edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13162] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
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 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (No Private Management and Other Matters) Act”.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 19 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed new subclause (2) the words “or barrister or solicitor of the High Court”.
Roy Heather: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Roy Heather: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9570] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I will take a short call to back up what Dr Lynda Scott said about the word “Rehabilitation” in the title. I think rehabilitation is a word that is often misunderstood and that in this case we are asking for trouble in a way by including it in the title. In fact I am going to propose an amendment to have the word “Rehabilitation” removed from the title. We will amend the amendment— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: You are going to amend the amendment? 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right—so that we move back to the title being the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill which I think describes the intention of this bill much better. Rehabilitation I notice is not defined either in the bill itself or in the Supplementary Order Paper. I would have thought that with its inclusion in the title it should perhaps have been defined. That would have made a good deal of sense. It should have been defined so that we know exactly what it is. 
Intellectual disability of course is a lifelong condition. It is a description of somebody’s intellectual capacity. Rehabilitation implies that somebody can improve from a set position. We know that that is not the case with intellectual disability. When people are disabled the measurement of their disabilities cannot be improved upon. The implication is that people’s behaviour can be improved and that indeed is sometimes the case despite the fact that these people are often functioning at a very low level throughout their lives. But the base from which they operate will never be able to be changed with treatment. Although their behaviour may be modified in a positive way their base condition will see no improvement at all. 
With regard to the title clause we will put an amendment forward; indeed it will be an amendment to amend the amendment. But it is important that in the interests of stipulating what the bill is truly about the word “rehabilitation” is removed from the title. I do not mean by that that we should make no effort with these people. I believe the opposite. These people should be put into facilities that are there specifically to cope with their particular problems. The word “rehabilitation” in the title is a misnomer.
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:20950] 
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.
Copeland Gordon: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9915] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled on the point of order. Is this another point of order? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I want to speak further to a matter that I raised which I do not believe you have addressed in your ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In that case the member needs to raise a further point of order.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9467] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to schedule 1A be agreed to: 
to insert in Part 1 in the appropriate place the words “Peeping and peering”.
Hobbs Marian: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4947] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for the National Library) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of queries that have been raised. I refer firstly to part of the title being in te reo Maori. Those words are not just an addition; this is the name that was given to the library in 1987. It is already on all our publications and papers so to take it out would be a cost. That would really affect it so it is not about saving money. Some people did think that using Maori terms and a Maori name in the title was a bit of icing on the cake. In fact it is significant that the library has been working very hard in recent years with Te Atiawa Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Toa and with their records and history incorporating them and using them in the library. 
Secondly I want to talk about Heather Roy’s amendment about selling electronic information. Yes the newspaper publishers did voice concerns to the select committee. Can I make it very clear that the amendments in the select committee strengthened the situation. There must be consultation with affected publishers before any materials electronic or otherwise not already collected are required and this consultation includes terms of conditions and public access. Those publishers were concerned that we would take “Stuff” in literally and publish it the same day. No that is not so. 
Thirdly I turn to the question raised by the speaker who referred to a “snapshot of electronic data”. Many things that are kept in Alexander Turnbull Library are snapshots literally. They are photos. They are not necessarily photos that say they are true because anyone can doctor a photo. When one takes a snapshot with electronic data what might be on somebody’s website is true for that day but it may not be true for the next day. That is the nature of historical collections. I thank members for their support for this bill. There has been a tremendous amount of work from a community of people. 
One member said: “Why are we bringing the bill in? Why don’t we just amend the Act?”. I think some people were not aware of the discord in the community over a number of years and of the work done outside this Chamber by people like Lydia Weavers—who I see in the gallery—by the library staff and community and by the Friends of the Turnbull Library to heal the wounds of a divided library community. That is why this has been done.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21368] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
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 9. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule as amended agreed to.
Horomia Parekura: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Horomia Parekura: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19182] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 In listening to that member waxing lyrical about values and potential in children we need to be reminded that this legislation is certainly about expanding and creating choices. It is about creating choices that do not discriminate. Children cannot choose the union they come from. They cannot choose that and there has been a raft of partnerships and unions over the years. Taking a purist stance that being married—and married in the Church—is the only way people can strengthen their families and guide them I think begs the question. 
