edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Visitors — United Kingdom—Speaker of the House of Commons Indonesia—Budget Committee Members 
Visitors — United Kingdom—Speaker of the House of Commons Indonesia—Budget Committee Members 
[Volume:619;Page:14593] 
Wednesday 4 August 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 30 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
United Kingdom—Speaker of the House of Commons 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have very great pleasure in informing members that the Rt Hon Michael Martin Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Rt Hon Michael Martin accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Indonesia—Budget Committee Members 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Budget Committee from the Republic of Indonesia are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Hawkins George: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hawkins George: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16689] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Field Taito Phillip: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Field Taito Phillip: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13014] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12813] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Judicial Matters Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18733] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I understand. Mr Donald has asked for someone to attempt to explain that and I have asked the Minister to make that attempt.
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11416] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a third time.
Pillay Lynne: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11655] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16775] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There does not seem to be any copies of the bill on the Table and I wonder whether that has any impact on our ability to proceed on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I apologise. It does not have any impact but they should be here. We will rectify that.
Benson-Pope David: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15507] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 My understanding was that this was to be a normal personal vote. It certainly is the expectation of the Labour Party that those for whom I am not as whip holding proxies will expect the ringing of the bells and will as normal progress to the Chamber.
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 omit proposed new section 3D of the principal Act.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20972] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a).
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17815. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20161] 
12.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she advise the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 to hang tough and continue their investigations into Police Commissioner Peter Doone after the publication of their 16 January 2000 story as claimed in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 this week; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is impossible to recall specific words used in conversations of more than 5 years ago. I should note though that I had no reason to discourage the  
Sunday Star-Times  
from following a story it had been reporting on since 5 December. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister specifically deny to this House urging the  
Sunday Star-Times  
to stick to its story after the Commissioner of Police Peter Doone had threatened suit on the newspaper; and given that it is her honesty that is in question now why will she not table the reporter’s notes that she says her lawyer has—what has she got to hide? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in the primary answer I had no reason to discourage the newspaper from continuing to follow a story that it had been reporting on since 5 December when it was quite clear that there were different accounts of what people had said in the incident. It is also worth pointing out that a Police Complaints Authority report found that Mr Doone’s behaviour was undesirable and a police report found that it was inappropriate. With regard to the latter part of the member’s question given that further litigation is being proposed it is simply not appropriate. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister with the benefit of hindsight understand that without her encouragement and active support the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 would not have felt able to run the article criticising the Commissioner of Police Peter Doone and does she wish to express regret to the House today for any of the actions she has taken regarding this matter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. As the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 lawyer has said I was not its source. The newspaper had many sources within the police.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate —  
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7150] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All through at once? OK we will have a go at that.
Speaker’s Rulings — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction 
Speaker’s Rulings — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction 
[Volume:616;Page:12483] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Following my ruling this afternoon regarding the conduct of the media in this building while members are on their way to the Chamber I have discussed the matter with the chair and deputy chair of the press gallery. They acknowledged that there have been unfortunate incidents in recent days and have expressed a wish to work with me on a protocol that while allowing the media access to members does not impede members’ own access to the Chamber. I am prepared to work with the press gallery on this matter. Consequently I am announcing that my ban on journalists approaching members after 1.45 p.m. tomorrow is suspended to allow further consideration of the issue. 
I nevertheless require that journalists act with consideration to everyone using the Parliament Buildings corridors and in particular do not in any way impede the free access of members to the Chamber. In the latter regard I wish to quote from  
Erskine May 
 22nd edition at page 121: “It is a contempt to molest a member … while attending the House or coming to or going from it …”. In our own Standing Orders—Standing Order 395(k)—it is specifically made a contempt to obstruct or molest a member. It is therefore necessary for me to re-emphasise the seriousness of obstructing a member in those circumstances. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that ruling. Two things come from it. Firstly I wonder whether you would circulate that ruling to members. I am sure you will. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will make sure that it is in every member’s box by 8 o’clock. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Thank you. The second point given that you are now considering the matter further is that I wonder whether you would be prepared to accept any written comments from members on the issue. Some members may wish to make a submission to you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I will; I think that point is a very fair one. I will make sure that every member of Parliament is written to tomorrow and that we invite members to make comments over the adjournment so we can sort the matter out. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that in your earlier comments to the House you mentioned two times: 1.45 and 7.15. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is both times. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: In your comments just now you did not mention the 7.15 time. I am just interested to know whether we are talking about both times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no evening session tomorrow. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No but we are referring to this issue in the future are we not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes we are and I will actually rule on it the day we resume. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes but what I am interested in is that you are actually covering both times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We only suspended journalists approaching members for tomorrow originally but I will make that clear in the ruling when I eventually give it.
