edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ryall Tony: Points of Order — Written Questions 
Ryall Tony: Points of Order — Written Questions 
[Volume:611;Page:8040] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will be aware that there is general concern that the Prime Minister is not here to answer questions in the House. I would like to draw your attention now to written questions that the Prime Minister is not answering. I have written to you about a question where I asked: “… what are the names titles and businesses of those people invited to attend the Tauranga Business-Government Forum?” to which the Prime Minister replied: “Invitations were extended to and accepted by a wide range of people in various businesses in the Tauranga region.”—even though she had sent out the invitations herself and the chamber of commerce has confirmed that the Prime Minister’s office organised the business-Government forum. I wrote to you about the matter. You required me to raise it with the Prime Minister. I wrote to her. She did not respond. I would now draw this matter to your attention. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I ruled under Speaker’s ruling 130/4 that the member had to take the matter up with the Minister first which he said he has done. There is no response. I think he should come now to see me. I do not expect to deal with the details of written replies on the floor of the House but I am happy for him to come and see me.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — United Kingdom—Speaker of the House of Commons Indonesia—Budget Committee Members 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — United Kingdom—Speaker of the House of Commons Indonesia—Budget Committee Members 
[Volume:619;Page:14593] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Budget Committee from the Republic of Indonesia are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Prebble Richard: Motions — Sir Edmund Hillary—50th Anniversary of Ascent of Mount Everest 
Prebble Richard: Motions — Sir Edmund Hillary—50th Anniversary of Ascent of Mount Everest 
[Volume:608;Page:5815] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is appropriate that Parliament take some minutes to mark what is probably the most famous achievement by a person who is definitely the most famous New Zealander. Sir Edmund Hillary is also beloved because his own personal qualities personify what we would like to think are the characteristics of a New Zealander—someone who is humble but is also a doer who has let his deeds rather than his words speak for him. 
 I can confirm that Sir Edmund has always been a fearless person. He went to my old school Auckland Grammar. When I was a third former at that school I decided to climb to the top of the rafters of the third form bike shed which for a third former was an “Everest” climb. It took me some time. I worked my way along the rafters; it was a perilous ascent. When I got to the middle I felt a great sense of achievement. I then thought as we are thinking today that I should mark this occasion. I pulled out my pocket knife thinking I would carve my name into the rafters to show I had been the first to climb to the top of the third form bike shelter. I blew away the dust and realised that someone had carved his name before me. I blew more carefully and read “E. Hillary”. So I am not sure whether Sir Edmund climbed Everest first but he certainly climbed first to the top of the third form bike shed. I thought that that action should be marked today as well.
Mallard Trevor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22152] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I congratulate the member who has just sat down. I think that was probably the best speech of the year from the Opposition. As we are sitting here a lot of us are contrasting the quality of the questioning from the former and the current Leader of the Opposition. Bill English is the former Leader of the Opposition and he gets up on his hind legs in the Chamber and asks questions. He is the one whom the whips let speak. Murray McCully says to Don Brash that the National whips will get Bill English to speak because they really know that Don Brash is not good enough. 
I want to get back to some of the questions that have been asked. I thank Bill English for suggesting that I am smooth. He is the first person who has ever suggested that and it is not something that I have ever claimed. In fact some people are of the opinion that the opposite of that is true. 
