edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Paraone Pita: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Paraone Pita: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9597] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
Tena koe. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill. But in so doing I want to express some concerns I have particularly with regard to the costs that are likely to be diverted away from the area of service delivery and the likelihood that they will be used in managing the service. It is important that I mention that concern particularly if we take some note of how the health service in this country has developed over recent years. Although I acknowledge that we need good management I feel that much of the budget that has been allocated for the delivery of services has been consumed by management. 
I also want to mention that the apparent emphasis on one ethnic group under clause 23 does not augur well for other ethnic groups particularly those with similar social structures. In that regard I refer to our Pacific Island brothers and sisters and say that the bill as it stands is silent in that respect. The bill gives some solace to the wider community in that it goes some way towards protecting it from those people for whom this bill aims to provide improved services. In that respect the Government ought to be congratulated on promoting this bill. Clearer direction is provided to the courts and to the health professionals who will have to administer this new legislation. I note that there seemed to be no difficulty in the latter stages of the debate in debating most of the parts of the bill as one. The fact that a decision was made to deal with the earlier part of the bill in single parts thus avoiding further opportunity to call this Government to account in the time that would normally be set for oral questions was some cause of disappointment to me and my colleagues in New Zealand First. In conclusion I reiterate my support and that of my colleagues in New Zealand First for this bill.
Mackey Moana: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21405] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
[Volume:616;Page:12367] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps as a way through this and as a way for the Government to recognise that this is serious legislation and that the announcements tomorrow do form the basis certainly of the legislation that may come this week or some time in the future I wonder whether we could have an indication from the Leader of the House as to whether he would consider allowing one spokesperson from each of the Opposition parties to participate in the embargoed lock-up.
Brown Peter: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brown Peter: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20118] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. New Zealand First has kicked up merry bobsy-die in the past by wanting to know when there has been a split vote who voted for and who voted against. We have reached an agreement in the Business Committee that that will be divulged. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Technically the member in the first vote should have said his name. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I voted in favour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Ryall Tony: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14159] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In dealing with the release of offenders who are subject to automatic release the likes of McIntosh and Ryder I wonder whether the Minister would take a call and explain to the Committee why in the case of sex offenders reaching their statutory release date the Government has not sought to apply section 105 of the Criminal Justice Act or whatever is its successor. That is the section that says the Secretary for Justice may apply to the Parole Board before an offender’s final release date to have that offender not released. That would appear to me to be the means to meet Mr Dail Jones’ concern and the concern of all parties about not using the full power of the law to maintain such people in custody. I wonder whether the Minister would get some advice from his officials and advise the Committee on that question. Can the Minister do that? He could just bend over and ask the question or otherwise we will just keep taking calls until he does. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: It sounds to me like a threat actually. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We are asking a question. We are wondering whether the Minister will ask the officials. Thank you; I appreciate that. It is quite a serious question and we just want an answer. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The officials are not quite sure what the member’s about. Would the member like to explain? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Under the previous regime when a specified number of offenders meet their statutory release date at two-thirds of their sentence there was a provision in the Criminal Justice Act—section 105—that allowed the Secretary for Justice to apply to have those people not enjoy an automatic release but to fulfil the rest of their term. [ 
Interruption 
] That section still exists. [ 
Interruption 
] Now it is section 107 of the Parole Act. 
Why is that section not capable of being used more frequently for sexual offenders of this nature? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I think the member— 
Hon David Carter 
: Well the Minister should be aware of the legislation. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think it is a valid point because the problem with this is that many of this group are reaching their automatic release date under the previous legislation. The secretary can apply to have them do the remaining third of their sentence. Why is that provision not being used as frequently as we would like it to be used in order to maintain custody of those people before they enter the extended supervision period?
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15288] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to Part 1 be agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
[Volume:625;Page:20303] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the recent adjournment I undertook to report back to the House following points of order concerning the media’s positioning within the buildings especially when members are making their way to the Chamber. I wish to outline some of the steps I have initiated as a result of the concerns that were expressed and the new situation arising from the building work that is going on. 
