edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15640] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3A be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8 
Abstentions 1 
Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 3A agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18551] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will speak briefly to it. During the debate Mr Peters from New Zealand First and Mr Tanczos from the Greens talked about the fact that the Maori Affairs Committee was meeting in Kawerau today which was disruptive to their respective party members’ ability to be here in Parliament. I want to tell members that on 14 December 2004 the Business Committee by unanimous agreement of its members with regard to item No. 5 on the agenda gave permission for Maori Affairs Committee members to meet in Kawerau according to Standing Order 193(a). The minutes were circulated on Wednesday 15 December 2004 and no objection has been lodged.
Field Taito Phillip: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Field Taito Phillip: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11766] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12629] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 My question is directed to the Minister of Maori Affairs who may be better placed to answer the question later in the afternoon when he returns from other parliamentary duties. I therefore seek leave to have the question held over. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First Voting—Pension Levels 
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First Voting—Pension Levels 
[Volume:615;Page:11077] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yesterday I stated in a debate that the New Zealand First Party had voted with National to reduce the level of the pension. That statement was incorrect of course. New Zealand First had left the coalition at that point. I apologise to members opposite for that dastardly accusation.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12167] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 26; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
[Volume:620;Page:16100] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer to the second part of the question is that it would not have been impossible because I could accept the letter any time if there was a particular circumstance. That is why I of course accepted the member’s urgent question—I thought there was a particular case even though that was not the advice I was given. I took responsibility for accepting that urgent question. As far as I am concerned this issue is one that I have ruled on.
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:609;Page:6121] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The same member raised that precise point in the last session of the House and you ruled then that the standard procedure throughout the time that you and I have been MPs is for a Minister to make a personal explanation to correct an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer is quite clear: it is in the hands of members. A member has asked for leave to make a personal explanation; if there is any objection then the member cannot make a personal explanation. Is there any objection?
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brown Peter: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15938] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have listened to the debate this afternoon and this evening with some interest. I have heard several parties give a split vote. I am formally asking your advice on how I can get to know who in those parties voted for and who voted against. I believe the public is entitled to know. This is quite shattering legislation and I think the public want to know who put their name up to go with it and who voted against it. I know that National recently had a split vote; as did United Future in particular and probably some other parties. I just want your advice on how I can obtain the names of the people who voted for and voted against.
Peters Winston: Election of Speaker 
Peters Winston: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18948] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker-Elect we in New Zealand First wish to congratulate you on your successful election today and we want to wish you well in your new role and all the best in your new role. We want to sort out some misconceptions with the passing of one of our longest serving MPs as the previous Speaker right now. According to the authority of John Parker who wrote a book called  
Father of the House: Fifty Years in Politics 
 the role of mother of the House now passes to one Helen Clark that being the first person to nominate with an unbroken record—and we wish her that title as well! Richard Prebble and I were saying the same thing to ourselves: “Thank heavens for that!”. 
Madam Speaker-Elect we expect that your performance in your new role will be a model of independence and neutrality: forsaking the former party role that you once held and upholding the privileges and the rights of Parliament and above all the rights of parliamentary minorities for democracy is what is at stake here. We wish to indicate straight away that you will have every cooperation from New Zealand First and in particular its leader. 
Government Members 
: Yeah right! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I mean that. To use a cliché but it is true I mean that most sincerely. It is simply not in our interests to do otherwise. It will be a very very difficult job following on from an excellent Speaker with a long record of experience—a lot of which you also bring yourself—and we will not make it harder. So we in New Zealand First wish you all the best.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17985] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee 
referred to Local Government and Environment Committee 
 that the committee present its final report on or before 2 May 2005 that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week on which there has been a sitting of the House and that the committee have the authority to meet outside Wellington during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The House now finds itself in some difficulty. I refer you to Standing Order 284(3) which makes very clear that the member in charge of the bill may include in a motion nominating the committee to consider the bill any special instruction in respect of that committee’s consideration. Specifically this Minister just referred to a report-back date of 2 May 2005 the presumption being that the select committee would otherwise have 6 months to report the bill back. However Standing Order 284(3) further states that in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill the mover has to have indicated in his first reading speech that that matter is to be proposed. Although I was not in the House at the time of the Minister’s first reading speech I am advised by my colleagues who were in the House that no such reference to a shortened report-back date was made by the member in charge of the bill at the point of the first reading. Therefore the motion put by the Minister in my submission is out of order which means that the report-back date will then revert to the 6-month period otherwise presumed under the Standing Orders and I seek your ruling accordingly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that yes.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9978] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 13B(3) in clause 6B be agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4862] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am proud to stand in support of this bill. Social workers have been calling for legislation to support and regulate the profession for many years. This bill fulfils a pre-election commitment and is yet another example of this Government keeping its word.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9749] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to the schedules be agreed to.