I want to make it clear and put it on the record though that I stand by the student loan calculator on the Labour website. I want to run through the assumptions that are in that calculator which shows the massive savings in student loans according to the policy that was announced on Tuesday. First it is assumed the repayment threshold will increase each year at the rate of inflation. That is the current Government policy. That may not be built into the Inland Revenue Department assumptions but that is not the responsibility of the Labour Party—it is a matter of looking at that website.Second the current—[ 
Interruption 
] John Key is the six-house man who talks about productivity. The current interest rate is made up of 7 percent—an inflation adjustment of 2.8 percent and base interest of 4.2 percent. That is in the Labour Party system; I do not know whether the same assumption is built into the Inland Revenue Department system. Income growth is set by the user. It is something that works according to what actually happens. People’s incomes grow. The automatic setting is 3 percent because that is about what income growth has been over the years. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This is an explanation. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well people do not like it. I know that the Tories hate it. They have an inkling of what has happened in the last week and they know why Don Brash will not get up in this Parliament and ask questions so I am explaining to them why that is happening. [ 
Interruption 
] 
That member wishes to become the Minister of Finance but I understand that his colleagues already say that his tax cuts do not add up. [ 
Interruption 
] No no—I tell the member that they say his tax cuts do not add up. The reason the National Party is not prepared to release information on its proposed tax cuts is that some of its members including a former Minister of Finance say that they do not add up. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22184] 
12.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What initiatives if any have been put in place to assist New Zealanders into a secure and affordable home? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The good news is that 57000 New Zealand households with 78000 children are an average of $35 per week better off as a result of the income-related rents policy. This has contributed directly to the reduction in poverty levels in this country. Two thousand five hundred families have had their homes modernised made more healthy or improved and another 2300 families have received an energy efficiency retrofit. We have also launched Welcome Home Loans to help Kiwis buy their first house. Over 1000 households have been helped into their own homes at this pilot stage. That will be expanded to 5000 homes next year with another 5000 to 8000 first home buyers per year to be assisted through the new KiwiSaver programme. It is good news. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the current number of State houses is sufficient to meet the need of the community for affordable low-cost and quality housing? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No not yet. That is why we have been providing for an additional 5700 State houses since 1999 and why we have budgeted for another 3288 houses over the next 4 years. We had to do this because 13000 houses were sold during the 1990s to provide at least $2 billion for the National Party to pay for its latest round of tax cuts. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What responses has he seen to the Government’s housing initiatives? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Most people such as all church leaders have been very clear in their support of the Government’s housing policies. However one group stands out because it has labelled income-related rents as a complete disaster; it has rejected the idea of KiwiSaver; it has said through its leader Dr Don Brash that New Zealanders would rather rent than own a home so it rejects home ownership; and it has also said through its spokesperson on housing that it would sell houses to speculators if it had a chance. That is the National Party which sold $2 billion worth of State houses and will do so again if it gets a chance.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20257] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 7 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 7 as amended agreed to.
Points of Order — Minister's Comments 
Points of Order — Minister's Comments 
[Volume:608;Page:5458] 
Points of Order 
Minister's Comments 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a very serious concern for the House. We have had a senior Minister of this Government give an answer in Parliament that has gone around the world and then we have had a situation where the Government of another country which is a parliamentary democracy has been reported in that country as saying that there is no truth in the statement that the Minister has made. So I am in a quandary because it seems to me that we cannot— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member tell me what the point of order is? This is a point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well answers have to be truthful. We have had a Minister give an answer about another Government. That Government has said that is totally untrue— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member knows that if there is any matter like that it then becomes a matter about which the member should be writing to me on a question of privilege. I suggest to the member that that is where we go. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have made my ruling. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you have made your ruling. I made a decision not to raise it with you as a breach of privilege. If I had done that I would have had it to you by 2 o’clock. My difficulty is that I do not see how we can bring a foreign Government into an issue on a breach of privilege. To make it clear it concerns a statement— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and that makes no difference to the issue. Please be seated.
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15467] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Earlier in the day you referred us to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and you mentioned Speakers’ ruling 144/5 which starts with Speaker Harrison. That ruling suggests that the remedy for the Speaker might be to allow extra supplementary questions and there are also other indications for that in Speakers’ ruling 145/3 and Speaker’s ruling 146/7. When you are considering the representations you have heard today I wonder whether you would contemplate occasionally granting extra supplementary questions where there have been responses that have trifled with the original question or the supplementary question. It would probably not need to be done very often. It would be a discipline in your hands and it would mean that we did not need to keep coming to you on points of order with these objections.