From next week the Beehive refurbishment project will mean that access from the executive wing to Parliament House will be affected by the construction of a safe way across the bridge to level 1. That will restrict alternate access routes and increase the bridge’s use as a thoroughfare compared with its present use. Discussions have been held with the press gallery on interim arrangements to operate for the next few months while that situation continues. 
In outline I envisage that a clearway free of media will be maintained across the bridge at all times and that no interviews will be permitted on it. Rather on House sitting days the media position will be in the Parliament House foyer outside the doors to the Grand Hall except when the Grand Hall is being used for a major function. If the Grand Hall is in use ad hoc arrangements will be made for corridor interviews to be carried out elsewhere. In regard to the Bills Office I propose to establish a clear access way on one side of the corridor leading to that room. The precise details of those arrangements will be discussed further with the press gallery by the Manager Security and Operations. 
When the Beehive renovations are completed I will review those arrangements in the light of the new configuration and use patterns of the buildings.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18642] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Simich Clem: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: 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:9975] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
:I thank the member for that. I was going to explain matters further but that stops that. I would be very happy for the Speaker to return. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed.
Copeland Gordon: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3720] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am very pleased to signal United Future’s support for the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) and I urge its speedy passage through the House. I am strongly in favour of correcting the obvious injustice that denies spouses’ annuities to widows or widowers who remarry.  
I am delighted that United Future MPs are actually allowed to use the “m” word—that is “marriage”—in this House because I understand that the word has been carefully expunged from the policy manifestos of both the Labour Party and the National Party. I find that tragic and against the criteria of observable reality and common sense incomprehensible. After all the great majority of New Zealand adults are currently married and marriage—be it for the first second or third time—is still immensely popular. This bill is before the House because many widows widowers and divorced people continue to remarry and it is great that they do because there is now a veritable library of information and social science that shows that marriage with all its imperfections and failures is still as good as it gets for most of the adult members of the human race. All the studies show that on average spouses—to use the language of the bill; or partners the terminology that is more common today—are the happiest human beings with the highest household incomes and the best health.  
Those are the kinds of issues that I came into Parliament to promote and if marriage is a key then all of us need to begin to talk it up. That does not mean of course that the single the divorced or the gay are regarded as somehow second-class. As far as United Future is concerned all people are welcome and by their very presence enrich all of us. Each of us in our own way makes a contribution to the health of New Zealand its families and its communities. Let us put this bill through in record time.
Brownlee Gerry: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15425] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to raise a matter of order in the Committee. A great deal of this place functions on the basis that we have loose agreements and understandings about where things are going and what is supposed to occur. Everyone knows that a date is being organised for the third reading of this bill that will suit the large number of people who wish to be here for that purpose. I want to let you know that although the Labour Party may not wish to debate this legislation other parties do and under the Standing Orders we are entitled to speak up to four times on each part. Mr Chairperson I think it would be unwise in these early stages to look for early closures.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5076] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:621;Page:16467] 
Voting 
Correction 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I have a correction to the vote on Stephen Franks’ amendment to the Minister’s referral motion relating to the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. The result should have been announced as Ayes 35 and Noes 84 not 74.
Copeland Gordon: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11905] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on the second reading of theBusiness Law Reform Bill and briefly mention a couple of aspects of it that are of interest to me and to United Future. 
The first concerns the Distress and Replevin Act of 1908. I was asked at the United Future caucus this morning what the word “replevin” means and I had to confess that I had absolutely no idea. But I have rectified that since by looking it up in the dictionary and I find that it means “the recovery of goods unlawfully taken”. So for those like myself who have never heard that word before that is its meaning. 
Like the honourable member Dail Jones I marvel that the 1908 Act has managed to stay the law of New Zealand for a total of 94 years. That is a pretty good effort. The Act is being amended now only because of the need for it to interact with the Personal Property Securities Act of 1999. Please God let some of the bills that we are passing during this Parliament still be around in 94 years’ time. 
