edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
English Bill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
English Bill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5363] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification of just where your ruling leaves us. The impression members now have is that although you deplore the use of cellphones in the Chamber you have not actually ruled out that practice. You referred to phones in general; well there are phones in the Chamber. For the whole time that I have been a member it has been permissible for those phones to be used but it has never been permissible for cellphones to be used. I ask you to make it clear to the House whether the use of cellphones is or is not permitted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I make it absolutely clear that it is not permitted. The use of the phones attached to members’ desks is permitted. I call Judy Turner.
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:15929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment 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 clause 23(b) be agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8812] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I do not think I have seen a bill drafted as this one is and in that sense I am in no way critical of the Chair because the Chair is in the same dilemma as the House. The position is that the Committee has been given an instruction by the House to consider the bill part by part. It did not say to consider that some parts would be superior to others. If we look at the contents page we see that the bill has a Part 1 which contains clauses 1A and 2. The Committee dealt with that. We then see that there is a Part 2 which appears to be clause 3. Then there is Part 1 which contains clauses 4 to 7A; Part 3 which contains clauses 7B to 12; and then a Part 2A which contains clauses 41A to 41F. 
I put it to you that that is what the House instructed us to do. It is not for us to re-rationalise the parts and decide that some are more important than others. The House cannot know that either because it has not considered that matter. The second point is that the Chair given a choice should always take the choice that enables the Committee to have the maximum ability to debate the issues because otherwise if we did not have the part by part resolution we would be debating the bill clause by clause. 
The only rational reason I can think of for deciding that Part 2 counts and Part 3 is that there is some rule about taking parts in numerical order. Well of course that cannot be so because we have Part 2A at the end after we have dealt with Part 3. So on the face of it I believe that you should rule that the Committee must follow the instruction of the House which is to take the bill part by part. The bill has a Part 2 which is clause 3 and then a Part 1 which is clauses 4 to 7A. There is a Part 3 which is clauses 7B to 12 and then Part 2A which is clauses 41A to 41F. Not taking the bill part by part would enable the Government just by an instruction to the law draftsmen to completely defeat the ability of this House to have a proper Committee stage.
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12360] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 21A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 21 the following clause: 
21ARepeal of sections 122 and 123 
The principal Act is amended by repealing sections 122 and 123.
Donald Rod: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
Donald Rod: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4055] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The kindest thing I can say about this bill is that it has missed the boat. The year 2003 has already started and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 is under way. I should know that; my daughter is in the sixth form this year. Therefore the moratorium is pointless and this bill is redundant. Indeed it is counterproductive. The kindest thing I can say about the member is that I am sorry that the ACT party refuses to cast her vote in favour of her own bill whilst still collecting all the entitlements that go with her presence in Parliament. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This debate is about the NCEA. The member as have other members is straying off the topic. I ask that you direct him back on to the subject. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that point. She is quite right. A number of members have drifted right off the bill. 
ROD DONALD 
: I have actually almost finished Mr Assistant Speaker. The NCEA is far from perfect and I was surprised to hear a Government member claim that it was. The Government is on notice to address the deficiencies in the NCEA. As I mentioned earlier one of my daughters is in the sixth form this year. That meant she was in the fifth form last year and I was not impressed with either the implementation or the outcome of the first year of the NCEA. But imposing a moratorium on it is not the way to fix the problems. I hope that the Government does address them. We certainly will not be supporting this bill.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18833] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 20 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—Labour Party 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—Labour Party 
[Volume:617;Page:12553] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the member has made a perfectly fair and accurate point that once a party has been notified of a change it should notify the Speaker of that change—for the reasons raised by the member. In the particular case being referred to of course the Labour Party has not received any official notification of a change in its membership. In a situation where public statements have been made to the contrary we took the cautious position of voting 51. It subsequently turns out that we are still entitled to 52 votes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 5/7. The Speaker acts on formal advice and does not take the initiative. How members conduct themselves politically is a matter for them to determine.