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18746] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Pursuant to the explanation which I appreciate from the Minister about getting clear the papers the House gave leave for the Minister to table Cabinet paper No. (98)M38/13 which is obviously not the paper that he has been referring to both yesterday and today. He has then explained. Does he need to seek leave again from the House to table the Cabinet paper? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did and he got it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mackey Moana: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8269] 
MOANA MACKEY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barker Rick: Third Readings 
Barker Rick: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9283] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Administration Amendment Bill the Armed Forces Discipline Amendment Bill the Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill (No 2) the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) the Burial and Cremation Amendment Bill the Business Development Boards Act Repeal Bill the Conservation Amendment Bill the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill the Coroners Amendment Bill the Courts Martial Appeals Amendment Bill the Defence Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill the Electricity Amendment Bill the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill the Gas Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 3) the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Amendment Bill the Health Research Council Amendment Bill the Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill the Industry Training Amendment Bill (No 2) the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Legal Services Amendment Bill the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 3) the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill the New Zealand Railways Corporation Amendment Bill the Ngati Turangitukua Claims Settlement Amendment Bill the Official Information Amendment Bill the Ombudsmen Amendment Bill the Passports Amendment Bill the Police Amendment Bill (No 3) the Privacy Amendment Bill (No 2) the Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Bill the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Amendment Bill the Standards Amendment Bill the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 2) the Tokelau Amendment Bill the Trade Marks Amendment Bill the Unit Titles Amendment Bill the War Funds Act Repeal Bill and the Wildlife Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Bills read a third time.
Jones Dail: Points of Order — Australian Aviator Mr Jon Johanson 
Jones Dail: Points of Order — Australian Aviator Mr Jon Johanson 
[Volume:614;Page:10653] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a very brief plea in a motion to the House to show understanding and empathy towards the pioneering spirit of Australian aviator Mr Jon Johanson who has been refused the sale of fuel by the New Zealand Government to enable him to continue to fly his plane on from the New Zealand base in Antarctica. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to move that motion. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17050] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 9 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new subclause (1).
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9901] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Fairbrother Russell: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3678] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I rise in support of the bill. We do not need an Independent Police Complaints Authority because there is anything wrong with our police; to the contrary we in New Zealand have a very good police force probably as good as there is in the world—and that is the precise reason that we need an Independent Police Complaints Authority. The police intersect in areas of people’s lives where there is stress dissent often violence and often the need for a quick reaction. The fact that our police continually do so well is a tribute to them. But in the area of conflict there needs to be resolution and there needs to be confidence that the resolution process is a sound process.  
What we have learnt from the present Police Complaints Authority is that most complaints are not valid but the investigation of them is important. The difficulty for complainants is to differentiate between the integrity of the process—because those investigating are members of the police—and the integrity of the result. An Independent Police Complaints Authority will not reveal our police force to be corrupt inefficient or bad. What it will do is give members of the public confidence that we are well policed and confidence that when things do go wrong the appropriate action is taken. I am enthusiastic for this bill and I urge the House to vote for it.
Hawkins George: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18001] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I support the Prisoners and Victims Claims Bill and I want to see it off to the select committee.
Duncan Helen: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Duncan Helen: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17542] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Unallocated Cases Pike RiverCoalmine Proposal 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Child Youth and Family Services Department—Unallocated Cases Pike RiverCoalmine Proposal 
[Volume:616;Page:11644] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Dr Muriel Newman seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the Department of Child Youth and Family Services’ management of its waiting list of unallocated cases of potential child abuse. As has been ruled on many occasions before a continuing issue such as unemployment figures for example and in this case the management of waiting lists cannot give rise to a debate under Standing Order 373. There being no particular case of recent occurrence this application is declined.
Shirley Ken: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 3 August 
Shirley Ken: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 3 August 
[Volume:619;Page:14686] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a new point of order. We have already had discussion today about members’ concerns over Ministers giving false information inadvertently perhaps then coming down to the House to correct it. The expectation of members is that it is corrected at the first opportunity. My point is that in this instance Mr Goff was in the House during question time. He could have corrected it himself at that time over an hour ago. But here we have the Minister coming down to the House much later when there is not the same interest or attendance and trying to slip it in on the quiet as it were. I think that does need to be watched. Mr Goff should have corrected that answer during question time earlier this afternoon. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Mr Goff was answering on behalf of Mr Tamihere so the answer was Mr Tamihere’s responsibility; and the Minister has just assured me that when the information came to his attention he immediately came down to the House and corrected the answer. It is quite within the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes that is the correct position. I do not intend for this to be pursued any further.