In relation to the point made by the previous speaker about the generations coming through we all want to encourage that. But things change. My parents came from families of 14 to 16 members on average and I came from a generation of families that had eight to 10 members. Maori families today have 2.5 kids. I do not know how we get the 0.5 but we have it. 
Darren Hughes 
: The intention Minister! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
:The intention no matter how it is foisted on us or practised is certainly embellished in the union. This legislation certainly recognises that. It is about strengthening relationships and about managing and respecting peoples’ choices. 
In Maoridom one of the big debates over several generations has been about whangai children—children who did not belong to the legal union but who were picked up by grandparents aunts and uncles and given space in their houses. They were accepted even though they were not blood relations as part of those unions. That in my mind makes me very clear about why I will support this bill. 
There are a whole lot of issues around this legislation. I am always fascinated when people talk about not discriminating yet the essence of their delivery as we heard just before is about discrimination. We all want to cherish our families. We all want to ensure that our children and our mokopuna—our grandchildren—have a good journey forward. In Maoridom that has been practised for a long long time. Nearly 50 to 60 percent of its couples are not married in the Church so we need to ensure that those people—who do care for their kids—are not discriminated against on the premise that children are cared for only if their parents are married. I do wonder at that. I respect parents who are married but respect also needs to be shown to people who are outside marriage. I will support this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I advise the House that New Zealand First wishes to split its call. There will be two 5-minute calls and the bell will go with 1 minute remaining for each call.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17986] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am pleased to seek leave for that instruction to be given effect. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. Leave is denied. The only parts of the motion that can be accepted are those that relate to the referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee and the motion will carry the normal report-back time of 6 months.
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4596] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15405] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16906] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am quite sure that Mrs Wayne Mapp will be very interested in that contribution from “Mr DeneseHenare”. Rather than prolong the debate I will just read a section from the Transit New Zealand Amendment Act of 1995. Section 42L “Maori interests to be considered reads: “No output or capital project which affects or is likely to affect Maori land or Maori historical cultural or spiritual interests shall be included in a national roading programme … unless the Board the Land Transport Safety Authority … regional council or territorial authority preparing the programme—(a) Has consulted every iwi or hapu that in its opinion will or may be affected by the output or capital project;”. I wonder whether that legislation draws this tacky part of the debate to a close.
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19715] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 pre-print of the part of the debate this afternoon when members addressed the granting of leave for matters not earlier contemplated by the rules which I have just received. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17631] 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still have confidence in her Minister of Immigration; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because he is a hard-working conscientious and productive Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If he is a hard-working conscientious and productive Minister why do we have 79 people in New Zealand who came here with false deliberately lost or destroyed travel documentation who the Government now cannot account for or identify; and if the Prime Minister is not concerned about that what on earth is she doing heading our national security? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have any information on the question the member asked. I do have a great deal of information on other matters. If he cares to put down the question specifically I will provide an answer. 
Keith Locke 
: How does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Immigration when it appears that in all the court cases so far on the Ahmed Zaoui issue the advice given to the Minister and taken by the Minister appears to have been wrong—all the cases have been lost—and will the Prime Minister be launching a review of the Crown Law Office as to its advice and whether that advice is being followed by the Minister? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a matter for the Attorney-General not the Prime Minister. I think the member is prejudging a range of issues—including certainly the review of the security certificate which is yet to be actually undertaken. The vast majority of New Zealanders wish it could be completed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister ignorant on this matter given that question No. 9 of 2 December answered by Damien O’Connor gave information about the Government’s lack of knowledge as to those 79 people being in this country; and is the Prime Minister confident that next time a person with multiple convictions in Europe for links to extreme organisations arrives in New Zealand on false documentation from a country he or she is not immediately running from—a person who is not caught by the UN convention—her Minister will act swiftly to remove that person rather than spend over $2 million of taxpayers’ money satisfying bleeding-heart lawyers and their politically correct agendas? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I cannot comment on any details of the current case particularly because the court is still considering its decision on one aspect of that case—the decision comes out at 4 o’clock—and of course I am confident that one cannot predict the outcome of that judgment. But I can say that once this case is completed there will be a full review of the Act. This is the only case dealt with under that Act and clearly a whole range of difficulties have emerged with it.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:611;Page:8387] 
Thursday 4 September 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Gambling Bill and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill and the third readings of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the bills arising from it.