Adams Paul: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Second Reading 
Adams Paul: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4711] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future also to support the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Consumer Guarantees Act applies to all goods and services that are ordinarily acquired for personal domestic or household use or consumption. This bill similarly covers the Commerce Act the Fair Trading Act and the Sale of Goods Act. Specifically it amends the definition of goods and services in these Acts to ensure that computer software electricity gas telecommunications water and services related to their supply are included within the scope of the legislation. 
The Commerce Committee made a number of technical changes to the original bill. Notably this included the removal of telecommunications signals from the proposed new definition of goods in the Consumer Guarantees Act Fair Trading Act and Commerce Act. The reason for the removal of telecommunications signals is that the definition of telecommunications signals in the bill was deemed by several submitters to be wide enough to cover the actual content of telecommunications. This caused controversy and unease within the industry. For example Internet service providers were concerned they would be liable for emails they did not get through for reasons beyond their control—such as a problem of an overseas network. The committee agreed that it was never intended that suppliers of telecommunications signals should be liable for the content of those signals and therefore recommended removing them from the definition of goods but still left them in the definition of services. 
One widely publicised aspect of the bill is that it will give consumers the right to claim compensation from electricity companies when spikes or power surges damage computers or other equipment. Speaking as one who has had enough heart attacks over power spikes I am glad this is in the legislation. 
Stephen Franks 
: That comes free! 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Nothing comes free; the member should know that! Electricity suppliers will become liable for direct losses and reasonably foreseeable consequential losses to domestic consumers caused by problems for which they are responsible. This bill was originally designed to clear up an anomaly caused by a 1998 court ruling in a case between the Electricity Supply Association and the Consumers Institute which held that electricity network services were neither goods nor services. The bill also closes a legal loophole that has meant that companies or individuals selling computer software packages who misrepresent their products have not necessarily been obliged to offer refunds or replacements to unhappy customers. Therefore United Future supports this bill going on to the Committee stage.
Shirley Ken: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9076] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I specifically asked the Minister to respond to my questions. I have not heard an answer. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. That is not a point of order. It is entirely over to the Minister whether she takes a call.
Barker Rick: Third Readings 
Barker Rick: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9389] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I rise briefly to respond to the comments made by Keith Locke concerning Mr Zaoui and the Customs Service. I want to repeat what I have said previously and to correct the impression given by Mr Locke. In this particular case the Customs Service did not perform immigration activities; the matter has been presented in that way but it is simply not the case. It is concerning to me that the actions of Customs Service staff have been misrepresented in that way and we will be taking action to ensure that it does not occur again. I repeat that the assertion made by Mr Locke is not correct.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17936] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3971] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 60 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 6; Progressive 2. 
New Part 3A not agreed to.
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Home Detention 
Goff Phil: Tabling of Documents — Home Detention 
[Volume:613;Page:10219] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table two documents relating to question No. 7 last Tuesday. The first is from Chubb Monitoring stating that it wishes to confirm that no incident of the type alleged by Mr Mark has ever occurred in relation to home detention. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The second is a letter indicating that all 12 police districts report no knowledge of any incident such as was related to the House by Mr Mark and I would urge him to provide any information to them to follow up that serious allegation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
[Volume:616;Page:12366] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I raise another matter that I think is serious and reflects on Parliament and the nature of our parliamentary discussions and may require you to make a ruling about it. It is this. I have in my hand a media advisory that comes from the Leader of the House and it announces to the media that the Government will announce the policy that will inform its foreshore and seabed legislation tomorrow in the Beehive theatrette at 9.15 embargoed until 1 o’clock. When one goes on to read it one finds it says that the media are to be told what the Government’s foreshore policies are and to be told which principles—I do not know if that is the right word—or factors the Government will use in its foreshore legislation. But the House as one finds when one reads the advisory further will not know about the legislation until it is tabled on the Thursday. That leaves members of Parliament completely out of the debate. It becomes a discussion between the Government in secret with the media. There is no parliamentary debate. If the media come out from that lock-up and ask for comment from say the Leader of the Opposition the Leader of the Opposition will have no idea what the Government’s policies are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The British House of Commons would not allow it. The British House of Commons would point out that under our Standing Orders there is a provision for a Minister to rise in this House and make a ministerial statement; then every member of Parliament the public and the media can find out together. The Government ought to either do that or alternatively table the bill so that all members of Parliament can discuss it instead of having this procedure which I suggest reduces Parliament to an irrelevancy.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:617;Page:13129] 
Thursday 20 May 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House the Government will seek to make progress on the remaining stages of the Corrections Bill and the Border Security Bill. If time is available the first readings will be taken of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill. On Tuesday the first item of business will be the debate on the financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises which is a 3-hour debate. Thursday is Budget day. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House advise Parliament whether he expects us to be sitting beyond 6 o’clock on Thursday either in urgency or extraordinary urgency. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will advise the Business Committee on Tuesday of my intentions. The member can take a very broad hint given the nature of the Standing Orders.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18641] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4A be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 3B(4) of the principal Act by omitting paragraph (c).