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:6991] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of the definition of  
Stockholm Convention 
 the words “are or will become binding on New Zealand” and substitute the words “are added to Schedules 1AA and 2A by the Governor General by Order in Council”.
Hughes Darren: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11027] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Meat Industry Restructuring Bill which is an important bill and one that I know will be welcomed in my electorate of Otaki where there is a significant economic sector in this area. The bill meets the Government’s criteria for this kind of reform. It has the support of the participants of the industry. That was made pretty clear in the referendum in which farmers voted overwhelmingly for the new structure. It is fair to minority interests—nobody is disadvantaged by the changes—and of course it is in the economic and national interest of New Zealand. So it meets the criteria that we have put up for reforms in this sector and it will enable the New Zealand Meat Board after its restructuring to enhance its ability to manage meat export quotas for the country. It is very important legislation and I am sure it will receive the full attention of the Primary Production Committee as we continue this series of important reforms for New Zealand agriculture. I support the bill.
Cullen Michael: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
Cullen Michael: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
[Volume:617;Page:12540] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reason I asked whether the motion was debatable was that the member moved the motion in a form whereby it was debatable and the Government does object to that. But if the member wishes to seek leave to move a non-debatable motion I am sure nobody in the Government will object. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member wish to do that? 
Dr Don Brash 
: I do. I seek the leave of the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is not.
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:6301] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1)(a)(i).
Copeland Gordon: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16366] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to point out to you that at the Business Committee on 5 October all the parties present at that meeting agreed that we would take a split vote on this bill and I think it would be something that would cause disorder in the House if after the Business Committee had unanimously agreed on that action someone was then to deny leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that but that is not a point of order it is a debatable point. I am going to invite the honourable member Jill Pettis to explain exactly what she wants so that members on the other side of the House are able to judge.
Sowry Roger: General Debates 
Sowry Roger: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8540] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 As the member who raised this matter I agree totally with the Hon Richard Prebble. I know that the National Party senior whip does as well. It is not the way we wish to conduct business. We wish for the speakership of this Parliament to enforce the rules of the Parliament. We wish for the leader of the National Party to be able for once to give a 5-minute speech in this House without a concerted effort being made by the members opposite to deliberately break up his speech by way of forcing points of order. We wish that when you make a ruling you back the ruling. If we can get all of those things then we will not have whips approaching the Chair.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17007] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) of the definition of  
foreshore and seabed.
Hughes Darren: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17768. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Messages from Governor-General 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Messages from Governor-General 
[Volume:617;Page:13450] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already made a ruling. This needs to be something new. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I want to raise a slightly different issue. In my experience in this Parliament which does go back some years this procedure is normal if something is required by midnight tonight for example or before Parliament sits tomorrow and there will be a law change say that involves an appropriation. That is obviously where we need that kind of recommendation from the Governor-General. There is no opportunity subsequently for it to occur before expenditure may have to take place. 
What troubles the Opposition on this occasion is that no expenditure is required for months on this bill we are passing. There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for any such notice from Her Excellency the Governor-General and we are curious to know why this should be. In my experience this is somewhat unprecedented. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I reiterate what I said before: it is only a recommendation. That is all it is and the House can always reject the bill. It has been done that way in the past and will continue to be done that way because it is part of the Constitution Act that requires it to be done so.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6475] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Leave was given to table 19 cases. In assembling and counting them it was found to be 21 cases. I noticed that when the member sought leave to table effectively the extra cases the Minister herself did not object. I wonder whether we should put the leave again because the problem is that Nick Smith may not know which 19 of the 21 cases he should table.
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11767] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Just to respond to that I think this is a particular piece of legislation that was designed for the transfer processes that were absolutely stymied. There will be possibly some further amendments to this bill because if we look at the select committee record we will see that it talks about a draft discussion paper. A year ago we went out to industry and could see some of the problems facing the transfer process and this particularly complex legislation. The industry came back to us with some ideas. Part of that is in the discussion paper that it wanted and that we will look to for some possible further legislation. 
