edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Burton Mark: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — Second Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:580] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Justice 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) be now read a second time 
. As the House will be aware Statutes Amendment bills are a useful vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. They allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Good idea; we should use them more often. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Indeed.  
The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 1 August this year. It amends 29 Acts administered in 12 different departments. All the proposed amendments have received cross-party support. Briefly they include amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1990 which clarify that more than one Order in Council can be made to bring into force provisions of that Act; an amendment to the Continental Shelf Act 1964 which makes technical changes to the definition of “continental shelf” and adds a related definition of the shelf’s seaward-side boundaries; amendments to the Corrections Act 2004 which set out the functions of probation officers and allow for the powers and functions of controlling officers to be prescribed by regulation; amendments to the Retirement Villages Act 2003 which correct mistaken references and clarify the role of the Retirement Commissioner; and finally amendments to the Wine Act 2003—an Act near and dear to many members in this House I am sure—which correct mistaken cross-references and provide for the director-general to waive or modify the requirement under the Act for an independent evaluation report to be submitted.  
Finally I wish to take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a proposal by the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne to include further amendments in the bill by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. The proposed amendments are to the Child Support Act 1991. I understand that in the course of today all parties have agreed to that. Given that that is the case I know that my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove the Minister with responsibility for this bill has agreed to the inclusion of the Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee of the whole House stage. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:580] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.referred to Justice and Electoral Committee
Yates Dianne: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Yates Dianne: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:577] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is time to remind people what this bill is about. It amends the Electoral Act 1993 in order to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. It is also designed to enhance the maintenance of the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined—if we are talking about democracy—by the electors. The bill reinstates the operative provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 which expired at the close of 17 September 2005. The Government believes that these provisions are a useful part of New Zealand’s constitutional framework.  
This is an anti - waka-jumping bill. When I came into Parliament I said to myself that if ever I strongly disagreed with my party I hoped I would have the moral integrity to resign and stand again if that were the case. That is what this bill enshrines. A member of the party that has used the electoral integrity legislation was speaking against it a few minutes ago. That to me means that that person cannot be trusted. This bill ensures that parliamentarians who are voted in by their electors and who are standing for parties whether on the list or for a seat should not be waka jumpers. If MPs do not like the stand on which they came into Parliament and if they disagree with party policy then they should have the personal integrity to resign and stand again. It seems that we have to have this Act of Parliament in order to teach people what integrity is what trust is and what the electors want.
Tanczos Nandor: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:571] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During my speech I indicated that the Green Party was the only party with a democratic list selection process. I want to correct the record because I understand that the Maori Party also has such a process. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order.
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:559] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.referred to Social Services Committee
Dunne Peter: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:559] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) be referred to the Social Services Committee 
referred to Social Services Committee.
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Auditor-General’s Report 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates — Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Auditor-General’s Report 
[Volume:628;Page:557] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I listened very carefully to the 10-minute contribution from the previous Minister of Education who was responsible for that period but not at any time did I hear reference made to the very serious concerns raised in this report. I also note that we have two speaking slots including one from New Zealand First that have not been taken up. I think the House should give leave for at least one Government Minister actually to address the issues that have been raised in the Auditor-General’s report and I seek leave in order for that to take place. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is right on one count—that there is a speaking slot available. It belongs to ACT which has chosen not to take it. As for the other issue a member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope 
[Volume:628;Page:543] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for both those debates to be held today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Urgent Debates Declined — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope 
Urgent Debates Declined — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope 
[Volume:628;Page:542] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received two applications under Standing Order 380 one from Rodney Hide on the release of a police report relating to allegations against the Hon David Benson-Pope and the other from the Hon Bill English in relation to the release of the report by the Controller and Auditor-General into Te Wananga o Aotearoa. They are both particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial and administrative responsibility of the Government. I would have been inclined to accept either one of the applications. The Standing Orders provide that in these circumstances the Speaker must determine which is the most urgent and important. I have concluded that given the implications for tertiary institutions the report into the wananga is the most important matter and must be given priority in accordance with the Standing Orders. 
I therefore accept the application from the Hon Bill English and I call upon him to move that the House take note of a particular case of recent importance. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for both those debates to be held today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope 
[Volume:628;Page:542] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received two applications under Standing Order 380 one from Rodney Hide on the release of a police report relating to allegations against the Hon David Benson-Pope and the other from the Hon Bill English in relation to the release of the report by the Controller and Auditor-General into Te Wananga o Aotearoa. They are both particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial and administrative responsibility of the Government. I would have been inclined to accept either one of the applications. The Standing Orders provide that in these circumstances the Speaker must determine which is the most urgent and important. I have concluded that given the implications for tertiary institutions the report into the wananga is the most important matter and must be given priority in accordance with the Standing Orders. 