The only thing of substance that I will speak about is the amendments that have been made in the bill in respect of employer superannuation schemes. Such schemes will henceforth be exempt from the prospectus requirements which have not been required up until now for small employer superannuation schemes but they have been for larger ones. I am delighted that the requirement for all superannuation schemes to have a prospectus is now to be removed. 
New Zealand has a serious problem with saving for retirement. Just today for example Sovereign has issued a new survey of savings patterns for retirement by New Zealanders and it is extremely concerning to find that fewer and fewer New Zealanders are systematically saving for retirement. One of the best ways that people can do that is through an employer-based superannuation scheme. Although this amendment is relatively minor anything at all that we can do in Parliament to encourage retirement savings should be done. The Government needs to do a great deal more and I sincerely hope that in this year’s Budget we will see removed the present overtaxation of the earnings on superannuation schemes for the 74 percent of New Zealanders who pay tax at less than 33c in the dollar because we really need to incentivise those schemes. 
As others have mentioned the aim of this bill is to make the law clearer more efficient more effective and to reduce business compliance costs. I think those are very worthy objectives. I understand that the business community is anxious to see this bill enacted because it recognises that for once this Parliament is doing something to reduce compliance costs. That is a good trend and long may it continue. We are happy to support the bill.
Carter John: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Carter John: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12882] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sure of that too but I asked a genuine question and I have not had a response from the Chair. Are you able to indicate the length of time that is now likely to be taken over the next parts in Committee so that we can plan? As I said the norm has been about 45 minutes. This debate was shortened down a little and I wonder whether that is what we can expect. Do you know whether for some reason the debate will be shorter tonight or are we going back to the norm of about three-quarters of an hour so we can plan around that? I accept all those other points—that is why I did not raise them myself. I do well know what matters are your prerogative and all those sorts of things. I just wondered whether we could get an indication of whether there has been some change with regard to the norm. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No there has been no change Mr Carter. I can say that generally the manner in which the House is run is under custom and practice and if it is custom and practice I am sure that the debates will continue as they have and that the interpretation will be liberal. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Part 1 be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12348] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just say that again so that we know what we are doing. We are seeking leave for a separate question to have one debate and I will take that leave first. Is there any objection? There is not. Now I will seek leave of the House for the Committee to have the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales and the amendment of the Hon Peter Dunne relating to clubs taken as separate questions when we come to do the voting. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6959] 
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.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9250] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It might be written in the newspaper but that does not make it accurate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is all we are trying to get to.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:6029] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
Noes 70 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6308] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8964] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was the one who denied the Prime Minister leave. I attempted to have a point of order but could not. I am quite happy to agree to the Prime Minister tabling the document so long as she can assure the House that in doing so she would not be breaking any laws of New Zealand.
Visitors — South Africa—Portfolio Committee on Finance National Parliament of the Republic of South Africa 
Visitors — South Africa—Portfolio Committee on Finance National Parliament of the Republic of South Africa 
[Volume:626;Page:21243] 
Tuesday 14 June 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
South Africa—Portfolio Committee on Finance National Parliament of the Republic of South Africa 
Madam SPEAKER 
:I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Portfolio Committee on Finance from the National Parliament of the Republic of South Africa led by Dr Robert Davies MP are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Cullen Michael: Retirements — John Lindell O’Sullivan 
Cullen Michael: Retirements — John Lindell O’Sullivan 
[Volume:607;Page:4503] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move 
 That this House express appreciation of the services given to members by John Lindell O’Sullivan CNZM LVO upon his retirement as General Manager of the Parliamentary Service; note his long career in the public sector particularly with the Department of Internal Affairs where he became a Deputy Secretary; and convey to John and Annette O’Sullivan every best wish for the future. 