Barker Rick: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19500] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill is relatively unique in that the organisation—the Law Society—is seeking the change. The impetus for the change has come from the profession itself. There is general agreement on the bill. I am very interested to read despite the comments made by some members that National supports the bill but has a number of reservations. So on the general points the majority of this Committee is in agreement on the bill. We heard some comments made by Simon Power in the first humble speech that I have heard from him in this Chamber—and I look forward to more of them. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That type of comment is unnecessary. It is well known that my maiden speech was also humble. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for reminding us of that. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I apologise to the member. His maiden speech must have been forgettable although I did remember the second one. But there is general agreement on this bill. 
The essence of the legislation for the benefit of those who are not very familiar with it and who may be listening to this debate is the separation of the regulatory and advocacy powers of the Law Society. Currently the structure is such that the society has to be both a regulator and an advocate and it seems that that is not a particularly good structure. But the bill maintains that the obligations of lawyers to their clients are to be exactly the same as they are at present. We are just looking at changing the structure. The major issue is going to be the addition of conveyancers. That is a significant step and Mr Dail Jones is correct when he says that it comes from the 1997 Conveyancers Bill initiated by Phil Goff. It is true that there are other jurisdictions around the world where conveyancers are treated in the same way as lawyers. New Zealand is different in that regard. I accept that there will be a difference of opinion about that as there will be a difference of opinion—and this is clear from reading the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report—on the status of Queen’s Counsel. People have made their views known on that. Those are the issues but in general terms I would expect to see a high degree of unanimity as we go through the bill although we will disagree over some of the points. 
I take issue with Simon Power in that I do not think it is necessarily a bad thing to see a number of amendments on the Table. I think that is in fact a positive thing that people are clearly thinking about the legislation are going through it piece by piece and are making sure that we do work assiduously in order to get it as correct as we can. That is the duty of the Committee today and it is the only time that a number of people will have the option to do that. I think this will be an interesting debate. I do not think it will be particularly protracted because there is general agreement about the reform.
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17051] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment is to clause 12 in the name of Metiria Turei. It is an entrenchment clause and was different in element from the previous amendment and that is why it was allowed. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 12 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclauses: 
(3)No special Act of Parliament to which subsection (2)(a) applies may be passed unless the proposal for the Act— 
(a)is passed by a majority of 75% of all the members of the House of Representatives; or 
(b)has been carried by a majority of the valid votes cast at a poll of the electors of the general and Maori electoral districts: 
provided that this subsection does not apply to the repeal of subsection (1) or (2) by a consolidating Act in which that provision is or those provisions are re-enacted without amendment and this subsection is re-enacted without amendment so as to apply to that provision or those provisions as re-enacted. 
(4)Subsection 3 does not apply where special legislation is proposed for the alienation of the foreshore and seabed for the purposes of any treaty settlement legislation.
Catchpole Brent: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13281] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 This legislation is the result of 9/11. The world as we knew it changed forever on that day and as a result terrorism has taken hold around the world and we have had to look to alternatives for trans-shipping our product to and from our markets. The fear of an attack with the carriage of some of our goods to or from our markets is great. Therefore New Zealand First supports the bulk and intent of this legislation. However a major problem is that this Government is set to tax exporters. Exporters are our lifeblood. If this country does not export it does not have an income. If it does not have an income then the economy will shrink to next to nothing. Would this legislation benefit just the exporters? No it would not benefit just the exporters as the Minister Mr Benson-Pope would have us believe. It would benefit all of us. 