Burton Mark: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Burton Mark: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Speaker’s Rulings — Urgent Debates—Lodging of Applications 
Speaker’s Rulings — Urgent Debates—Lodging of Applications 
[Volume:621;Page:16301] 
Wednesday 20 October 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Urgent Debates—Lodging of Applications 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Last Thursday after I had ruled on an application for an urgent debate Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith raised a point of order about Speaker’s ruling 153/2. He pointed out that an application for a debate does not have to be lodged on the first sitting of the House after the event occurs in order to be considered. I thank the member for his point and acknowledge that he is correct. In this regard applications for urgent debates differ from raising matters of privilege. A much stricter rule of raising a matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity obtains—see Standing Order 387. While not raising a matter at the first opportunity will considerably weaken the case for the Speaker to accept an urgent debate application I will bear in mind the member’s comments that such an application should not automatically be rejected.
Personal Explanations — Ruapehu Lahar 
Personal Explanations — Ruapehu Lahar 
[Volume:615;Page:11413] 
Personal Explanations 
Ruapehu Lahar 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave under Standing Order 343 to give a personal statement to clarify an answer I gave to a supplementary question on Question No. 8 today regarding the Ruapehu lahar. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want a point of clarification. This is the second one in half an hour. Could we have an indication of how many more are coming today? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it is quite clear. Leave has been sought. We are aware of whom it is coming from and of the nature of it. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Today I said that the Government is taking every step it possibly can to avoid what is a natural phenomenon. I would like to clarify that I intended to say that the Government is taking every step it possibly can to avoid harm from what is a natural phenomenon.
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17367] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to the debate on Part 5 clauses 146 to 235 which includes a debate on the schedule. The Government has issued a veto certificate under Standing Order 315 in relation to the amendments in the name of Gordon Copeland set out on Supplementary Order Paper 284. Therefore the amendments are out of order and no question will be put on them. The veto certificate may be debated in the context of the debates on this part and on clause 2. Copies of that certificate are available for inspection at the Table.
Ogilvy Bernie: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12198] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I rise to speak on the third reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). Firstly I wish to thank all the submitters to this bill who came to the Education and Science Committee: the New Zealand School Trustees Association the New Zealand Educational Institute the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Law Society. I also thank my fellow select committee members and the chair who did an outstanding job under quite a bit of time pressure and also under the pressure of the exacting word-use needed to ensure we had this thing crafted correctly so that we we could stand up and hand on to the nation a bill that was very effective from the schools’ point of view—school trustees parents and children—and certainly from the point of view of teachers. So for that I am very grateful. 
On the third reading of this bill it is good to remember the reasons it is here. There are a very simple couple of reasons why we are making this law. One is a very common-sense concept: to ensure we do not support the concept of “no pay for no work”. In other words those who are against this bill are saying they want pay for everybody who does not work. I find that an absolute shocker. I really found it difficult to hear some of the people not supporting this bill upholding this incredibly different view. If people do not work they should not get paid—and that is as simple as anyone should be able to place it. It is for that prime reason this bill has come into the House to become law. 
Moreover it also assists boards of trustees in times of strikes so that they do not have to get caught up in heated arguments and conflicts with staff whom of course they have employed. They do not wish to get entangled in the options of whether they should pay them or not pay them or of how to support them. This bill clearly sets out the fact that the State Services Commissioner takes on that role in an impersonal manner and therefore frees boards of trustees from that conflict of interest. I think that that is a very very sound process when we consider what happens with the mums dads and children to whom they are responsible. 
Overall United Future is supportive of this bill. At this stage we believe that all the bugs in it when it came to the select committee have been taken out. I thank members for the occasion to speak on the bill.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20992] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 16(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed paragraph (ab) subparagraph (i).