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4538] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue raised in this question is of national domestic importance crossing many portfolios and as the Prime Minister spoke on this issue at her press conference yesterday I seek leave for this question to be transferred to the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15843] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson I know that the Speaker is just outside the door so I seek leave for the House to resume and to change the vote right now. I think United Future will not want this to be recorded in the House and I can see the Speaker through the door. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Progress reported.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8489] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — Lead Contamination in Corn—Government's Response 
Urgent Debates Declined — Lead Contamination in Corn—Government's Response 
[Volume:618;Page:14312] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Lead Contamination in Corn—Government's Response 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Sue Kedgley seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the Government’s response to lead contamination in corn imported into New Zealand. The actual importation of the corn is of course not a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Government’s response to it does involve ministerial responsibility but I cannot accept that its response to one reported incident requires that an urgent debate be held especially as the House is about to embark on an estimates debate that will enable the matters of concern to the member to be raised. I therefore decline the application.
Vote: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20715] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9210. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite different from the points you have just heard. You might recall that towards the end of the last debate on this issue I requested that you be recalled because of my concern about a member in this House referring to people as “health Nazis” or some such term—certainly the term “Nazis” was there. You took the view that Mr Prebble took and I quote Speaker’s ruling 44/2: “There is nothing which prevents a member from commenting if necessary in severe terms on the conduct of people outside Parliament but the member should do so only if it is necessary for the argument being put forward.” You seemed to support that. There is another ruling Speaker’s ruling 43/5 which states: “Temperate and decorous language should be used with regard to persons outside Parliament.” I personally take total exception and I know my colleagues might not share my absolute concern that we in Parliament can refer to people as “Nazis”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have a little point to make. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well hurry along please very briefly. 
PETER BROWN 
: If it is good enough for us to be allowed to call people outside the House “Nazis”; people on whom we will impose responsibility by a majority vote on this bill then it is good enough in my view to refer to people in this House as the Fuhrer Gestapo and goodness knows what else.
Cullen Michael: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4801] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to support the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. I notice that despite all the criticism of it the one member of the House who knows most about the actual industry of car sales Mr Paul Adams supports the deal; and that the member of the House who knows most about cars Mr Harry Duynhoven also supports the bill. 
I just want to make two points. The first is that last night we saw something that I have not seen in my 22 years in Parliament. We saw members of a party get up and say: “We support the title of the bill but we do not support anything else about it.” As Leader of the House I was sorely tempted to say: “Right we’ll vote with you and we’ll send out to motor vehicle dealers the new Motor Vehicle Sales Bill courtesy of Winston Peters consisting of a title and then a blank sheet.” The dealers would really be baffled and wondering what it was all about and we would have to explain that Mr Peters was probably somewhere in Courtenay Place at the time resulting in the bill ending up in that particular form. 