There are two reasons why it would benefit all of us—first the economy and secondly our security. If the Government were to dump all the costing the 100 percent recovery on to exporters importers and trans-shippers as it originally had in mind that would have said to the country that it did not give a damn about the economy of this country. It finally relented and reduced the cost. Exporters were willing to pay some of the cost but not the 80:20 as the Government has them set to do now. 
The Minister gave us an example of the huge set-up costs the Government had to go through. He failed to take note or even acknowledge the huge set-up cost for exporters. They have a huge cost. They have to comply with all sorts of electronic upgrades. Their computer systems and software have to be upgraded so they have to put up with a lot of extra costs as well. The Minister’s argument of just the Government having to bear costs is ludicrous. It is a clear example that he just does not give a damn about our exporters. All he wants to do is recover costs and make them pay because he considers it to be big business. 
Shane Ardern 
: Just another tax. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: It is just another tax and another means of filling the pot. My colleague Peter Brown said the Government is like Scrooge—when it has a lot of money left over it wants more. This legislation is another means to recover those costs and to add to that pot. 
The potential protection of our citizens is paramount and the responsibility of a Government is to protect its citizens. We have heard time and time again around this House that our citizens are of paramount importance. Basically for the Government to load the cost on to importers and exporters is to ignore its responsibility to citizens as a whole. Therefore the citizens should help with those costs because it is for their protection as well as for our goods and exports. The so-called “green lane” is wonderful. It is a great idea. But let us not load the cost all on to exporters and importers. If that happens our economy will shrivel on the vine and basically so will the people in this country.
Cosgrove Clayton: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18782] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call to support the passage of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approval and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. This is a very good bill. I know that the Minister has worked very diligently as she always does on this legislation. To inject a little humour into the place I will say that there are many people out there listening who possibly think that there is the odd hazardous substance or new organism in this place. I do not refer to the ACT party in any way. I support the bill. It is sound legislation. Uniquely it has almost universal support in the House and that says a lot for the mana with which this bill and the Minister is held by the House.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Points of Order — Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Presence on Order Paper 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Points of Order — Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Presence on Order Paper 
[Volume:626;Page:21243] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to raise with you a point of order about Government notice of motion No. 2 which has sat on the Order Paper for something in the order of 6 months. I note that a member of this House can have a notice of motion on the Order Paper for only 1 week before it is removed or debated. Can I through you ask the Leader of the House when that motion will be debated and for an assurance that in fact it will be debated before the election.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17871. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to add after paragraph (a) of new section 30 (2) the following new paragraph: 
(ab)conduct a performance audit of the management of Crown debt; and.
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6179] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 59 
Ardern (P) 
Dyson  
Key (P) 
Shirley 
Barnett 
English (P) 
King 
Simich 
Benson-Pope 
Ewen-Street 
Locke (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mapp 
Smith N 
Bradford 
Goff  
O’Connor 
Sowry  
Brash (P)  
Hartley  
Okeroa 
Tanczos  
Brownlee (P)  
Hawkins 
Peck 
Te Heuheu 
Carter D (P)  
Heatley 
Pettis 
Tisch (P) 
Chadwick  
Hereora 
Power (P) 
Turei (P) 
Coddington  
Hide  
Rich 
Ward (P) 
Collins  
Hodgson 
Ririnui 
Williamson (P) 
Connell (P)  
Horomia 
Robertson 
Wong (P) 
Cullen 
Hughes 
Roy 
Worth (P) 
Cunliffe  
Hunt  
Ryall 
Teller: 
Donald  
Hutchison 
Scott 
Carter J  
Noes 33 
Adams  
Dunne (P) 
Mahuta  
Prebble (P) 
Alexander (P)  
Duynhoven  
Mark (P)  
Stewart  
Awatere Huata  
Eckhoff (P)  
McNair (P) 
Turner  
Baldock  
Field 
Newman (P)  
Woolerton (P)  
Brown  
Franks  
Ogilvy  
Yates  
Catchpole 
Goudie  
Paraone  
Copeland  
Gudgeon  
Perry (P) 
Cosgrove 
Jones  
Peters J (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly  
Mackey  
Peters W (P)  
Smith M 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Electoral Matters Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Cullen Michael: Electoral Matters Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17249] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Electoral Matters Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6747] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I rise in support of the bill. It is yet another example of the common-sense approach of this Government. I am proud to support it.
