edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19686] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In the business statement at the start of today’s sitting I said that the Government intends to take urgency on Tuesday. If the business I outlined is finished by 1 o’clock on Wednesday I will be very happy for the member to have his 2½ hours of members’ time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Has the matter been clarified for the member?
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction  
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction  
[Volume:616;Page:12431] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that Mr Prebble has raised this issue as a genuine concern but I would caution against the expression of an absolute ruling right now. You have said that during a period of the day the media cannot get to a member of Parliament. More particularly you are ruling that a Minister who may be embattled for either political or personal reasons cannot be questioned by the media during that period. Ministers may be able to sit in their offices avoid public scrutiny of their portfolio areas by refusing to admit the media to their level of the building and then still come down to the Chamber—where they cannot be got at by the media—during a period when the media are supposedly banned from the access ways to the Chamber. I think that that is an extreme position to take.
Tabling of Documents — Petition of Larry Baldock MP and Gordon Copeland MP 
Tabling of Documents — Petition of Larry Baldock MP and Gordon Copeland MP 
[Volume:625;Page:20221] 
Wednesday 4 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Tabling of Documents 
Petition of Larry Baldock MP and Gordon Copeland MP 
The Clerk read petitions for presentation. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the 203000 signatures collected seeking a referendum on the question: “Should the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 be repealed?”. 
Document not tabled.
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:21369] 
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 clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Samuels Dover: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Samuels Dover: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15851] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Responses — David Henderson—Statements Made By Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP 
Responses — David Henderson—Statements Made By Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP 
[Volume:623;Page:18229] 
Wednesday 2 February 2005 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Responses 
David Henderson—Statements Made By Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I herby present a response under Standing Orders 161 and 163 on the application of Mr David Henderson relating to statements made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP on 19 October 2004. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Report of Auditor-General—Dr Ross Armstrong 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Report of Auditor-General—Dr Ross Armstrong 
[Volume:615;Page:10880] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Murray McCully seeking to debate under what is now Standing Order 373 the report of the Auditor-General on expenses incurred by Dr Ross Armstrong as chairperson of three public entities. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The report was released on 19 December 2003. This is the first day on which it can be considered and it involves the ministerial administrative responsibility of the Government. The inquiry was initiated in November 2002 following Dr Armstrong’s resignation on which the House held an urgent debate. There are implications in the report for corporate governance in general that the report identifies though it does not address. I consider those issues can be considered by Parliament in a number of ways—in particular through the financial review process. I do not consider that a report on an inquiry into events that occurred as long ago as 2002 requires the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. The application is accordingly declined.
Cullen Michael: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4507] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service 
: I move  
That the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill defines the functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau and provides for its administration and the conduct of its operational activities. Its primary objectives are firstly to formalise in statute the existing executive arrangements that establish the Government Communications Security Bureau and authorise its activities; secondly to fill a gap in the existing legal structure which currently prevents the Government Communications Security Bureau’s intelligence collection operations from evolving to keep pace with the rapidly changing communications environment; and thirdly to recognise formally the key role that the bureau plays in the protection of the nation’s communications and computer systems. 
This bill puts the position of the Government Communications Security Bureau beyond doubt as a legitimate agency of Government. It emphasises that the bureau’s functions are to be focused on meeting the Government’s foreign intelligence and information security needs and provides for robust protection for the legitimate privacy interests of New Zealanders ourselves. In defining the functions for the Government Communications Security Bureau this bill establishes clear parameters of the bureau’s operational activities at a time when the need for an effective intelligence and security response in the national interest has perhaps never been more compelling. I commend the bill to the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Voting — Correction 
Robertson H V Ross: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:621;Page:16380] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I adjourn the House I wish to correct the vote in the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill. The Ayes should read 79 and the Noes 37.
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:8988] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am seeking guidance. When a member is referred to as a “dwarf” or by some other pejorative— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member speaking on the point of order? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on that point of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is supplementary to that point of order. I ask whether the ruling on the point of order means that one cannot say “they are like” or “the story is relevant” or use the word as a metaphor without actually calling members dwarfs. It seems to me that it is far too wide. If it is ruled out as a metaphor it is far wider than the parliamentary rules against abuse require. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Speaker ruled that when members refer to other members they refer to them by their name.