[Volume:624;Page:19353] 
I support my earlier comments with the following evidence. First a copy of a publication called  
Unbound 
 which was published by Free Forum Books a store in San Francisco owned by Mr Peron in the late 1980s. Second the publication contains proof of his connection to it. Mr Peron was the editor of that publication and contributed articles to it. Third through the publication Mr Peron promoted paedophile activities paedophile writings and the use of young boys as sexual objects. Fourth he published pictures of naked boys. In my opinion that is the work of a paedophile. I will repeat this statement this afternoon outside Parliament.
Shirley Ken: Building Bill — Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Building Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14926] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. The chief Government whip has just told a member who has stood in this House and called that he is not allowed to call. That is an outrage. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it is not an outrage; I was going to tell him the same thing. Would the member please sit down.
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16335] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the rather flattering article calling me the “Leader of the Opposition” which Clayton Cosgrove was referring to about the time when I was working with working-class people. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is.
Mahuta Nanaia: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17271] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donald Rod: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Donald Rod: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17919] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I apologise Mr Chairperson. I was just trying to clarify for the benefit of Mr Copeland that having voted to incorporate building societies he is now voting against the definition of building societies. I apologise for interrupting the vote.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8857] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is very early to take— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There can be no point of order on the closure of a debate. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: A lot of members who have not yet spoken at all are seeking to speak. Our party has never been known for filibustering. A lot of things need to be said about this bill and we have had only one call. I am seeking a call on the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is no debate on the closure.
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8089] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Worth Richard: Motions — Guru Granth Sahib—400th Anniversary 
Worth Richard: Motions — Guru Granth Sahib—400th Anniversary 
[Volume:616;Page:11957] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I move  
That this House congratulate the Sikh community on the 400th anniversary of the installation of Guru Granth Sahib 
. The brief background is that the Guru Granth Sahib is the sacred Sikh scripture. This year marks the 400th anniversary of the first installation of the Guru Granth Sahib at the Dabar Sahib commonly known as the Golden Temple in Amritsar. 
Motion agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19679] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is the first opportunity to raise this point of order. When the House adjourned last night points of order could not be raised because the bell was ringing. But I now most certainly do raise a point of order and believe that you should rule on it and rule on it right now. 
There has been an understanding in this House that it is the duty of the Government to provide the quorum. You will find many such statements made by Opposition members and made by Government members. The Standing Orders Committee in my time decided to reduce the quorum so it is now down to three but one of the requirements of the quorum is that a Minister of the Crown ought to be present. 
If it is established that it is parliamentary for the Government to collapse the House just by withdrawing its Ministers then the executive is basically saying it can do that at any time it chooses. In this case it was for a dinner but it might be because the questions asked are embarrassing or for a whole variety of reasons. But if it is now established that the Government can close down Parliament at any time it likes I put it to you that we are no longer a parliamentary democracy; we are some Third World country. 
I do say to you Madam Speaker that when you went to the Governor-General very recently you said you were going to uphold the privileges of Parliament. I believe that you should do so now and publicly state that it is unparliamentary for the Government to withdraw Ministers deliberately just because it does not suit them to be subject to parliamentary business and that it is particularly unparliamentary to do that on a day set aside as members’ day. 
It may be that the Government does not want to discuss the state of our polytechs but members on this side do and we have support from the Standing Orders that say that reports of select committees should have time found for them. We finally found some time last night only to have the matter withdrawn. 
I think it would be extremely unfortunate if the Speakership were to adopt the view that the executive can make this arbitrary use of power with no rebuke from the Speaker. I cannot imagine that a Speaker of the British House of Commons would not admonish Ministers in the strongest possible terms for collapsing the House just because it suited the executive. I invite you so to rule.