Then we have listened to all that whingeing from National and ACT members who have been saying: “Labour Governments always do something that is called ‘sneaky’.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member learnt to say that from Roger Sowry. When he has more experience he can be leader of the National Party because we have learnt that the only reason he is not the leader of the National Party is that he does not have enough experience. That is what his leader actually said. Those members said that a Supplementary Order Paper imposing a levy had been sneaked into the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: “That’s right!” the member says. I heard him say this morning that he had just discovered on page 5 of the Supplementary Order Paper that a levy is being imposed. If he looks at the front page of that document he will see that it was tabled on 19 November 2002. This lazy inexperienced wannabe leader of the National Party MP has taken 4½ months to discover the most important bit on that Supplementary Order Paper. National members have just discovered the levy in the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper after 4½ months. Where were they all that time? Were they going around their used-car dealers asking them about the Supplementary Order Paper? They were too busy counting the numbers in caucus to go and do their work as an Opposition.
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:619;Page:14944] 
1.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: How many written submissions has the committee received on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and how many of these has he requested be heard? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 Three thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven; and none. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is the restriction on the number of submissions being heard a result of the time constraint imposed by the report-back date and is he prepared to apply for an extension of time from the Business Committee? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: A subcommittee was formed to suggest who should be heard. The full committee subsequently endorsed this and the timetable was set for hearings. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Will the member guarantee that all submissions representing substantial interests will receive equal time rather than iwi groups having more time than other groups representing substantial interests? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I have no greater role than any other member of the committee.
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:17105] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14781] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3761] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; 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 13 be agreed to:  
to omit subclause (2).
Smith Murray: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Smith Murray: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20736] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 One may well ask why we need more judges as the ACT member has done. The short answer of course is that we have more crime new crimes more disputes and more conflict in our society. The principal reason for all that is the breakdown of ethical standards. There has been a breakdown of community; a breakdown of enforcement of ethical standards by peer pressure in our community; the alienation of our communities; and the demise of the Church in its role of setting standards. This has come about partly because of abrogation on the part of the Church and partly by the Government usurping the role of the Church in setting standards. 
This Government has replaced traditional Judaeo-Christian standards with a liberal laissez-faire doctrine and as a result we have seen a breakdown of the family a breakdown of law and order and a breakdown of community relationships. It is no wonder that we have more crime. 
Debate interrupted.
Sowry Roger: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15703] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This bill has been quite fiercely debated over the last 2 weeks in two different bites and each time the Maori Party has voted and has made it known in the House and through the media that the Greens have been carrying its proxy. I am aware that the Green whip at the moment is different from the whip who was acting on the rest of the bill and I would hate to see a member who has been opposing the bill throughout the process then find that her proxy was not being utilised. I draw that to the Committee’s attention and wonder whether the whip might have missed the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. All I can say to that is that it is up to the Maori Party as to what it does. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Benson-Pope David: General Debates 
Benson-Pope David: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8765] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 On reflection I also want to raise in this discussion the point that my colleague Annette King has just raised. Despite the fact that you asked for a withdrawal and apology from Mr Sowry for accusing me of being a liar he immediately repeated that outrageous statement at the end of his speech. That is totally unacceptable behaviour—clearly from a member who is not in control of himself.
Catchpole Brent: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Catchpole Brent: 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:10003] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
I would just like to point out that over the last two sitting days I have been present during the debate on this bill and have received only one call. I therefore seek leave to have a further call on this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17145] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9244. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I reinforce the point that Mr Brown has made and I think you have been attempting to allocate the call on a proportionate basis throughout the evening and that is generally appreciated. I just note that for the two parties of roughly similar size—given a defection—the ACT party and United Future Heather Roy has had two calls Mr Prebble has had one Mr Shirley has had one making a total of four. For our side I have had two calls Mr Adams has had one making it three calls. Mr Alexander has been seeking a call all evening. I think before you consider a closure and I do not think you are on the point of doing so right now you should bear in mind that partial inequality and seek to resolve that as well before you finally decide to curtail the debate on this matter.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16393] 
9.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Energy 
: What reports has he received indicating the success of Government initiatives to increase petroleum exploration? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I have received a report from the Ministry of Economic Development that shows that for the year to date a total of 23 wells have been drilled in New Zealand with seven more expected to be drilled before January. This is more than double the number of wells drilled in 1999 and reflects the success of the Government’s exploration incentives package which has generated international interest in gas exploration in New Zealand. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise the House what impact the increase in exploration activity is having at a regional level? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: A report released on Tuesday by the operators of the Kupe gasfield in South Taranaki indicates that this project alone will employ around 800 workers. I expect to see more positive spin-offs such as this for local communities in what has been described in newspaper reports as a boom period for the exploration industry. 