I want to make one other point. Yes I think we are almost at the leading edge but I am a bit nervous about getting too far ahead. We are part of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals and all that that means but that is fairly new as well. There is some difficulty at the moment with the European Union wanting to begin some processes towards using chemical assessment that may act more as a trade barrier so we have to be very careful.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8949] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) of section 50(2) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(b)add a new organism or group or groups of organism that have adverse effects on the health and safety of people or the environment or are likely to harm New Zealand’s economic interests.
Tabling of Documents — Sky Videotape 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tabling of Documents — Sky Videotape 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6432. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tabling of Documents 
Sky Videotape 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to help the House. There has been a discussion and maybe the Hon Dover Samuels would like to seek leave again to table the video of the game involving Hemana Waaka for all of us to share in and enjoy our loss. I am sure that leave would be granted. Or maybe some honourable member will seek leave on his behalf. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Anyone can seek leave but Mr Samuels is not here. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen seeks leave. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Videotape by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Baldock Larry: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
Baldock Larry: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19777] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Rail Network Bill. We welcome this bill into the House. It will make very positive progress in the re-establishment of our rail network throughout this nation. 
The bill sets out to update the legislation under which the rail network operating authority ONTRACK operates. It repeals the outmoded New Zealand Railways Corporation Act of 1981 and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act of 1990. It also provides ONTRACK with the necessary modernised governance arrangements and allows for carry-over provisions relating to the holding and disposal of rail network land with the intention of preserving the current position. 
I am particularly interested in the provisions that allow ONTRACK to acquire new land for expansion of the rail network because I believe it is important that as we develop new motorways in this nation—which United Future is very keen to see happen—some forward-thinking people anticipate the possibility that there may be at some stage in the future an interest in expanding our rail network alongside those motorways. I am pleased that the bill will make provision for that. 
This bill can be seen as a significant step towards restoring and properly developing rail as a key part of New Zealand’s freight and passenger transport networks. The fact that this bill will also require ONTRACK to prepare a 10-year capital development programme is testimony to the fact that the current thinking is in line with the long-term strategy thinking which is encouraging. We must plan better for not only our rail network but our road network in this country and have goals that will provide the infrastructure we need for an effective economy in this country. The rail network is far too important for any Government to sit idly by and watch it deteriorate as others have done and I must congratulate this Government on taking the bull by the horns—so to speak—stepping in and reclaiming the rail network in this country and being prepared to invest in it. It is never ever a good idea to watch infrastructure sit and rust away and investments made in the past be wasted. 
For us the preferred option is not just pouring money into infrastructure but offering—and this is met in this bill—a sensible balance between extracting a return from an investment and still ensuring its sustainability. That is sound logic and United Future always errs on the side of logic as members of the House have come to know over the past few years. Calling for greater investment in infrastructure is a hallmark of United Future’s policy planks that we have been pursuing during this term of Parliament. This bill represents such a position with regard to our nation’s rail network. It offers prudent and necessary measures and as such we will be pleased to support its passage at the first reading.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7442] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister I am afraid has gone a little far there—that was a reference to members’ absence. I think the member has raised an interesting point and I am going to think about it. But I just want to say that Speaker’s ruling 123/7 states: “While interjections have traditionally been permitted during debate they are not in order at all during question time.” I take a little more liberal view on that than some of my predecessors and perhaps that is my mistake. I prefer however to allow there to be the odd comment provided that it is not unreasonable. I did not think that the one comment made by the member concerned the member who raised the point of order was unreasonable but another colleague of his had about four or five goes and I thought that that was going too far. I will be reasonable about it but I do not want to be too reasonable.
Burton Mark: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Burton Mark: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7678] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I agree with Mr Prebble on one thing: if he is to set out the facts they should be correct. Certainly what he just said is not correct. An agreement—no silly games or tricks—was made at the Business Committee meeting which Mr Prebble seldom if ever attends. He is not the member who does that and I do not criticise him. He was not at the committee yesterday so it is difficult for him to speak with such great confidence about the events that took place there. The fact is that a sensible agreement was reached in the manner that is required constantly for this House to work in an MMP environment. It is very very difficult for the House to function on a day-to-day basis if members do not stick to good-faith agreements. That is the beginning and end of it. 