Carter John: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Carter John: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6611] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I waited until the member had made her introductory speech to advise that the National Party is treating this as a conscience issue which the rest of the House is not. Accordingly I seek leave for us to cast a split vote when it comes time to vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18724] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I am sure the desire of the House overall is to see a bill such as this pass with a fair degree of unanimity of the whole Parliament. That is the intention with which we approach this particular matter. However there are a couple of matters that are of concern. The first one has to do with the Supplementary Order Paper put on the Table yesterday by the Minister. We discussed the matter last night and an undertaking was given to circulate today material relating to that Supplementary Order Paper. I understand that it was circulated to some members but most certainly it was not circulated to me—and I was the member who raised the matter. That may be of no account in the general scheme of things but it calls into question the reasons for the Minister’s office making such an obvious error. 
Leaving that aside we now have the issue of the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by Mr Pita Paraone. That Supplementary Order Paper calls into question the appropriateness of a settlement bill that will create two new hapu through legal statute. I would have thought it quite obvious that if a group has hapu status it is granted by Ngati Awa not by this Parliament—recognised of course in a settlement bill if Ngati Awa so wish but not created as a hapu. 
If we look at the whole process of this bill we will see that last October a very substantial Supplementary Order Paper was dropped on the Table by the Minister sent to the Maori Affairs Committee and in a very short time completely incorporated into this bill. The concern there is not only the speed and haste of that but also the fact that we are having to take up members’ days to pass a Ngati Awa runanga bill—a bill we are told by the Leader of the House that has to be passed separately from the claims bill. The claims bill itself sets up legal entities for the receipt of claims moneys in relation to the three claims or sub-claims that were dealt with in the October Supplementary Order Paper. It is only appropriate that the House consider whether it was appropriate for the Minister to handle this matter in that way. A process of handling settlement bills has been established and to have that process undone so unilaterally seems to me to be quite inappropriate. So I am moving that this House recommit this bill back to the select committee for a period of 2 weeks for full consideration to be given to Mr Paraone’s Supplementary Order Paper and the consequences of passing a settlement bill that establishes runanga authorities where in every other case that has been done quite separately.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister—Minister Answering  
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister—Minister Answering  
[Volume:619;Page:14718] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to the very next Speaker’s ruling 129/5. Members can transfer at any time. The member was Acting Minister at the time and took some official action. Any question raised subsequently should be addressed to the Minister who holds the portfolio responsibility. When an Acting Minister has been appointed that person is while the appointment continues the Minister for all purposes.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7136] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a more serious matter than a technical interpretation. All the Standing Orders are made on the assumption that people will behave in a predictable and reasonable way. We operate by convention rather than by nit-picking rules. What has happened here is that the Prime Minister is pushing the Standing Order right to the limit. This is not just a matter of transferring questions because another Minister might know more about the issues or because the Prime Minister is not here; it is a matter of transferring every question asked of the Prime Minister except questions that address the issue of confidence in her Ministers. When we do that it means that the Opposition loses at least one question a day—and if the other Opposition parties follow the same process maybe three questions a day—simply to get the Prime Minister on her feet because there is no other mechanism. I am saying to you Mr Speaker that that is pushing the Standing Order to the limit. If it is now to be the practice of the Prime Minister to refuse to answer any question in this Parliament then I suggest that the Standing Orders Committee will have to look at another way of compelling the Prime Minister of New Zealand to be accountable to the New Zealand Parliament. That is not a radical notion; it is actually a very well established one that every Prime Minister in living memory except this one has honoured.
Shirley Ken: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10425] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I cannot let it rest there because I thought the member had a grasp of the bill she has brought to the House but it would appear not. I just draw your attention again to the clause 5 “Objects of Foundation” which states that the objects of the foundation are “(a) to promote public afforestation by—(i) the production and care of timber for economic purposes:”. It also provides for the use of both native and introduced exotic species in that context. The point is this: people on the West Coast wanted to continue the sustainable management of their forests. They put a proposal to this Labour-led Government by which they were going to take out by helicopter only one tree per hectare on a 15-year rotation. That is considerably less than the wind blows down yet this Labour-led Government closed that proposal down completely and overrode local wishes. 