Rod Donald 
: What is the annual fiscal cost of the Government’s tax concessions for its oil and gas exploration strategy and how many times greater is this cost than the amount the Government spends for example on developing alternative fuel such as bio-diesel on energy efficiency and conservation encouragement and on helping to foster greater development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I thank the member for his question; I do not have the details to answer it. I can tell him that $15 million has been set aside for seismic work. The rest of the costs of the incentive package are probably more than offset by increased expenditure in the economy taxation of wages GST etc.. However in terms of renewable energy the member will be well aware that the Government has a comprehensive package. I agree that it is never enough—nothing ever is in this field. But I am very encouraged by the reaction from the exploration industry. I would also add that his co-leader has said that we should concentrate on small gas wells. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister clarify that the incentives are aimed at gas rather than oil; if so will he extend the scope of the incentives to cover oil given the huge benefits to the New Zealand economy and the enhancement of our national security of such discoveries? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The exploration incentives package while focusing on gas also incentivises oil exploration as obviously the two are inextricably linked. This means that funding for additional data acquisition allowing the deduction of prospecting and exploration costs against the accounting profits royalty and the lifting of the 183-day tax rule on drilling rigs will apply naturally to both oil and gas.
Personal Explanations — Question No. 4 to Minister 
Personal Explanations — Question No. 4 to Minister 
[Volume:608;Page:5648] 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 In response to a question relating to changes to the definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Bill I stated that “I personally have no recollection of either MPs or officials drawing my attention to them at the time.” Later in response to a supplementary question I stated that “I can find no evidence whatsoever that my permission as Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage was ever sought by officials on that matter.” I made those statements on the basis of my own recollections and a thorough perusal of the official files relating to the matter that my office had requested the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to forward to me yesterday in their entirety. The files forwarded contained no references whatsoever to the wording changes referred to. 
This evening a further document from the ministry was drawn to my attention. This was a briefing from the ministry dated 2½ years ago in September 2000 that sought my approval for the content and recommendations of the historic heritage provisions in the draft officials report to the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill. That briefing did contain reference to the proposal to include references to cultural and ancestral landscapes and to spiritual values. It is clear I signed off that report. While I stand by my earlier statement that I had no recollection of that brief I had no intention of misleading the House and apologise if that was the effect of my answers.
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11281] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of Sue Kedgley to section 112U(2)(e) in clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4047] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 57 
Amendment agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Cullen Michael: Election of Speaker 
Cullen Michael: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18945] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am requested by Her Excellency the Governor-General to inform the House that it is Her Excellency’s desire that the House should proceed to choose one of its members as its Speaker and in accordance with section 12 of the Constitution Act 1986 present that person at Government House at 4 p.m. today for Her Excellency’s confirmation.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Question Time 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7819] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In response to oral questions last week Mr Rick Barker promised information that he was not able to provide last Wednesday in respect of the 35 claims before the Maori Land Court for foreshore and seabed. I have still not received that information 5 days later and I ask for your intervention to ensure that it is promptly provided. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter between the member and the Minister but he has brought it to the attention of the House and I will advise the Minister accordingly.
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14752] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise just to take a short call and to follow through on what my predecessor spoke on. The amendments that have been added by the Minister of Education now clarify what the bill is all about. Anyone can now see what the intention is—yes it is to penalise private training establishments—but also exactly how it will do that. I certainly concur with that. 
