bill to the House.
Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation from France 
Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation from France 
[Volume:613;Page:10219] 
Thursday 20 November 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Parliamentary Delegation from France 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from France led by Mr Renaud Muselier Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and accompanied by Mr Philippe Vitel President of the French New Zealand Friendship Group is present in the gallery. I am sure they will be welcomed.
Peck Mark: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
Peck Mark: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9823] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I will take just a very short call first of all I say to the member who has just spoken that she should stop crying alligator tears. That party across the benches cut the benefit. Who does Georgina te Heuheu think got hurt by the benefit cuts? It was the children. The innocent victims of the benefit cuts were children and for her to stand up and say that this side of the House does not care about children is just so much cant. It was members opposite who brought in market-related rentals—so children could not get food or go to school with shoes on their feet. 
That member had her chance. The fact that she is on the real back bench now is an indication of how successful she was when she was in Government. It was also cant for her to stand up and say that conditions here are the worst in the world. She should go and have a look at conditions in Kenya and Jakarta. Half of the world’s population live on less than $2 a day. For that woman to spin that sort of rhetoric is just so much cant. She knows that it is not true and to raise that sort of debate in this House is lower than low. I say to her that she has had her chance. This Government has got on and done a whole bunch and this bill is part of it. For Georgina te Heuheu to get up in the House and speak as she did is just so wrong and she knows it.
Franks Stephen: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9024] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The second element is the meaning of the word “provision” as it appears in Standing Order 301 which allows the member to elect to have all amendments relating to a provision to be put as one. If “provision” in that sentence is to be read as “part” then all the member’s amendments may be put at the beginning and subsequent ones will perhaps be ruled out. If it just means “clause” then the interpretation contended by the National Opposition will apply in any event or there will be assistance for it. When the vote was called it is not entirely clear that that was stated. I do not recall the exact words the Chair referred to. It could be that they were to all the amendments on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper—in which case “provision” covers more than the part.
King Annette: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
King Annette: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19769] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be referred to the Health Committee 
 for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 28 May 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day in 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 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Power Simon: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20559] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I genuinely thank members for their contributions. In no way in an MMP environment would I like to see parties curtailed from expressing views that are different from those of the majority on any committee. But there is a slightly different issue at stake here from the one raised by my colleague Mr Tanczos. I agree with his analysis but the problem is that in this case the United Future party specifically identified itself in the commentary on the bill as being part of the majority but then went on to give a minority report. 
I think that at a philosophical level Mr Franks is dead right. It may well be that there is a hold-over from a first-past-the-post environment when it comes to minority reports and I for one would hate to see that right curtailed which is why Madam Deputy Speaker I have asked you for a considered ruling. But specifically I think that in light of my comments about the contextual argument contained in the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 that minority views are diverging or different views United Future is not allowed to have a bob each way by saying it will vote with the majority but will also have a minority report. Therein lies the dilemma for yourself Madam Deputy Speaker.
Stewart Barbara: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Stewart Barbara: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3944] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill. I take note of Jill Pettis’ comments and will take only a very short call. 
Richard Worth 
: It’s important that veterans should be recognised—speak at length! 
BARBARA STEWART 
: It is important that veterans’ needs are recognised. We believe that this is a really important bill because it is responding to issues that are really important to New Zealand’s service personnel. New Zealand First is delighted to support this legislation as we believe that our veterans must be properly recognised for the special contribution they have made to New Zealand’s security. Society owes a debt to those men and women who served overseas in a declared war or in an emergency. On occasions the full extent of that debt can never be acknowledged. For some people it will never be acknowledged. New Zealand First believes that our war veterans should receive at least an additional 10 percent in recognition of their sacrifice. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why not 20 percent? 
BARBARA STEWART 
: It could very well be 20 percent; it could be more. In the past war veterans have not been well treated by the House. It is a shame that this bill was not put through the House more quickly for the sake of those people who are affected by this legislation. We are really pleased to see it here now because we believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. It will enable veterans of a working age to participate in voluntary or paid employment should they be able to do so without losing their veterans pension. This bill ensures that veterans will be able to work any number of hours depending on their capacity without removing their entitlement to a veterans’ pension. The measures in this bill are designed to ensure that veterans will be viewed separately from the wider social security system in recognition of their special status and we believe that that is as it should be. New Zealand First supports this legislation going through the House.
Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5498] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No there cannot be any points of order. There is no debate on the closure motion. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is because you speak so fast that it is not possible when you take the closure to raise relevant points of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member well knows that there is no debate on the closure motion. That is solely the decision of the Chair. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A very unusual parliamentary process has gone on with this bill. There has been no opportunity for public submissions. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to try to explain that parliamentary process. I would be happy for him to explain the truncated process that the Government is putting this bill through. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. That is debating the closure and it is not for debate.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19968] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Burton Mark: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Burton Mark: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15276] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Policing Functions—Parliamentary Precincts  
Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Policing Functions—Parliamentary Precincts  
[Volume:616;Page:11937] 
Privilege 
Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
Policing Functions—Parliamentary Precincts  
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the draft agreement on policing functions within the parliamentary precincts.  