Simich Clem: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10180] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes I should just give a brief explanation of that point. I understand what the member is saying. The point is that the member’s amendment is out of order in my view because it purports to amend an agreement reached between the Crown and other parties. That is the sole reason it is being ruled out of order. The advice given to the select committee is generic advice to the effect that it is for Parliament to give effect or not give effect to the settlement and to decide how it gives effect to the settlement. In the case of a bill to give effect to an agreement between the Crown and another party Parliament should not insert conditions in the implementing legislation that are not acceptable to the two parties except in exceptional circumstances.  
It is my view that the member’s amendment worded as it is is out of order in that form because a deed of settlement that is an agreement entered into between the Crown and another party cannot be amended—as I mentioned before—in a bill intended to give effect to it. I rule the member’s amendment out of order and we will move to the second amendment in the name of Heather Roy.
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Speaker's Ruling Demonstrations—Access to Buildings 
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Election Advertising—Speaker's Ruling Demonstrations—Access to Buildings 
[Volume:627;Page:21897] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Some 2 weeks ago on 8 June I wrote to you expressing concern about Labour election advertising being paid from the parliamentary budget. Because this is the last sitting day prior to a 4-week adjournment I am inquiring as to when I might expect a reply and whether you have received any reports from the Electoral Commission for example or from any other agencies evaluating that situation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. As my office notified your office I am considering the matter and will get a reply to you as quickly as possible.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:612;Page:9249] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I thank the member for his comment that the programme looks quite light. I am sure in that respect there therefore should be no difficulty in arriving at an understanding about the completion of that business in return for having oral questions on Wednesday and Thursday.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:609;Page:6329] 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to correct the results of four votes that occurred during the Committee stage on the Prostitution Reform Bill. On the question in respect of new clause 2A in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison that the amendment be agreed to the result was originally Ayes 16 Noes 99. The correct result is Ayes 15 Noes 99. On the question in respect of the amendment to clause 3 and new clause 3A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of Stephen Franks that the amendment be agreed to the result was originally announced as Ayes 33 Noes 83. The correct result is Ayes 33 Noes 82. On the question in respect of new clause 6BA set out on Supplementary Order Paper 90 in the name of Sue Bradford that the amendment be agreed to the result was originally announced as Ayes 63 Noes 52. The correct result is Ayes 63 Noes 51. On the question in respect of the amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to Supplementary Order Paper 91 that the amendments to the amendments be agreed to the original result was Ayes 27 Noes 85. The correct result is Ayes 26 Noes 85.
Prebble Richard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7800] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. Earlier a question was asked of the Government whip as to who he was voting on behalf of and he was prepared to answer. Can he tell us whether he has a proxy for the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is voting to exempt herself from the Electoral Act? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: My advice is that a party vote is not differentiated. I thank the member for raising the matter.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11505] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank you for your forbearance. It is something totally different and I am just taking the opportunity during this pause. At the end of my supplementary question to question No. 2 you cautioned me quite appropriately as to the appropriateness and the acceptability of my breaching conventions by criticising the judiciary. I fully accept that. With that in mind I seek the leave of the House to table the sentencing notes by Judge Durie on the trial and conviction of Warwick Whare Reuben Kershaw the man who murdered that wee 3-year-old girl Anahera. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been asked to table those. Is there any objection?
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:17049] 
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 52 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18408] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to.
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8652] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for those considered rulings. To follow up on the points you made about the process in respect of police activity in Parliament itself I wonder whether there is some way that you can communicate with the Commissioner of Police with some urgency because Shane Ardern’s office has been rung by the police four times I think today. [ 
Interruption 
] Was it more than four? 
John Carter 
: I’m not aware of the number. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well at least four times today his office has been rung by the police pressing for an appointment to enable them to issue a summons to Mr Ardern—in Parliament! This is putting a great deal of pressure on his secretary who despite our consistent advice not to agree to that may well end up doing so on the next phone call. I would suggest that you take up this matter with the police directly so that they understand that a summons cannot be issued in Parliament to a member of Parliament. If they could stop hassling Shane Ardern’s office for such an appointment it would be greatly appreciated.