Duynhoven Harry: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15703] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Maori Fisheries Bill and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 254.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12994] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(d)deterring potential offenders from committing crime.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18541] 
10.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What reports has he received about significant drug seizures at the border in 2004? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Reports from the New Zealand Customs Service show that there were 53 significant drug seizures at the border last year compared with 28 in 2003. That includes the seizure of over 17.5 kilos of crystal methamphetamine in 2004 up from 748 grams in 2003 and 1.8 million capsules of precursors for the manufacture of methamphetamine more than double that of 2003. The estimated value of the illegal drugs seized by the Customs Service was a staggering $52 million compared with $34 million the year before. 
Dave Hereora 
: What action has the Government taken to ensure that the Customs Service has the resources to reduce illegal drug importation? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: In 2003-04 an extra $1.9 million was provided for the recruitment and training of additional specialist drug intelligence and investigation staff specifically to help to identify and investigate syndicates trafficking drugs in New Zealand. In 2004-05 $5 million was invested in passenger inspection at our international airports and to lift the boarding of arriving vessels to 100 percent inspection—essential activities for the detection of illegal goods crossing our border particularly drugs.
Pettis Jill: Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14481] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I shall just take a brief call. I was really interested to hear the previous National Party speaker on the bill particularly when he said the National Party was looking to make significant changes to the bill whenever it was in a position to do so. Well we know that will not be for a very very long time. 
But I understand that the National Party will also make significant changes to its spokesperson on this area. In fact the National Party spokesperson on child youth and family issues has not even taken a call on this particular bill. Great changes are afoot and I think Mr Carter’s sentence was quite Freudian in its intent. 
This bill will assist young people; it will assist them to stop committing crimes and it will stop them from reoffending. National’s glib approach to this bill shows that its policies for young offenders will never work. That kind of speech might go down well in some of the Northland bars and speakeasies but it does not work here in Parliament where every word is recorded. That would be a good speech from the podium during an election campaign but certainly does not stand up to scrutiny in this place. 
This bill is a good bill and I am very pleased to support it. 
Bill read a first time.
Dunne Peter: Obituaries — Sir William Pickering 
Dunne Peter: Obituaries — Sir William Pickering 
[Volume:616;Page:11701] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future wants to join other parties in expressing sympathy upon the death of Sir William Pickering. I want to say as a Wellington member of Parliament that the association of Sir William with Wellington College which was his former high school is one that is deeply treasured by that college. In fact when Sir William visited the college last year he was an inspiration to today’s students who were struck by the essential humility of the man his apparent nondescriptness yet his extraordinary sense of achievement. I think he inspired those young men to believe that anything is possible and that if one’s goals are high enough one will achieve them. He was a great New Zealander and he is one in whom we should all have considerable pride. I join others in expressing sympathy on his sad passing but I also rejoice in the contribution he was able to make in life.
Gosche Mark: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8842] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (NZ Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8079] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 8(2) be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Cullen Michael: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6261] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Dalziel Lianne: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8711] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Benson-Pope David: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3891] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House at this point to move directly to the third reading of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is objection.
Parker David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Parker David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22280] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker your first ruling was quite right. The other point that the last honourable member spoke about is dealt with under the question of whether the amendment is within the scope of the bill. As long as an amendment is within the scope of the bill it can be included within a Supplementary Order Paper without an explanatory note.