Here as the member in the Chair observes it is the local wish and the local wish should prevail. I think that is what I heard her say and I agree with it but could she explain the inconsistency of that with what she is supporting in this bill. She has brought to the House a local bill that is at variance with this Labour-led Government’s rhetoric of not letting people harvest even the timber that the wind blows over if it were an indigenous species. West Coast people talked of one tree harvested per hectare by helicopter extraction on a 15-year rotation and this Government closed that down. It overrode local wishes and reneged on the West Coast Accord signed by the Hon Phil Goff when he was the Minister for the Environment in the Labour Government of the 1980s which promised sustainable management of indigenous forests on a commercial basis in perpetuity. 
The Labour Government reneged on that promise; it would not allow it so my question is why is it being allowed in this local bill brought to the House by the member in the chair when it is apparently at variance with the rhetoric of what this Labour-led Government has done?
Worth Richard: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Worth Richard: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21686] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a report showing that the fines of one Nathan Bentley of $73000 were wiped by a District Court judge in the period around May 2005. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8139] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Annette King be agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
Mark Ron: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14252] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I have the only answer to Mr Power’s question—which quite clearly the Government does not want to answer. It is that this Government truly does see New Zealand as being part of the Third World banana republic community.
Peck Mark: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Peck Mark: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3458] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a record of comments by a Mr Kevin Richards of Drummond in the Leader of the Opposition’s electorate. After attending Waitangi Day celebrations he said he hoped that others with racist feelings or anger might see his story and start to question their own hatred. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
MARK PECK 
: I seek leave to table a leaked letter to Mr Kevin Richards in which I invited him to join my party on the marae after he contacted my office to tell me that he was going to protest. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
MARK PECK 
: Thirdly I seek leave to table a media release in which I congratulated Mr Kevin Richards for confronting his anger and dealing with it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that letter to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16065] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 My first contribution on Part 1— 
Simon Power 
: Out of four. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—out of four—will cover the broad range of issues essentially by reference because I expect to develop many of the issues in detail. National has characterised this bill as being a compulsory unionism bill. Members should look at the Minister in the chair Paul Swain. That Minister proclaims himself and allows himself to be proclaimed as friendly to business. In fact he is presiding over legislation that will dramatically reduce choice in the workplace. It will dramatically reduce the freedom of New Zealand businesses and workers. This bill cannot possibly be construed as even remotely— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the honourable member. I was going to wait until the end of the speech but I see that you are about to vacate the Chair. I listened to you very carefully and I thought you said you would decide on how long the calls would be under Standing Order 102. I looked up Standing Order 102 to see what it states and it relates to factors to be taken into account when calling members. It has nothing to do with the length of the debate. So I sincerely hope that you will not determine the length of the debate by whom you call and I hope the points that have been made by Dr Mapp are taken into account. We are seeing a very disturbing trend and we are relying on the Chair to uphold the rights of this Chamber and of backbenchers. What we are seeing is the Government putting legislation into larger and larger parts thereby cutting down the rights of this House. You will be aware—it was certainly the case when I first came to this House—that at one time we would have debated such legislation clause by clause. This is a bill that the Committee would easily have spent a week on. I have a horrible feeling that this part will probably be all over by about 10 o’clock. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member makes a very good point and as the Chair I have taken on board what he said. I know that the Chairperson who will follow me has also taken it on board. Perhaps the member might also like to look at Speaker’s ruling 70/1—it should have been read in conjunction with the Standing Order—which concerns the Committee of the whole House.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Minister of Finance Republic of Chile Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia Minister of Agriculture Australia 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Minister of Finance Republic of Chile Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia Minister of Agriculture Australia 
[Volume:614;Page:10569] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Finally I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Bob Cameron Minister of Agriculture from the state of Victoria Australia is present in the gallery and I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Hide Rodney: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
Hide Rodney: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