Finally Mr Copeland raised the matter at the first opportunity he had—that is straight after Mr Prebble had taken a call. This is a matter of some serious concern to those of us from all parties who are involved in the day-to-day management of the House. I say to Mr Prebble that it is absolutely essential for every party to be prepared to stick to good-faith agreements when they are made.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15913] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 22; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 89 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 5; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert a definition of “Customs officer” in clause 5 be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8966] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is this. Members have the right of free speech in this House. They have had it all the time I have been here. I have three times I think availed myself of the opportunity of making a statement in this House having very carefully checked out facts statistics and figures. Each time what I have said has been justified. Some members have done that too and that is no change in the Standing Orders whatsoever.
Hughes Darren: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7076] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 This is a bill that is supported by all parties in the House yet Opposition members insist on complaining about how long it has taken and then take long calls like that one which do not add to the value of the debate. It is time that the acting leader of New Zealand First Mr Catchpole let this bill progress through the House.
Donald Rod: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Donald Rod: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4388] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to draw your attention to an issue of equity. My colleague Mr Prebble has had two calls on this part and I— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I most certainly have not. 
ROD DONALD 
: Has he not? I thought he had had a second. My apologies.
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18832] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I thank the member who has just resumed her seat. I want to respond briefly. As she said this is a different time and place. It is worth noting though that the participation rates in the vote were identical—40 percent. The acceptance rate for Ngati Awa was 87 percent as opposed to Tainui at 65 percent. In real terms this bill has a greater mandate than the Tainui bill received. But I equally accept from the member that we should always be looking for higher voter participation rates. I give some assurance to the Committee that that level of 40 percent should not be taken lightly. As we see in general elections and local body elections we do not compel people to vote but we must ensure that every reasonable opportunity and encouragement have been given for people to do so. Oft times it is a fact of human nature that when we are happy with something we tend not to go out of our way to vote or do what we need to do. 
This issue is something that I personally take very seriously as the new Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and I know that the Office of Treaty Settlements does. Each case will be looked at seriously and carefully. 
To go to the matter that Mr Franks raised about the bill not including the detail of the quantum settlement the provisions are not required. The settlement of the quantum is an example of the contractual arrangements that come out of the settlement. But obviously it is a fair inquiry and a matter of interest to the members of the Committee so to put it on the record the Ngati Awa quantum amount is $42.39 million and the ancillary claims in total—the three claims combined—have a value of $410000.
Pettis Jill: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12131] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am going to take only a very brief call on this bill because in effect the intent of the bill is already in action anyway. It is about reflecting this Government’s desire to increase significantly participation in and the quality of early childhood education. Comments from members on the other side of the House that they will not be voting for the bill because of this or that reason are absolutely naive in the extreme. They are not voting for the bill because it is a Labour bill and they are ACT and National. For goodness’ sake they should get real. This is a very very good bill. It is about promoting one of the most important areas of education and that is the early childhood sector which is the platform on which education for our young people is built. It is a good bill. Let us get it passed through the House because after all it is for the young people of New Zealand not for politicians’ egos.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12882] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to.
McCully Murray: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
McCully Murray: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:619;Page:14949] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the course of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition my colleague Mr English asked for an indication from you that you would be firm in dealing with matters from the whips’ desk opposite if there was continued interjection. Towards the end of Dr Brash’s speech there was continued interjection and I invite you to make good your threat. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is quite wrong—I did not make a threat. What I said was that the level of interjection which was a constant barrage from both sides would be controlled. That is exactly what it was. The member will be quite clear that there was a continual barrage from his side too.
Kedgley Sue: Voting — Correction 
Kedgley Sue: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:620;Page:15496] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to have the Maori Party vote recorded in support of the Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The result of that vote is now Ayes 10 Noes 108.
Field Taito Phillip: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16051] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Sutton Jim: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Sutton Jim: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9491] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat wants wine officers to have to go to a JP to get a warrant before they inspect a winery. All I can say about that is what bureaucracy gone mad is that member advocating now? What new compliance costs does he want to saddle the industry with now? What unreasonable burden does he wish to place on his parliamentary bench now? I do not know. He asked why wine officers have to have the power of entry. The answer to that is very simple. This has to be a rigorous enforceable law that can protect our winemakers from the plotting of protectionist trade-barrier creators in the marketplace on the other side of the world.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18467] 
12.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he support New Zealand Post’s decision to use posties to gather information on residents and then sell it to businesses; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 No. I am advised by New Zealand Post that the project the member is referring to was a 5-day trial and given the public feedback it does not intend to continue with the project. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did he have any discussions with the board of New Zealand Post or receive any information from it on its trial scheme to spy on residents using its posties to gather information to offer for sale to other businesses; if so did he agree that the trial should go ahead? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that this has not been within the Government’s requirement of State-owned enterprises to have “no surprises” in their operations and does he think this sort of activity from a State-owned enterprise will enhance the reputation of the Labour Government of already being far too intrusive into the lives of ordinary New Zealanders? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As the member knows New Zealand Post board management makes operational decisions like this on a daily basis. The reality is that it had a trial it got public feedback and it has canned the project. I hope the member supports that.