 I know it is slightly outside the Standing Orders but I would like to refer to the fact that Mr O’Sullivan is in the gallery and I am sure I will be expressing the views of all members in moving that motion. Mr O’Sullivan has been the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service for some 10 years and before that for over 30 years he was in the Department of Internal Affairs. When he left that department he was responsible for matters such as citizenship gaming passports racing film censorship civil defence the arts and culture. At the time when he joined the Parliamentary Service he was also responsible for local government and community affairs. Mr O’Sullivan was engaged in organising royal visits to this country in 1977 and 1981 which is how he became a Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order. His service as General Manager to the Parliamentary Service led to him becoming a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in this year’s New Year’s Honours List. 
As General Manager John O’Sullivan has been responsible for the supervision of the enormous range of activities that go on in the Parliamentary Service catering not only to all the staff here but also to the peculiarly diffuse diverse and difficult 120 select customers who are the prime customers for the services that he provides. Very few departments have to deal with such a wide range of prima donnas as the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service has to at all times. It is interesting that one or two members decided to interject straight away in that regard. We would all agree that John O’Sullivan has dealt with the demands placed upon him in an extraordinarily sensible and straightforward manner. As he said in his own farewell message he has seen four general elections an increase in the size of Parliament from 99 to 120 members a new electoral system—MMP—being introduced substantial development of resources for members and parliamentary parties and the finishing off of refurbishment projects in the parliamentary complex. It has been an extraordinary period of time. I very much want to express my own personal thanks to John for the work he has done.
Burton Mark: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Burton Mark: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21873] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge as I did in my second reading speech yesterday that the issues the member has just raised are significant. As she indicated this is not the first time they have come up in relation to a settlement bill. 
They were discussed at some length I believe at the Maori Affairs Committee the time and place in the end for us to address issues relating to the conflict if you like between children with whakapapa to a particular iwi—in this case Nga Rauru—and the provisions of the Adoption Act and indeed the Human Rights Act. It is perhaps then when we are reviewing things like the Adoption Act which we are reviewing currently that there is an opportunity to look at it in its wider context. There will no doubt be diverse views around the House at that time about the issues raised.
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18786] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Those are actually two distinct issues. The first issue is in terms of the select committee that will consider the bill and the second one is in respect of the timing. I appreciate the help from the Clerk’s Office but it seems to me that the House should be able to consider those two issues separately. In terms of the issue of which is the appropriate select committee for the bill to go to of course the original hazardous substances bill was dealt with by that select committee and of course the scrutiny of the Environmental Risk Management Authority is with that select committee. That is one issue but the issue of the timing is a separate issue. I seek your guidance on the amendments being placed as I originally tabled them with the Chair as two separate motions of amendment. They are indeed separate issues and parties may have different views about the rushed timetable compounded by the issue of which is the appropriate committee to deal with this important bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not see any problem with that. I have the wording as it is but if there is no objection there is no reason why I cannot put the two motions. The first then is that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Paraone Pita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20252] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Last night I concluded by asking what effect the inclusion of cultural beliefs into legislation has and how they are to be enforced. Will those beliefs by virtue of their inclusion in this bill be what future generations of New Zealanders are required to believe? 
I repeat that the claimants in this bill are entitled to their own beliefs but I think it is clearly wrong for this Government to continue to have those beliefs legislated for by inclusion in this bill given that their inclusion will in no way affect the quality the legitimacy and more important the durability of this settlement. I had the opportunity to discuss this matter further with a number of my colleagues and they were unable to shed any light on it for me particularly in terms of those parts of the narratives that clearly reflect what—one would say—are tribal beliefs and understandings. I reiterate the point that we in New Zealand First in no way deny the beliefs that Ngati Tuwharetoa may have but we certainly have some concern that those beliefs are now by virtue of their inclusion in this bill being foisted on the rest of us in New Zealand.