I move this on behalf of Matt Robson the chairman of the Privileges Committee. My comments will be very short because basically the report speaks for itself. The purpose of the report is to ensure that police and parliamentary staff are given clear guidance with regard to the roles and powers of the police within the parliamentary precincts.  
One comment in the report that is worthwhile repeating is that when parliamentary business is being transacted the buildings take on a unique constitutional status and parliamentary privilege applies to the transaction of that business and that is important. This arose because of an earlier incident that involved Shane Ardern and the view was that we needed to ensure that everybody understood the way in which the protocols worked. I believe that the Privileges Committee has set down a good report. The recommendations are for you Mr Speaker to decide finally on how they are to be implemented. However I would recommend that you take the recommendations seriously. They are very good and were made unanimously. I thoroughly commend them to the House. 
Motion agreed to.
Visitors — Queensland Australia—Hon Gordon Nuttall MP and Delegation  from Legislative Assembly 
Visitors — Queensland Australia—Hon Gordon Nuttall MP and Delegation  from Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:619;Page:14875] 
Thursday 12 August 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Queensland Australia—Hon Gordon Nuttall MP and Delegation  from Legislative Assembly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Gordon Nuttall MP Minister for Health Queensland Australia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. We also welcome members of his delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Queensland who are present in the gallery.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9230. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can assure the member that the honourable member Dr Linda Scott has not had a call on this part and under the suspension of Standing Order 178 she is entitled to have another call if the Chair so desires. I have made my ruling. 
Peter Brown 
: She has had more than the one call.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—Minister's Comment 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—Minister's Comment 
[Volume:616;Page:12532] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise an issue with you for consideration over the Easter break. Yesterday in the House a Government Minister referred to members on this side of the House by using the term “born-again Horis”. I want to know whether that was parliamentary and whether it is a term we would be able to use in the future.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3809] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 57 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Franks Stephen: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Franks Stephen: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10723] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a relitigation of the matter? I want to know whether this is a new point of order.
Jones Dail: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16340] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we will support this bill going to the Commerce Committee. I think the time has come though when we should reconsider having bills of this kind coming before Parliament and we should reconsider whether the main Act should continue. 
The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act was passed in 1982 and I happened to be in Parliament at the time. I seem to recall there was a great deal of lobbying to ascertain whether we should have this kind of legislation that is specific to one company. I think there was some trepidation in allowing a precedent of this kind to come into existence. Here we are 22 years later and not only is the Act still here but it has been amended once in 1989 and we are looking forward to amending it again today. 
I think the Government of the day should reconsider this type of legislation and have a standard legislation that would apply to everybody. If we read the Act and the 1989 amendment we see that section 21(1) of the Act is almost unintelligible. It is a typical trust company clause. It is a sentence of 20 lines. I do not think any member of Parliament understood what was in section 21(1) either in the original Act or in the 1989 amendment. It is not surprising therefore that the company itself possibly does not fully understand it yet in the bill before us today clause 4 amends that rather unintelligible section. The main purpose of the legislation is to amend section 21 by adding paragraphs (a) to (e) to a section that has one sentence of 20 lines. I really think the time has come for the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company and whoever it owns it today to reconsider the situation. 
In 1982 we were very proud to be doing something for a New Zealand - owned company in general terms. The history has been set out. The Trust Department of the New Zealand Insurance Company merged with the South British Guardian Trust Company. Those companies are great old names. They had buildings in Queen Street and everyone in New Zealand identified with them. We are now doing something for Promina Group. The National Party member Mr Worth has fully set out everything about Promina Group that we really need to know but he has explained that it is effectively an overseas company. So here we are in the New Zealand Parliament trying to facilitate something for an overseas organisation that has swallowed up a New Zealand company. I really do not think that is the role of Parliament. The sooner the Government looks at standard legislation for all companies in that situation the better. 
It is only because it is the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company and because we have a considerable debt to such an old company in New Zealand that we support this bill going to the select committee. But really the time has come to reconsider this type of legislation.
Gallagher Martin: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12101] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the chair of the select committee to which the bill is to be referred I have listened very very closely to the previous speaker and to his concerns. Obviously there will be very rigorous questioning of officials during the select committee process and we will want to expedite that reasonably hastily. Notwithstanding that I will also be discussing with and seeking leave from senior members opposite in terms of the ability of the select committee possibly to meet for 5 minutes during an appropriate lunch hour in order to start the advertising process for submissions. My understanding in terms of some advice is that I may need leave from the Opposition to do that as we had resolved not to meet this urgency week. I will obviously meet with the Hon Tony Ryall to pursue that particular item. 
 Certainly we will as a select committee do our very best. Obviously we will want not only to afford all members of the committee the opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise this bill and then meet the appropriate report-back deadline but also to give adequate opportunity for submissions to be made. I think the Minister has more than adequately gone through the details of the bill in terms of its content and why we need it. My role as chairperson of the select committee is to work with all members particularly the senior members opposite to see how we can work through the processes of the bill and to meet the report-back deadline as has been proposed to the House.