Hartley Ann: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14549] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the next member I want to remind members that we have been dealing with clause 1 as a wrap-up clause at the end of the debate. The debate on this clause is limited; it is not a wrap-up debate.
Dunne Peter: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6943] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
:  
I was not going to take a call in this debate but I am prompted to do so to protect the honour and the integrity of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee following a very grave attack by the member who preceded me. He talked about the dilatory consideration of this measure. I need to put on record on behalf of the members of that select committee—of whom that member was one for the purposes of this debate—the very processes by which we considered this legislation. It came to the select committee on 20 February this year. We immediately acted by calling for public submissions which we received by 21 March. We received three submissions which the member has canvassed in detail. We then spent some 53 minutes hearing evidence from those witnesses and a further 1 hour and 7 minutes considering the implications of that evidence. We then reported the bill back to the House on 29 April. 
Contrary to any allegations of dilatory consideration we spent more time dealing with the submissions than we did hearing the witnesses we dealt with the bill speedily in a period of 2 months and we have been waiting with eager anticipation the fate of these two pieces of legislation since that time. I need say no more other than that the select committee worked well and constructively together now looks forward to the measures passing and resists absolutely any allegation that we did not discharge our responsibilities fully and thoroughly.
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:9221. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to pick up on a point that has been made by one or two of the earlier speakers about the nature of the contracts that have been entered into with various agencies and I want to tell the Committee that the suggestion that some $2.1 million only has been allocated is well short of the mark. There is an insidious industry abroad here— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As I understand Mr Dunne has spoken before on Part 2 and I should have got the call because I have not spoken before. I believe I am entitled to the call or any other member who has not spoken before.
Shirley Ken: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10424] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would also like to comment on clause 5 of this bill. As my colleague from New Zealand First Jim Peters observed this clause “Objects of Foundation” is the key clause of this bill. I particularly refer members to clause 5(1)(a)(v) which is to provide for the conservation of native and commercial forests. But the foundation is also for the economic use of timber—both of native and commercial forestry. I think that that is a very good provision. It is all about the multi-use of forests be they native or commercial exotic planted forests but it contrasts dramatically with this Government’s policy in the way it has closed down the conservation and management of West Coast forests. The Labour Government reneged on its accord by which we had the multiple uses of West Coast native forests. 
Perhaps the member in the chair the member for Wairarapa could comment on that because on the one hand we have here a trust being set up that is providing for the multiple uses of both indigenous and exotic forests—and I certainly support that; I think it is a very wise thing. But on the other hand how does she reconcile it as a member of the governing party that has closed down the commercial use of indigenous forestry elsewhere? Does she see an inconsistency in that? I think that this proposal is right and her Government’s policy is wrong. How does she reconcile the two? I would certainly like to have clarification from the member in the chair on that issue.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:622;Page:17684] 
12.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has he received on the state of the New Zealand labour market? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have seen several reports showing that the New Zealand labour market is in exceptionally good shape: over 2 million New Zealanders are in work; unemployment is at 3.8 percent the lowest level in two decades; paid parental leave is in place; the minimum wage has risen five times in 5 years; New Zealand employers plan to take on more staff than employers in other Asia-Pacific countries according to an international survey out today; and employers and unions are working with the Government to boost New Zealand workplace productivity—fabulous news from a fabulous Government. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What further reports has he received regarding New Zealand’s labour policies? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen reports from someone opposing the Employment Relations Act 4 weeks’ annual leave and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I have recently seen reports showing that that person now supports those measures. I am sure that Father Christmas will be bringing a new pair of flip-flops to Don Brash given that his old ones have worn out. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the most recent statistics show that the number of people working as a percentage of those who are available for and are seeking work has increased a mere 0.6 percent since 1996 whilst the number of people on a sickness benefit has increased by 35.4 percent since the year 2000; if he is aware of that would he agree that the picture is not quite as rosy as he makes out? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No I would not. I think the member is quite aware of two really important pieces of information: firstly that there are now more than 2 million New Zealanders in work which is a very important thing; and secondly that the unemployment rate is now 3.8 percent. I am advised that as a result there are now 16 percent fewer beneficiaries overall than there have been since about the year 2000. I think New Zealand will be congratulating this Government on the fabulous work it has done in the labour-market area. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table the statistics I referred to that I obtained from the Parliamentary Library for the Minister’s enlightenment. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hughes Darren: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6531] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 After wonderful oratory like that which is incisive and visionary in its nature I believe it is amazing that this House got by in the 20 years after Mr Jones decided to leave Parliament and was not a member of this Chamber. I am not quite sure how we managed to frame legislation without Mr Jones’ presence during these last 2 decades. 