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3822] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
Noes 68 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(3)It will be an offence against this section for any shareholding Minister to discuss any matter detailed in subsection (1) with any director or officer of TVNZ.
Goff Phil: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Goff Phil: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18573] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
 for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 31 May 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answers during an 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).
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
[Volume:608;Page:5678] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say that I completely agreed with the member’s comments right through until the last clause. This is a very easy point of order to resolve and I will do it right now. It goes back over 37½ years of my experience. It is up to the House whether to give leave and the House gave it. I have never yet seen an example of a question being corrected by a ministerial statement. The way that it was done was entirely appropriate.
Pettis Jill: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16368] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 May I give a point of clarification. In this instance the Government has no opposition to votes being recorded. We know exactly and precisely how we are going to vote. It is up to the House now to decide whether it wants those votes recorded in the instance of a split vote. That is what we now need to put before the House.
Mark Ron: General Debate 
Mark Ron: General Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:21856] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I probably have a couple of points of order. In my recollection Mr Peters was not an MP until 1978 but if that creates some problems for Mr Locke he might want to clarify it later on—[ 
Interruption 
] I am part-way through a point of order so sit down! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RON MARK 
: Secondly I seek leave to table the military wartime records of Keith Locke Rod Donald and members of the entire Green caucus to show how staunchly they fought for the free world to rid it of tyrants despots and dictators who consistently breached human rights and civil liberties. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The first issue is a debatable point. On the second issue of seeking leave is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Keith Locke 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already warned members about silence during points of order. There will be a few yellow cards going out.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18799] 
9.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What actions are being taken to protect native wildlife in the Dart Valley threatened by a rat plague? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Funding of $120000 from the Operation Ark initiative I established in 2003 has been made available to the Department of Conservation in Otago so that it can immediately put in place intensive rat control measures. Without that response the endangered yellowhead which lives in that valley will be in grave danger if rat numbers continue to rise and reach plague proportions. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What is the purpose of Operation Ark and how is it to be funded? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Operation Ark is a rapid response initiative designed to protect key populations of critically threatened native wildlife in South Island forests; occasional explosive increases in rat and stoat numbers can have a devastating impact on species. It is funded out of the additional $186 million made available for the biodiversity conservation fund in 2000 by this Government.
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10686] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Education and Science Committee. referred to the Education and Science Committee
Brown Peter: Energy Safety Review Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Energy Safety Review Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21802] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Over many years I have had quite some dealings with electricians in particular with drainlayers and certainly with plumbers and speaking personally I have not had one reason to complain against any of them. They have all been willing hard-working people who were on top of their job. When I saw this bill—and this is the view of New Zealand First—I wondered why we needed to have a bill of 181 pages—[ 
Interruption 
] I listened to the Minister with interest and I thought that there must be something here that indicates the industry is not quite as well run as perhaps it should be. 
I think back to a year or so ago when there was a programme on television. It was not  
Fair Go 
; 
there was— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
:  
Target. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister has it. I watched that programme on occasions. I will say for the benefit of those who are listening to this debate that  
Target 
 examined the activities of say electricians one week and plumbers another week—tradespeople in general and motor mechanics on occasions—and put them to a test under a secret video-camera regime usually in an empty house when the supposed client had gone out. On that programme on many occasions as I recall it electricians and other tradespeople—I do not want to pick just on electricians—[ 
Interruption 
] I would not dare to do so now Minister. There were tradespeople on that programme who clearly did not know what they were looking for and who clearly were not doing the job that was expected of them. That was a consumer-type television programme which clearly illustrated that there was a need to look at the qualifications of tradespeople in the areas outlined in this bill. 
I will not take a long call. New Zealand First has read this bill and we are concerned about aspects of it. It would be remiss of me to say that we thought it was all hunky-dory. But basically we do believe there is a case to answer. Therefore New Zealand First will support the referral of this bill to a select committee.