But contrary to the letters that the Hon Brian Donnelly has received I have received all sorts of emails and letters of “no thanks” on this particular bill. I have not received any that have given any thanks for it or that consider that it is worthy of taking up the time of this House and the Education and Science Committee. Everybody has been opposed to it and that worries me. The entire industry is against it and not only because of the way it has occurred—and the Hon Brian Donnelly laid out very well the historic flow of events and the surprise that was caused when the original bill was pushed upon everybody. 
I ask the same question: how many more times are we going to sit down to modify change strike out and/or correct legislation to somehow capture those who have enough enterprise to keep in business? It is a huge business that we are referring to. In my second reading speech I established that it is a massive business of over $2 billion a year. The Government takes a huge slice of that—at least 25 percent—by way of taxes. As a result the whole issue now is that as the Minister has brought forth to catch a little sparrow he is utilising a massive great big machine. The little levies that he is asking for add up to a bit over $3 million maybe $4 million. He by the same token in the recent Budget has just offered $10 million to export education. Why does he not just net it all out and give away $6.5 million to the private tertiary industry for it to establish itself work the whole process out and work through the angst and the issues associated with this matter thus getting all the establishments onside being cooperative and working together? 
I am concerned that if this bill goes through the House it will not solve the question marks that the industry has about it being penalised. I would be sad to see this bill go through the House because I think basically it is a disturbance to an industry that is trying to do its best is bringing umpteen hundreds of millions of dollars into the nation and is doing it very well. Having withdrawn certain clauses out of the original bill then today putting in a whole new paragraph by way of a Supplementary Order Paper the Government 
has literally mashed this bill around in such a way that it no longer resembles a clean bill. We will certainly not be supporting it.
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16334] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to signal to that member that I am sure if he sought leave for another 5 minutes to defend John Tamihere members opposite would agree. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member knows that that is not a point of order.
Coddington Deborah: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — First Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7503] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I thank all parties for supporting this bill. Believe me there are hundreds and hundreds of people out there who will be thanking them too. I especially want to thank the Hon Phil Goff who I believe has done a huge amount as Minister of Justice to move towards protecting people in society from sex offenders. This is only the first stage of the bill and I hope that it continues on a steady strong passage through the House. 
I want to conclude with another aspect to the advantages of this bill. When similar legislation was passed in Ontario Canada in the year 2000 I was emailed by a recidivist sex offender there who told me that he was one of the first people to register on its registry because he was sick of going to jail. He could not trust himself not to reoffend but he finally felt that he could get on with his life. He knew that people were watching over his shoulder all the time and that was a huge deterrent to his reoffending. I keep in touch with him and to date he has not reoffended. 
On the issue of various degrees of offending mentioned by Nandor Tanczos all I can say is that to victims of sex abuse they are all serious. I recommend that this bill be referred to a select committee. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Law and Order Committee. referred to the Law and Order Committee
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9677] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 3(1) be agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11547] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would like you to explain your rationale for allocating the call.
English Bill: Tabling of Documents — Achieving Health for all People Wally of the Week" Poster 
English Bill: Tabling of Documents — Achieving Health for all People "Wally of the Week" Poster 
[Volume:606;Page:3699] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document  
Achieving Health for all People 
 which I referred to in question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
"
Yates Dianne: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Yates Dianne: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9237. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15299] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to.
Carter John: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Carter John: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4271] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this about the same matter? 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is but a different issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is a senior whip. I will let him have his point of order. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I just wonder. You tell us that you are looking to rule on it in 3 or 4 days and we thank you very much for that. It raises this issue: if your ruling is that what is happening is actually out of order then the bill will not proceed and the question that comes to my mind is why we would allow the bill to proceed now if in due course you may say that the Government’s action is inappropriate and the bill should not proceed. For that reason I would suggest to you again that it might be appropriate for us to defer even the first reading until we find out what decision you take about it because otherwise we will have gone halfway down and wasted the House’s time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that that is perfectly correct but that is the Government’s decision. It takes the decision as to whether it proceeds. It is entitled to proceed.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19954] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.