I therefore accept the application from the Hon Bill English and I call upon him to move that the House take note of a particular case of recent importance.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
[Volume:628;Page:537] 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to encourage large-budget screen productions to New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Large Budget Screen Production Grant recipients have injected around $363 million into the New Zealand economy producing direct economic benefits of up to $227 million. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How do Kiwis benefit from having a greater number of large-budget screen productions in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Obviously a lot of cash goes in there are numerous jobs fantastic creative skills are developed and there are tourism spin-offs. There are forthcoming films— 
King Kong 
  
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe 
 and  
River Queen— 
that are all providing a tremendous opportunity— 
Shane Ardern 
: Which one’s the Minister in? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think we know which one that member will star in—although it is a real shame that Don Brash has promised to scrap that fund.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
[Volume:628;Page:534] 
9.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What was the purpose of Exercise Silver Warrior and what were the results of the exercise? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The purpose of the exercise was to test the effectiveness of the Army’s motorised battalion now that modern state-of-the-art equipment has replaced vehicles that were 20 to 40 years old. The initial feedback from the New Zealand Army is that it believes that the exercise demonstrated that the battalion now meets the required level of capability and it was pleased with the results.  
Dianne Yates 
: What feedback was received about the performance of the new Pinzgauer light operational vehicles in the exercise and in actual operational use? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Very positive feedback has been received. There were as the House will be aware some initial teething problems following delivery of the light operational vehicles. In particular there was a problem with the transmission overheating but that problem has been dealt with at the expense of the manufacturer and the vehicles have performed well. The Pinzgauers have recently been deployed in Afghanistan and work under what are probably the harshest conditions anywhere in the world. When soldiers who had used the Pinzgauers came back I spoke to them and they were hugely positive about what the vehicles had been able to do. They believed that those vehicles had some really important advantages over alternative options such as for example Humvees.  
Dianne Yates 
: Why was it necessary to purchase the light armoured vehicles that Exercise Silver Warrior was based on? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The M113 armoured personnel carriers that the LAVIIIs replaced were purchased way back in the 1960s and were over 35 years old. The truth is that our participation in peacekeeping in Bosnia in the mid-1990s highlighted that the Army lacked the means to be able to move and manoeuvre its forces with the necessary degree of protection and speed to ensure the effectiveness and survivability of the force. We were unable to operate in peacekeeping or any other operations in anything other than a low-risk environment and it is an absolute disgrace that the National Party deployed our forces with such antiquated equipment.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
[Volume:628;Page:528] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note the Minister of Police is not in the Chamber today and I seek leave of the House to hold this question over until the Minister is present. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
[Volume:628;Page:528] 
5.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received about professional development support given to teachers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Government has invested more than $100 million in 2005 for professional development of teachers including over $20 million to enable teachers to lift students’ literacy and numeracy standards around $12 million to increase teachers’ skill and confidence in the use of information and communications technology and around $7 million to support professional development of school principals. Those are all very good policies. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has he seen on professional development advice given to school principals? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a report from the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) that describes one piece of professional advice to a college principal as “unprovoked malicious unethical and inexcusable”. That advice concludes: “Yes I do have a knife in your back so be careful!”. The comment was made by National’s current associate education spokesperson Allan Peachey to a college principal in his own Tamaki electorate. Although Mr Peachey has apologised for being caught out he has not yet explained his words or reassured the school that he has no intention of putting them into action.