I am not sure either whether the reason he is opposing this bill is that the residents’ committee of his local retirement village where he makes his home decided that he should come to Parliament and oppose this bill. I can understand why Mr Jones is opposing the repeal of the Distress and Replevin Act of 1908. It was his first private member’s bill back in 1908 when he first came to this Chamber so I can understand why he has a huge commitment to it. 
I support this bill because it does clarify some compliance costs. I think it is very good Government legislation.
Hughes Darren: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15011] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I support the bill.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9067] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 151 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to the schedules be agreed to.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9067] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Jones Dail: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Jones Dail: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6264] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Just before I call the next speaker and hear Mr Jones’ point of order I remind members that this bill has been to the Commerce Committee so therefore the title debate is confined to the title. 
DAIL JONES 
: When the last vote was taken I inadvertently voted 12 for New Zealand First when I should have voted 13. Can I seek leave now or shall I wait until Mr Speaker comes back to alter the New Zealand First vote? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That change has to be made in the House.
Tizard Judith: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
Tizard Judith: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7390] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. I commend it to the House.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22319] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate — In Committee Procedure 
Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:618;Page:14420] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave to table a Christchurch  
Press 
 media report entitled “MP”—referring to Mr Mark—feels heat as cold facts revealed” of 17 July 2004.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14132] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 5 agreed to.
Wang Kenneth: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Wang Kenneth: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21162] 
KENNETH WANG (ACT) 
: 
 I came to Parliament at the end of November which was after this bill was introduced in September 2004. The bill as previous speakers have said is highly technical and I agree with their comments that it is purely a waste of members’ time. However although the bill was considered by the Commerce Committee relatively quickly we did conduct quite a substantial consideration of the submissions. There were some very significant things showing through the submissions. I particularly want to quote a submission from Mr Geoffrey John Fuller. In his submission he stated: “My concern is with the ability of the Guardian Trust to lend funds under its administration to its parent company … thus linking the security of those funds to the financial viability of those companies.” 
In other words if we allowed funds to be freely transferred between the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. to its parent company without substantial or adequate monitoring that would leave the door open at the other end because we do not know how those funds would be managed or whether those funds if they are under any security risk would be secured for those customers. In other words with their funds those mums and dads put their trust into the hands of the New Zealand Guardian Trust and give it their total faith. It seems to me that the funds would not be adequately secured. Although I do not object to the bill overall I wish to raise this concern while all members are in the House and I can draw their attention to it. 
The ACT party would like to vote for the bill but would like to draw attention to its very significant shortcomings. We agree with the National Party’s proposal that would enable the bill to be considered under a proposal to seek an Order in Council and to seek options in the future for new ownership. That proposal was refused during the select committee stage which I think was a mistake. However the bill is before Parliament now and I would like to invite other parties’ comments.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19521] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This question was initially addressed to the Prime Minister because it asked about a speech the Prime Minister had made and what she had said in that speech. It has been transferred to another Minister. I know that Speakers have often ruled that the Government has the right to transfer questions to other Ministers but should that be the case when the question is directly about a speech made by a particular Minister? Is it the case that another Minister should have to answer on behalf? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member indicated the Government can assign the question to whatever Minister. In this instance the question does relate to the environment and I notice that it has been assigned to the Minister for the Environment.
Beyer Georgina: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Beyer Georgina: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14853] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12252] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20983] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following subclause: 
(2)No sum may be paid to the accused or the offender.