Beyer Georgina: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21778] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is to speak on the first reading of the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill is designed to reduce the workload pressures facing the Court of Appeal and to increase access to the Supreme Court. Amongst other things it will ensure that better use is made of judges’ time. The number of Court of Appeal judges will be increased. Some flexibility will be introduced into the way in which Court of Appeal judgments can be delivered. The relevant provisions in the Judicature Act are currently interpreted by the courts as requiring judgments to be delivered by any two judges of the Court of Appeal in an open court. This requirement takes up the valuable time of judges especially when a judgment is delivered to an empty courtroom. Currently both the Supreme Court and the High Court are able to deliver their judgments in an open court or through the registrar. The Court of Appeal does not have that flexibility. So this bill will bring the practice in the Court of Appeal into line with the practice in the Supreme Court and the High Court.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12338] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Franks Stephen: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4451] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am seeking clarification. It may have been discussed and it may be that there is a convention on this but I would imagine that even though it is a wide-ranging debate there would be some advantage in taking a reasonable sequence because some of the amendments will be very confusing if they are dealt with out of sequence. I wonder whether that could be an understanding of the Committee.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17548] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu  
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson  
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward (P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 9 be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10004] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Continuing points of order— 
PETER BROWN 
: It is a new point of order. Throughout this evening you or other members have referred to this book and Standing Orders to the letter. Now when the Hon Peter Dunne has pointed out a clause are we seeing some sort of flexibility? I am asking you to rule to the letter and if not I am asking for the Speaker to come back.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7667] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2003/04) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Peters Jim: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Jim: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19886] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The discussion on Part 3 needs some reference to the fact that the Fiordland Marine Guardians felt that their role was not given proper and due recognition in the original bill. I am very pleased to say that the revised bill takes that into account as far as we were able to bearing in mind the lack of a truly more integrated system by statute at the present time. Earlier on we heard from another member that in the opinion of the Green Party the Minister of Conservation needed to have an elevated status in this bill. However the role of the Minister of Conservation is recognised particularly in regard to the review process. 
Firstly changes have been made so that clause 12(1)(a)(iaa) states that the functions of the guardians include: “advice and recommendations on the effectiveness of management measures in the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Area:”. That is a due recognition of the issues that were raised by the guardians. Secondly clause 21 states that a review will be carried out by the Minister of Conservation who will in turn consult with the guardians and invite them to be part of that process. Lastly and probably most importantly of all the select committee took into account the need—and I believe that this is very important for the long-term development of this concept—for the guardians to include at least five members rather than two who are ordinarily resident in the Otago or Southland regions. In other words—and this is a very major task for the Minister—the guardians will be a representative body that represents that locality. I commend the select committee members for their work. We support this part of the bill.
Stewart Barbara: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11265] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am pleased to speak on Part 1 of the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. The commencement date is 1 July 2004. We know that that commencement date is important particularly to all of those who are affected by this particular bill. We want to have women enrolled in this programme we want to have a gold standard programme and we want a programme that the women of New Zealand can have total confidence in. 
I am particularly pleased that it is 2004 because the sooner we get on to this legislation the better but also because by this time all the people who are already enrolled in this programme can be informed of the changes to the programme they originally joined—namely access to their health records by programme evaluators. We know that this step cannot be undertaken until this legislation is passed. So the sooner it is passed the sooner we will be able to progress this. 
I am pleased too to think that in the very near future all the women in New Zealand enrolled in this programme can expect to be fully informed about the new process and we will look forward to monitoring the progress of this process. New Zealand First definitely supports the development of screening programmes of this nature that benefit the health of all New Zealanders. Women’s health is particularly important because of the families that they are part of. We know that this is a disease we do not want our women to have.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Answers Maori Language—Interpretation Points of Order—Minister’s Answers 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Answers Maori Language—Interpretation Points of Order—Minister’s Answers 
[Volume:615;Page:11496] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was also the matter raised yesterday by the Hon Bill English. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am still coming back on that one. I had quite a bit to do on those two today. I will come back on that one.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8998] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Supreme Court Act 2002” and substitute the words “Repeal of Privy Council Appeals Act 2003”.
Pettis Jill: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10688] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 It always amuses me when National Party members take umbrage when one is speaking the truth of the situation to them. Yes indeed when Katherine Rich got up to speak I did interject and say “absent mothers” because this bill is about helping families. When it is considered how many times those National women in particular vote against pro-families legislation I always think it is a bit rich. This is a good bill and I look forward to it being passed through the House.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9250] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Let me just say that of course that is a silly thing—if anyone did think that was a way out. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s written in there.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8946] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(4)Section 38(1)(b) of the principal Act is amended by inserting the following subsection: 
(iv)The organism is genetically modified and is likely to directly or indirectly enter the human food chain.
Brown Peter: General Debate 
Brown Peter: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20248] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I actually said something along the lines that the advice received by the Minister was flawed but I concluded that it could well be a pack of lies. That is the conclusion I made. But I accept that because I want that Government to do something positive about that issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member’s time is up. We have resolved that issue.
Tanczos Nandor: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8489] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the Committee but in relation to an earlier amendment in the name of the Minister that went through on the voices I seek the leave of the Committee for that vote to be put again because I did not voice our objection to that amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member can seek leave to take the vote again. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I seek leave to do that.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6504] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Committee report progress. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Motion not agreed to.