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
[Volume:628;Page:524] 
3.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree with the statement made to the House by former Associate Minister of Justice the Hon David Benson-Pope that “marriage has always been and will continue to be available solely to a man and a woman”; if so is this still Government policy? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does he agree with the advice tendered by the Ministry of Justice to the then Attorney-General Dr Michael Cullen that the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Quilter case may be reconsidered in light of recent overseas judgments; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I note that the Quilter case constitutes the current position of the law in New Zealand. There has been no such appeal. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: On what does he base his answer to the principal question? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have just referred to in part in my reply to the previous supplementary question the legal position has been clearly stated in  
Quilter  
v 
 Attorney-General  
in 1998. The Court of Appeal held that the Marriage Act applies only to marriage between a man and a woman. Nothing since then has changed the situation. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will Cabinet in light of David Benson-Pope’s confirmation that marriage should continue to be solely between a man and a woman and in light of the Minister’s acknowledgment of the advice from the Ministry of Justice that the Quilter decision may be reconsidered vote in support of my Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill which codifies and confirms that marriage is exclusively between a man and woman; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have already indicated there is no such basis to reconsider the position so no. To vote in favour of the bill in my view would constitute a poor process and a complete waste of Parliament’s time. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the advice tendered by the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General on 9 May 2005 which states that the Quilter decision may be reconsidered in light of overseas decisions. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a DigiPoll taken on 25 July 2005 which shows that 57 percent of New Zealanders believe that marriage can be only between a man and a woman. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I seek leave for the benefit of members’ full information to table a copy of the Ministry of Justice’s advice to the Minister of Justice on the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Peachey Allan: Personal Explanations — Email—Apology 
Peachey Allan: Personal Explanations — Email—Apology 
[Volume:628;Page:521] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 350. My explanation relates to an email sent by me to an Auckland secondary school principal which has been the subject of recent publicity. I wish to apologise for the email and for the sending of the email and apologise to all who found it objectionable. In particular I apologise to the recipient of the email. I accept full and sole responsibility for what happened. It was by my own standards not good enough.
Personal Explanations — Email—Apology 
Personal Explanations — Email—Apology 
[Volume:628;Page:521] 
Personal Explanations 
Email—Apology 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 350. My explanation relates to an email sent by me to an Auckland secondary school principal which has been the subject of recent publicity. I wish to apologise for the email and for the sending of the email and apologise to all who found it objectionable. In particular I apologise to the recipient of the email. I accept full and sole responsibility for what happened. It was by my own standards not good enough.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope  
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope  
[Volume:628;Page:521] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member cannot refer the matter of a privilege issue from the floor of the House. As the member indicated he has written to me again on the matter. As the member is also aware he has not been precluded from anything yet until a determination has been made on that matter. If the member has a question he wishes to ask to be ruled out of order or a debating point he wishes to make in a debate that is ruled out of order then he can ask the Speaker to reconsider those rulings at that time. The matter at this moment is at large and has not been determined. I think we should leave the matter there until it is and move on.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope  
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope  
[Volume:628;Page:521] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Under Speaker’s ruling 127/2 “Denial by a member of a charge or insinuation or of a statement imputed to the member must be accepted.” This is a very old Speaker’s ruling going back to 1881. It seems to me that we have a quandary because the Hon David Benson-Pope said on 12 May in this House that he did not commit the two assaults and as I understand Speakers’ rulings we have to accept that in this House. You know that I have raised this matter with you. You ruled it out in the first instance on 7 June for a lack of evidence and said that if I got more material I could put it to you. I wrote to you again once the police came out with their press statement and on 24 November you came back to me and said that I was out of time. 
Now the precise situation is that the police report released yesterday said that the evidence was essentially overwhelming that the two assaults took place. I am in the position that I believe—like a great many members in this House including some of the Labour back-benchers I have spoken to—that the police version is to be accepted. So I believe the police. That leaves me in the quandary that if I stand up in this House and say that I believe the police report I am essentially breaking the Standing Orders because Mr Benson-Pope has denied that the two assaults took place. That seems to me to be a silly situation when the House as a whole believes it took place—the police certainly do and so do the public of New Zealand. I am wondering Madam Speaker in relation to this very old ruling that goes back to 1881 whether you can shed some light on how we might proceed in the light of the police report.
Points of Order — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope  
Points of Order — Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope  
[Volume:628;Page:521] 
Tuesday 6 December 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Under Speaker’s ruling 127/2 “Denial by a member of a charge or insinuation or of a statement imputed to the member must be accepted.” This is a very old Speaker’s ruling going back to 1881. It seems to me that we have a quandary because the Hon David Benson-Pope said on 12 May in this House that he did not commit the two assaults and as I understand Speakers’ rulings we have to accept that in this House. You know that I have raised this matter with you. You ruled it out in the first instance on 7 June for a lack of evidence and said that if I got more material I could put it to you. I wrote to you again once the police came out with their press statement and on 24 November you came back to me and said that I was out of time. 