Vote: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20412] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:6030] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2002/03) Supplementary Estimates Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Franks Stephen: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20956] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. I have dealt with it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am seeking guidance on the matter as it involves a member of my party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am always happy to guide the member. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Chairperson I am not sure whether you will mention this to prepare the Speaker for a possible application for a ruling or guidance on this issue. If you do would you mind alerting the Speaker to the fact that ACT will probably be interested in whether there is some means like a leave process by which the member who is the subject of this motion could bring it up so that it is debated given the circumstances. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is almost in line with what I ruled; it is a matter for the morning. I thank the member for raising it.
Tizard Judith: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6908] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Commerce Amendment Bill the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill the Fair Trading Amendment Bill and the Sale of Goods Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 78.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19306] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think Mr Prebble has raised an important issue about the cameras in the House because we can clearly see what has happened here. We know that the Labour Government wants to control the cameras in this House. It is very clear that the Government has shifted all its MPs forward so that when the cameras film what they are allowed to film it looks like it is packed up. It is a deliberate ploy to try to trick the members and they have left all the back benches— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled that this is not a point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a point of order.
Ogilvy Bernie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ogilvy Bernie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12005] 
12.  
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Does he stand by the principles enunciated in last year’s discussion document that the system of student support should ensure “equity and fairness” and “consistency with the wider social assistance system”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): Yes. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does he think that it is fair and consistent with the wider social assistance system to maintain the parental income thresholds for student allowances at 1992 levels which were set at $28079 of combined parental income to qualify for a full allowance and which is in today’s salary terms the equivalent of $38166; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government is committed to improving the student support system. As the Prime Minister indicated in her statement to Parliament: “This year’s Budget will provide for more students to qualify for allowances from the 2005 academic year.” I think that I can go that far without breaching any Budget secrecy but it would be inappropriate to go any further. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister think that it is fair and consistent with the wider social assistance system to require student allowances to be based on parental income until students are aged 25 when parental income testing is not applied to those aged under 25 who are on the dole and who might be just as reliant on parental support yet in comparison are getting money for doing nothing? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can see the member’s lack of comfort with this situation. One of the things one does in Government is set priorities. To equalise by bringing the levels and requirements up and having what would effectively be a universal student allowance equivalent to the unemployment benefit would cost $5.5 billion over 4 years and frankly I can think of better things to do with the money.
Prebble Richard: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
Prebble Richard: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
[Volume:620;Page:15446] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I think the House is sympathetic to the point made by you and other Speakers that it is not the job of the Speaker to judge the quality of answers. In the end I guess it is the task of the electorate to judge whether Ministers are carrying out their tasks correctly. But we do have a dilemma. On occasions there are parts of questions that do not require a quality decision—it is obvious that the question has not been answered. I will give a hypothetical example which I think we heard in the House. A member asks: “What is the revenue from speed cameras in the last year?” and the Minister gets up and says that the revenue from the hours of eight in the morning to eight in the evening was X. That is not answering the question but picking out a part of it. We had that question from Mr John Key the other day. He asked what was the total growth in Government revenue since the Labour Party came to office. Mr Mallard picked a date later than that and said—presumably perfectly accurately—that from 2000 or whatever date he picked it was so much. 
Mr Speaker that does not require you to judge the quality of the answer. You can see that the question asked what was the growth of revenue from the time Labour came to office and that the Minister chose to say that the growth of revenue from yesterday was X. I know those circumstances require a bit of judgment by the Speaker but you are a senior member and I think you are capable of realising that the Minister did not address the question. He addressed a different question. That is the point I put to you. The Minister is required to address the question—not any old question or a redrafted question. Most of the disputes between the Opposition and the Government occur because the Minister has given a perfectly adequate answer to a question that was not actually asked.
Cullen Michael: Children’s Commissioner Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Cullen Michael: Children’s Commissioner Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Children’s Commissioner Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Chadwick Steve: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6884] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8818] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you Mr Dunne. I call on Part 2. All those— 
Richard Worth 
: My point of order is not resolved. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There have been a lot of comments across the Chamber. I do not think there is any need for me to rule on that.