Adams Paul: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Adams Paul: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5741] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. It was my understanding that when we were last in Committee we removed the limit on the number of calls in this debate.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill — Third Readings 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:626;Page:21300] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4416] 
10.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What initiatives has the Government taken to ensure the ongoing quality and supply of fresh water in New Zealand? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Government has identified in its sustainable development programme of action that freshwater allocation and the maintenance of water quality are fundamental to our growth. Within that programme we are developing ways of ensuring that nationally significant water bodies such as Lake Taupo are protected and we are identifying a more strategic method of allocating water to improve on the current mechanisms. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Why has the Government identified water as one of the priority areas in the sustainable development programme of action? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Having enough clean water is vital for the health of New Zealanders and the growth of our economy. Right now different provinces in New Zealand are experiencing water shortages and the Ministry for the Environment is working with local government to ensure the ongoing quality and supply of fresh water. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Given the importance that access to water has for both our economy and our people why is this Government making it harder for water augmentation schemes like Project Aqua the expanded Rangitata irrigation scheme and the just announced Hawke’s Bay combined hydro and irrigation scheme by refusing to make any changes to the Resource Management Act which has those very sound proposals tied up in red tape for years? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I think it has already been announced by the Minster of Energy that there is ongoing work on the Resource Management Act particularly for large projects such as water management. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Given that the question referred to the supply of fresh water not the supply of potable water is the Minister suggesting that she can somehow make it rain more often or does she concede that it is actually rainfall that will govern the supply of fresh water? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The question was about the allocation of water and some local authorities such as the Taranaki Regional Council have shown a solution to managing a water shortage. The Ministry for the Environment will work with councils to ensure that the good lessons learnt by some councils are shared with others.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17720] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12359] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 38; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 16 
New Zealand Labour 11; New Zealand National 5 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(1A)Section 37(3)(a) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “Wine” the words “intended for consumption as an alcoholic beverage”.
Hunt Jonathan: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11861] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course one of them goes back to 1960 the other goes back to 1931: “It is out of order for a member to suggest the Speaker is defending the Government—such a statement must be withdrawn unreservedly;”. Speaker’s ruling 17/4: “The Speaker’s ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice.” That means that a motion can be put down about a decision that was made on the Order Paper. It is perfectly in order for anyone to do that. That goes back to 1891. Speaker’s ruling 17/5: “The Speaker’s ruling may only be challenged on a motion of which notice has been given. Such notice cannot be accepted immediately after the ruling has been given. It must be given at the appropriate time.” That means the motion can be put down with notice. 
I just want to make the point that this matter has taken a bit of time out of this debate. I tried to ensure that would not be the case. I am disappointed that that has been the case. Of course it is the minor parties that are disadvantaged as a result. I declare the House in Committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2002/03) Financial Review Bill.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5761] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Benson-Pope David: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14250] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16464] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15650] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. Again I say it is my view that the question was that clauses 1 and 2 stand part. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member may address the issue again but I am giving my ruling now. The question was that clauses 1 and 2 stand part. There is no argument about that and I said that the clauses would be voted on separately. So we are in the process of this vote and that is my ruling. The member may if he wishes overturn it at another time.
Cunliffe David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15547] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in support of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to make a rare admission: I am confused in two respects. The first ground for confusion is that one of my colleagues a minute ago asked me: “Who is that member speaking?” when the member opposite was delivering his speech. We took a quick poll on the Labour side of the aisle and for a good 3 minutes none of us could think of his name. Someone said he is from Ashburton. We consulted the  
Ashburton Guardian 
—I am told that the member has a close family interest in it—but notwithstanding that we still could not find his name. So if any other members can help us we would appreciate some assistance after my short soliloquy. 
The second ground for confusion is that it is not often that Government members come to this House and the whips say: “Would you like to take a call?”. I said to them: “This is the Waitaki bill and I’m from Waitakere. Is there some confusion here?”. They said “No.” I realised that they were being brilliant because I actually grew up in South Canterbury. That member was referring to water rights in South Canterbury and I have news for him: I used to go salmon fishing in the Waitaki River and I loved it. I never caught a single salmon in the Waitaki River but I am prepared to believe that there were some there and I want my little man to know that there are some salmon there as well. 