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12492] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just want to say there are no speaking slots left if the member is seeking to speak. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: You have called me. [ 
Interruption 
] No no—I said: “Mr Speaker”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is not possible for me to give the member a call unless it is a point of order. All opportunities have been used. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I do appreciate your gentle manner in letting me down. It is just sad that on day when local Government is being disenfranchised— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —by the Government’s proposals over the seabed and foreshore— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —that I cannot make a contribution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. 
Bill read a first time.
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15995] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
:  
I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not do this in any way to upset my colleague but I just need from you some clarification because you are the only Chairperson who does not take a second call from me as the lead spokesperson. The other Chairpersons do and I want an assurance from you that under the Standing Orders you are treating senior spokespersons in an even-handed and a fair manner. The Standing Orders allow a member to have two consecutive calls so what is the point of having that Standing Order if the Chair is just going to ignore it?
Peck Mark: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Peck Mark: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12791] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am delighted to confirm that I called the bill a “grubby little Bill” on the last occasion we spoke about it in 1999 because it was. As I say now and as the Minister outlined—and if Ms Goudie had been in the House and heard the Minister’s speech she would know this—the bill has been cleaned up and modified by the Government and also by the select committee process in the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is now very good legislation and should be supported. Having had— 
Jim Peters 
: How about the SILNA owners? 
MARK PECK 
: Well those people are far happier than they were I say to that member when the bill was first introduced. Indeed that was the basis of much of my comments on that occasion—the effect on the South Island Landless Natives Act landowners. I do understand that that particular issue caused some controversy. The bill has been tidied up very nicely indeed. I do not propose to take up any further time in the House and I ask that members progress the bill as quickly as they can.
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8166] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 Following from the contribution of my respected colleague Mr Carter I point out that the 45 minute tariff is not a reflection of the debate that has happened on these parts. Our records would demonstrate that clause 1 for example was debated for 27 minutes Part 1 for 57 minutes Part 2 for 42 minutes and subsequent parts for 36 minutes 35 minutes 26 minutes somewhat more than an hour for the last part and 29 minutes in this case. I think the Committee is appropriately allocating time as the importance of the provisions warrant and I believe that the tariffs are entirely appropriate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank both members for their contributions and remind members that it is the Chair’s call and that I am the sole judge of when a closure will be put. I take note of what both speakers have said. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to clause 155 be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Phrasing of Questions 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Phrasing of Questions 
[Volume:615;Page:11581] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was asked to reflect on a ruling I gave on Tuesday during question time when I ruled out of order the second part of a question by the Hon Bill English. The part of the question that I ruled out of order reads: “… will he continue to obstruct the Official Information Act like the civil servants in the Immigration Service did?”. I said that the member could not impute improper conduct to another member by saying that he did not observe the Official Information Act. I then allowed the member to rephrase his question. 
I stand by my ruling. It is out of order in a question to accuse a member of obstructing the Official Information Act and then to draw a parallel with officials who have been severely criticised in an Ombudsman’s report on that very ground. It was also unnecessary for the member to have asked his question in that way. I note that he successfully rephrased his question when I gave him the opportunity to do. I have to say that I do not consider that the member’s offence was very serious which was why I gave him another chance. The Speaker has to make a number of snap judgments during question time. I went back over this one because I was asked to do so by a senior member but I would prefer to regard these incidents as closed once the House passes on to the next question.
Simich Clem: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16147] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes that is correct.
Yates Dianne: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10542] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13042] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to omit and substitute clause 194(1) be agreed to.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:616;Page:12098] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Scott Lynda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Scott Lynda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7519] 
12.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why are New Zealand patients waiting up to 3 years for cochlear implant surgery to correct profound deafness even after it is medically approved; and how does this fit with the Government’s strategy that all patients should receive surgery within 6 months? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 First we have never said that all patients should receive surgery within 6 months. At the very minimum they would have to be assessed as needing it. With regard to the cochlear implant situation there is growing demand for cochlear implants and a prioritisation system is used to establish access to those services. Children tend to benefit most from cochlear implants and treatment for them invariably does occur within those 6 months. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why are so few cochlear implants publicly funded in New Zealand with only 25 last year when this intervention has been shown to be the third most cost-effective high-tech intervention in medicine letting children develop normal language keeping adults in work and keeping older people independent in the community although nobody over 65 is funded for it; and is this just another example of New Zealanders falling far behind the better access that Australians have to health care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do agree that there are considerable benefits from cochlear implants for some people. That is one of the reasons that we instigated a review of the cochlear implant programme. That review will be completed by September this year. It will look at future provision of a quality service and that provision will include the waiting times for both children and adults. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: In the meantime can the Minister explain what the Government will do to improve cochlear implant services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am delighted that this weekend I am opening the South Island cochlear implant programme at the Van Asch Deaf Education Centre in Christchurch. Our Government has put $900000 of funding into setting up and running the programme so that people from the South Island requiring cochlear implant services no longer need to travel to Auckland. 