Power Simon: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Power Simon: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13042] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is just a point of clarification and you may be able to point me to the appropriate Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling. I note that the junior Government whip is casting two votes for the Progressives. My understanding is that—certainly at question time today and presumably it is still the case—Mr Anderton is not around and I just wonder under what rules the junior Government whip can cast two votes in that instance. If more than a quarter of the caucus is away one would think it would be only one vote being cast. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: As the Chair I have to accept the word of all honourable members. If the member has cause to believe otherwise then there are appropriate courses of action that can be taken. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 196 be agreed to: 
to insert after the words “ on and after the commencement of this section” the words “notwithstanding any other section in this Act” and.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19209] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven  (P) 
Locke   
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Ewen-Street 
Mackey M 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel 
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly 
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Roy(P) 
Hughes 
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie   
Power   
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell   
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time.
Simich Clem: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9864] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A further amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 1A is inconsistent with the decision the Committee has just made and I rule it out of order. 
Clause 1A as amended agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Business Statement 
Sowry Roger: Business Statement 
[Volume:609;Page:6197] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House assure us that there will not be any urgency next week given the list of bills he has read out because it seems a fairly ambitious list?
Robertson H V Ross: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:620;Page:15845] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: As I understand it the member has asked that her vote on the second reading where she voted Aye should in fact be No. Is that correct? 
Judy Turner 
: That is correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. The member sought leave to change the votes. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. The Ayes are 63 the Noes are 57.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:15093] 
Thursday 26 August 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill and the remaining stages of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) the Maori Fisheries Bill and the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House indicate whether during the remaining 3 weeks of this 4-week session he intends to attempt to move the House into urgency for any matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. The member’s leader is free to carry on normally.
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11282] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8296] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for making a contribution. I think that is very parliamentary of her and I commend her action in doing that. I will reciprocate by not taking a very long call. 
I want to raise one question. The Minister talks about the language and if members look at the schedule they will see—as the Minister correctly said—that most of it is devoted to changing the name of the Residence Appeal Authority to a Residence Review Board. When we look at the parts of the bill we have agreed to at the moment we see that on the face of it it is not obvious why that change is being made. Indeed reading further when the bill refers to the Residence Review Board for the first time it says it is exactly the same as the authority. Section 18B(1) inserted by clause 12 states: “For the purposes of this Act there is a board called the Residence Review Board. The Board is the same body as the Residence Appeal Authority …” so the question one has to ask is: why the name change? 
I am left with the impression that the Government really wants to indicate to the courts which may be reviewing that body that it is a body not able to review the Minister and not able to be a real appeal authority and look at what has happened. It is a much lower body indeed. When one looks at the parts of the bill—which we have already agreed to so I am not going to go further—one sees that all sorts of actions that were able to be reviewed are no longer able to be reviewed. I make the point to the Minister that I do not agree with that name change. I do not agree with the idea that Ministers and civil servants should be above the law. The ACT party believes in the rule of law and we think the rule of law should apply to everyone—in particular to Ministers of Immigration.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21189] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National members have supported this bill. We have made some points about a lost opportunity to get it right. 
Darren Hughes 
: Oh don’t be churlish. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member should look on page 3 of the commentary which states: “We note that in 2001 the Minister of Justice informed the previous Commerce Committee that such a review would be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and completed by mid-2003. This review is now long overdue.” So the point I make is that while we support this legislation an opportunity to correct it right through has been lost. When we look at the reason for the proposals we see quite clearly that each time there is a change in the parent company a trustee company must secure changes to its private Act to authorise it to transact business with its new parent company. 
The situation has gone on and on and this will happen again next year and the year after. Four trustee companies are mentioned in the bill. They will come back and will want to make the changes. National’s minority view indicates that while we support the proposal to approve the new parent company by Order in Council we are disappointed with the decision of the committee not to support this initiative. 
That is our position. We do support the bill and if members over there did not object so much I might have had the chance to finish what I was going to say. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Brent Catchpole. 