This bill is important because it preserves water rights now and for the future. We are entering a time when water rights will become contestable. We need to have a proper structure to guarantee them for future generations. No local member could do more than Jim Sutton has done to ensure the interests of his local electorate—my old electorate—are indeed protected.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6976] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “(Stockholm Convention)” and substitute the words “(Persistent Organic Pollutants)”.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20525] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that to get the record clear I should withdraw and apologise without qualification.
Pettis Jill: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6983] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11159] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to progressing the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill and the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill.
Burton Mark: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12809] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The ruling you read out which I thought was very helpful to the House was very clear. It indicated that the Minister responsible could invite officials on a matter of Government business. This is a matter of Government business. There is no requirement for the Minister to convey a copy of that invitation to the House and certainly not to that member. The fact that the member is unaware of something going on in the House is not an unusual state of affairs. The fact is these officials are clearly here potentially within the scope of that Speaker’s ruling and I believe that the House should now get upon its proper business. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will rule now. I have heard the arguments put forward by both parties— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. I have heard the issue put by both parties in this particular dispute and I wish to rule on it.
Mahuta Nanaia: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7375] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 Unlike the comments made by the previous speaker I say the privileges and immunities that are provided for in this bill will be in the best interests of the International Criminal Court. They are not for the personal benefit of the individuals concerned and that is the point to make. As we all know the International Criminal Court is the world’s first criminal court that is capable of trying those individuals who are accused of the most serious violations of international humanitarian law—namely genocide war crimes and crimes against humanity. This bill sets out the privileges and immunities that the judges and staff of the International Criminal Court will have while working in New Zealand. While it is unlikely that the court will ever sit in New Zealand it is possible that investigators may wish to question witnesses here about events that have occurred elsewhere around the world. I commend this bill to the House.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22172] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I did concentrate on the answer to the question and I was not distracted by the other members’ points of order going back to a previous question. As the member who raised the original point of order knows all that is required under our Standing Orders is to address the question; it is not necessary to have the answer satisfy those who asked the question.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7307] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only Dianne Yates herself can comment on that if she so wishes. If she wishes to comment on it then she can. If she does not then she does not have to. No member can demand that another member speak for himself or herself.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17937] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to Part 2 of schedule 5 be agreed to: 
to omit “Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation” from the list of Autonomous Crown entities.
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12360] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brian Connell to clause 26 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20155] 
6.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In light of the statement by Fairfax chief operating officer and editor-in-chief that “the full story is not being told at this time and is not being represented accurately in some public statements and reports.” does she stand by her claim that she “would have drawn their attention to the fact that the evidence was contested.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she deny to the House that she assured the  
Sunday Star-Times  
reporter and editor that they were accurate in what they were claiming after they had published it on 16 January 2000 and after Peter Doone had told them they had it wrong and was threatening suit? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I stand by my claim that I would have said that the evidence was contested. What I had in front of me were official reports that suggested that it was. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My actual question was: “Does she deny …” and that question was not answered. It is a yes or no question. She could answer yes to the primary question; what about to the supplementary question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member is aware the Minister has to address the question not answer it to the satisfaction of the member. That is the Standing Order. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she required the resignation of the previous Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel for lying to the media and can she advise the House why she is applying a lesser standard to herself when she has clearly provided information to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that she must have known on the basis of the Police Complaints Authority report and the Robinson report to be untrue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not believe the assertions in the member’s questions to be true.
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Referral of S.O.P. 298 to Health Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16816] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that that is a fair point. I think the House will seize the opportunity to have a debate and it would be unduly restrictive and unreasonable for the House to be kept to a narrow debate on whether the Supplementary Order Paper should go. I think some issues need to be explained and I would like the opportunity to explain them to the House. If I have that opportunity then it is quite reasonable for Opposition members or other members of the House to be able to respond to that. So I think the progress of this matter in its substance would be helped if the debate were on a wider basis. 
I do not think the debate will take any more time; I think it will actually take a shorter time. So I seek leave for the debate to be wide-ranging on the issues that this Supplementary Order Paper raises. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. The member is more than entitled to seek leave. The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.