Heather Roy 
: Can the Minister confirm that district health boards are now paying in total around $120 million a year just in interest on the capital injections they are having to spend on health services like cochlear implant surgery and how is this strategy of borrowing to fund operations sustainable? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I am not able to confirm those specific figures.
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18735] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I take from your ruling that we can actually move an amendment? Speaker’s ruling 102/4 states that we cannot amend what has been agreed by the parties and I understood that this recital fell into that category. If it does not then we can make a number of amendments—which I think New Zealand First members have felt unable to make—where the recital wrongly refers to the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I have assumed that New Zealand First wrote its Supplementary Order Paper which does not try to correct that on the basis that that was part of the agreement. If in fact we can now move amendments to the recitals then we will do so.
Smith Nick: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:18979] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My understanding is that on conscience votes the precedent is to take members in terms of their seniority not on the basis of their party affiliations. Can you give the House a steer as to the modus operandi you are operating with respect to this conscience vote in terms of allocating speaking slots as to the likely order in which you will call members simply so members can plan accordingly when they have other commitments outside the House?
Donnelly Brian: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22089] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 The position of the House in granting leave for a waiata and an acclamation at the end of a passage of a piece of legislation has been accepted practice and I believe that it would certainly get the agreement of New Zealand First at the end of the debate here tonight. But to allow it to take place progressively throughout the debate would I think be totally wrong and in defiance of the Standing Orders. It would not get the support of New Zealand First as an ongoing thing but certainly as a wind-up end to the debate we would support it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions. Stephen Franks is absolutely right—that permission is sought—as is the Hon Brian Donnelly on the point he made. Is there any objection—
Prebble Richard: Speaker’s Statements — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Prebble Richard: Speaker’s Statements — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8440] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I too am a little concerned about the statements you have been making to the media especially in light of today’s  
Dominion Post 
 in which we 
see a Labour Minister in a previous Labour Government driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament. That action did not result in the Speaker at the time saying that Mr Tizard was going to be prosecuted or in sending him a bill for the rubbish caused by a tractor being driven up the steps. [ 
Interruption 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member interjecting has had the only warning I am giving today. There will be no comment during a point of order—none at all. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I do not claim to have a great deal of knowledge on tractors but I have driven them. I watched the member driving the tractor and he clearly showed he knew what he was doing. The suggestion that he was causing a risk to anyone is not so and the assessment that he “retreated down the steps” as you put it would not be correct either. He stopped and then reversed the tractor. I realise there are implications in a protest of this sort but I think it is a matter that a Speaker should be very careful about getting involved in because we have to take note that this protest was the first we have had under this Government—we may have many more—and it was coming from rural New Zealand which feels that this Government is out of touch. That was the point being made. The member is one of two members of Parliament who are working farmers. By his action he was sending the House a very strong sign of what will happen if we have laws on flatulence taxes and the like passed through this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that I have had approaches from and have observed about 30 or 40 demonstrations and I have allowed all of them. They have all been required to keep within the rules. I want to make it perfectly clear that when I was approached by Federated Farmers I negotiated with them and I respect them for keeping strictly to the rules. Of course I will take note of the members’ comments and I will review the matter when I am reviewing the whole of this incident that has taken place over the past few days. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I stood on the steps of Parliament last week when that tractor was driven up them. I did not see any debris left behind by that tractor at all. I am wondering whether you might be confused between cows and tractors. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not.