Jill Pettis 
: Nobody’s listening.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction  
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction  
[Volume:616;Page:12431] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that I have raised before to do with MPs’ access to the Chamber when the bell is being rung. The Associate Minister of Maori Affairs may not want to raise the matter but I found myself walking along the corridor at the same time she was and I do not think any member should be subject to the scrum through which that member was trying to walk. Two members I presume of her staff had to ask camerapeople not to hold the cameras so close. In fact they had to push camerapeople back so that a member of Parliament—because that is what a Minister is—could come to the House. 
I think that you as Speaker have a duty to make sure that members of Parliament especially when the bell is ringing have free access to the Chamber. I came down to the Chamber early yesterday to look at  
Erskine May 
 and found the Leader of the House here. I asked him why he was here so early and he said: “Otherwise you can’t get through the scrum.” That is ridiculous. Any other Parliament in the world would not put up with it and you should not allow it either.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17852. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10761] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this debate be now adjourned. 
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.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18389] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Turner Judy: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11268] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 The bill before us has been very thoroughly and robustly examined by the Health Committee. Originally it was thought that the legislation would be able to apply in a more general sense to future health-screening programmes. However the advice from the Regulations Review Committee was such that it was decided to limit its scope to the Cervical-screening Programme that we are looking at today. 
When we talk about the time frame for commencement we also need to remind ourselves that we are talking about the time frame of a disease—a very preventable cancer. About 90 percent of all cases of the most common forms of cervical cancer are preventable if detected at an early stage and treated appropriately. Preventing deaths is possible but it hinges on the effectiveness of the screening programme in operation. As a country we have mourned the results of a screening programme that did not guarantee 100 percent accuracy for women and we have been given the mandate to put that right to the best of our ability. We also need to go back in time and remember the Gisborne inquiry that started this process. The evaluation that was so missing at that time will be addressed by this legislation. 
 I commend the chair of the Health Committee Steve Chadwick for her leadership in this regard. I mention Dr Lynda Scott—it is always great on a committee to have people with a medical background—and also Heather Roy from ACT whose contribution I found extremely helpful in the process. The most delightful aspect of this bill—and I say to Mrs Collins that it was delightful to work with her also—was that the cooperation worked. I also thank the Minister for the extended meetings regarding the bill and for the open and frank discussions that we had over ongoing concerns after it was reported back. 
It is important to remind ourselves when we talk about the time frame of this bill that we are dealing with a screening programme which is different from a diagnostic programme. There are flaws in a screening programme just by its very nature and if we do not have in place the kind of checks and balances that this legislation seeks to establish then a screening programme is not worth the paper it is written on and the system that is set in place can become a very dangerous tool. 
United Future is thrilled to support this bill and we will make further comments in Part 2.
Yates Dianne: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16488] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:627;Page:22117] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House the valedictory statements will be the first item taken after questions for oral answer on Tuesday 2 August. Following the valedictory statements the Government intends to take urgency to complete the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill including the Imprest Supply Bill (Second for 2005/06) Bill; Government notice of motion No. 1 on the Misuse of Drugs Act; the remaining stages of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill; Government notice of motion No. 2 in relation to the Standing Orders; and Government notice of motion No. 3 in relation to the register of members’ pecuniary interests. At the conclusion of urgency the adjournment motion will be put to the House.
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:609;Page:6121] 
Wednesday 11 June 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Education and Science Committee to meet outside New Zealand with the committees of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia from 15 to 19 June 2003 and to adopt such practices and procedures as are considered suitable for the conduct of the business of the meeting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4452] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I now need to seek leave for the member in charge of the bill to make two or three contributions to set out the bill and the sequence of it. Then we can debate it in that manner. I seek leave for that. [ 
Interruption 
] He can have two contributions but he may need to have a third or a fourth and I think the Committee would be sensible to grant that. I seek leave for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course? There is not.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8116] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I did not say that. I said the member did not need to ask the question which he did not. He is now free to submit the question as one of tomorrow’s questions. I am afraid I cannot give the member an indication as to when the Minister will be here. He will be here— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Aw! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member interjected during a point of order. By rights he should be asked to leave the Chamber. On this occasion provided he makes no further comment I will allow the Deputy Prime Minister to continue. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister is not well. He will return as soon as he can. That may well be tomorrow but I cannot give that guarantee. I point out again that on this particular issue it is not a matter of any old Minister being prepared to answer the question. I am the other Minister with statutory responsibility for the Maori Television Service and I am perfectly competent to answer this question.