[Volume:626;Page:21038] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a new point. While you were considering the breach of privilege complaint the Acting Prime Minister went on the front foot and publicly said that Mr David Benson-Pope had a good story to tell. He then went on the attack against the ex-pupils and said they were distasteful. He then went on the attack against TV3 and I note that subsequently he had to correct himself and apologise for saying that TV3 had obtained the information through using false pretences. My concern which I put to you is that this seemed an outrageous abuse. You were considering the case and the Acting Prime Minister was essentially directing you not to find in favour of my claim that there was a breach of privilege. How else could any Speaker interpret what the Acting Prime Minister was saying other than in that way? My question is whether you advised the Acting Prime Minister Michael Cullen that the proper procedure when a breach of privilege case is under way was to keep quiet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment but it is not a point of order. Members are not obliged to refrain from any comment while the matter is being considered by the Speaker. In fact I was not influenced by that action or by Mr Hide’s continuing comments in the media.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Transpower Financing Deal—Tax Significance 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Transpower Financing Deal—Tax Significance 
[Volume:626;Page:21058] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider what the Opposition is expected to do. The Minister did not in his answer to a parliamentary question—a legitimate way for us to pursue this particular issue—tell us that he made the appropriate enquiries. It is pretty clear to us that a transaction has taken place of which the Minister has been largely unaware. I think it is appropriate that Parliament discuss a matter such as this so that the public can come to its own conclusions about the appropriateness of the transaction. 
You have said Madam Speaker that you do not consider it important for Parliament to consider the tax-base issues just at the moment. I think there is a big question here considering that we are currently discussing the Budget. You may have ruled that we can bring up this matter during that process but that simply cuts our opportunities to discuss the issues that were put on the table in the Budget. We do not know how much the Budget was deprived of because of that particular transaction. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. He was getting close to challenging the ruling. As he said there are opportunities to debate this matter but it is not for the Speaker to advise members of Parliament on what tactics they use. My ruling was that the immediate attention of the House was not required at this time.
Power Simon: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Power Simon: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15194] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you could clarify that with regard to the debate on the schedules. I am sorry but I did not catch your advice to the Committee.
Ogilvy Bernie: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Ogilvy Bernie: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11769] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I shall be very brief. On speaking to this substantial bill titled the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill I want to put on record that despite all the questions about the title it is a reasonably good title. If members focused on one word in the title it would either alarm or quell our suspicions. It is the word “transitional”: that could mean anything. 
 It is not in the past tense; it is in the present continuous tense which allows for further amendments to take place. It also gives us the picture that this is really what it is all about. It is a transition issue and if we took the other words “Provisions and Controls” as separate we could take from this that the bill is reasonably well named in light of the transition of all the substances that is yet to happen by June 2006. If there are others beyond that I will not be surprised as some people have already questioned. If it gets completed by then I guess we will all be so happy that we might award the Minister some sort of prize. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I was totally confused by the speaker who has just resumed his seat and I seek clarification from the Minister on this very important point. I thought I understood this bill until the United Future member took a call and his speech has thrown me into a mass of confusion. My clear understanding was that the substantive Act provides for a set transitional period through to 2006 and that this bill deals merely with transitional measures within that time but listening to—I do not know quite how to describe it—the contribution perhaps from the member from United Future the Government’s coalition partner I am totally confused now. I think there is an onus on the Minister to clarify it for the House as that confusion was introduced. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The member is correct. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Cullen Michael: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Referral to Local Government and Environment Committee referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee Instruction to Local Government and Environment Committee 
Cullen Michael: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Referral to Local Government and Environment Committee referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee Instruction to Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3495] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Government Order of the Day No. 1 be discharged and that the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further consideration.  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I had intended to move that the bill be referred back to the Government Administration Committee subject to other parties supporting leave for parties not on that committee to be represented. ACT indicated that it would refuse that leave. I am therefore moving this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee which has all other parties on it.