Now the precise situation is that the police report released yesterday said that the evidence was essentially overwhelming that the two assaults took place. I am in the position that I believe—like a great many members in this House including some of the Labour back-benchers I have spoken to—that the police version is to be accepted. So I believe the police. That leaves me in the quandary that if I stand up in this House and say that I believe the police report I am essentially breaking the Standing Orders because Mr Benson-Pope has denied that the two assaults took place. That seems to me to be a silly situation when the House as a whole believes it took place—the police certainly do and so do the public of New Zealand. I am wondering Madam Speaker in relation to this very old ruling that goes back to 1881 whether you can shed some light on how we might proceed in the light of the police report. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member cannot refer the matter of a privilege issue from the floor of the House. As the member indicated he has written to me again on the matter. As the member is also aware he has not been precluded from anything yet until a determination has been made on that matter. If the member has a question he wishes to ask to be ruled out of order or a debating point he wishes to make in a debate that is ruled out of order then he can ask the Speaker to reconsider those rulings at that time. The matter at this moment is at large and has not been determined. I think we should leave the matter there until it is and move on.
Power Simon: Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:680] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It will not be 5 minutes. I thank the House for its support for passing this bill. I have to say it is good to have it off my shoulders; it has been a burden actually for 5 years! 
I want to assure the Hon Lianne Dalziel that the issue she raises about multidisciplinary practices and about others holding themselves out under legal practice umbrellas as specialising in areas of law without practising certificates is not an intended provision of the bill. The House can rest assured that in the event I am required to appear before the select committee I will certainly be making the point that there is no intention in the bill to allow that to occur. The bill is very definite about the fact that the same professional standards would apply as they currently do in a partnership or sole practitioner’s environment. I thank the House for its support on this bill. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.referred to Justice and Electoral Committee
Tisch Lindsay: Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:680] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This bill is very important legislation and my colleague Simon Power has spent a lot of time on its preparation. As he said the bill had its genesis some time ago. My colleague Dr Richard Worth has articulated a very full understanding of the bill given his expertise and knowledge of such legal matters. Another learned colleague Chris Finlayson has decided not to take a call so as to enable me to speak and I certainly acknowledge that and thank him. We would like to see this bill passed before 10 o’clock. Therefore I will conclude so that the architect of the bill can have his right of reply. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Simon Power has a 5-minute right of reply.
Worth Richard: Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:680] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Truly this is magic legislation—magnificent in content well typed and not provoking much debate in this House because of its undoubted and intrinsic merit. But I would say this. This bill is necessary because of gross Government neglect and delay with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Those of us who have been on the Justice and Electoral Committee have suffered the tedium of sitting on that committee doing our work and watching the snail-pace progress of that legislation. 
I see on today’s Order Paper in the Government orders of the day that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill sits at position 16. It is stalled by the Government with the Committee stage yet to come. It is interesting to reflect on why that is. My own theory is that it is because it is useful for the Government to hold that legislation over the Law Society by dint of saying in effect that if the Law Society is quiet the Government will give further consideration to the advancement of that legislation. 
What Mr Power proposes in his Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill is eminently sensible because for a considerable period of time law firms have not had the ability to operate within a corporate model. Other stratagems have had to be resorted to such as trading trusts and the like. Just as other professions have moved to adopt vehicles appropriate for the delivery of professional services so too should lawyers have that opportunity. In every respect Mr Power is to be commended for this fine piece of work.
Brown Peter: Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Law Practitioners (Corporatisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:679] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 We are going to support this bill. It makes sense to me and my colleagues that lawyers should be able to form a company and operate as a company under the Companies Act 1993. We are told by people who are more acquainted with the legal profession than certainly I am that that could be a significant advantage. I have no doubt that the select committee will examine the bill in detail. It is a little sad that this bill is likely to be overtaken by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. If I heard correctly from the honourable member who has just resumed her seat it is likely to be overtaken in a matter of weeks by the sounds of it. I have some sympathy for Simon Power who has waited 5 years for this bill to get here and now it will last only about 10 minutes. But New Zealand First will certainly support the referral of this bill to the select committee.
Vote: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:677] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand Labour 1 (Field); New Zealand National 36 (Ardern Auchinvole Bennett D Bennett P Blue Borrows Brash Brownlee Carter D Carter J Clarkson Coleman Collins Dean English Foss Goodhew Goudie Guy Hayes Heatley Hutchison KingC Mapp McCully Peachey Roy E Ryall Smith L Smith N Tisch Tolley Tremain Wagner Wilkinson Worth); New Zealand First 5 (Brown Paraone Peters Stewart Woolerton); United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2 
Noes 73 
New Zealand Labour 49 (Barker Barnett Benson-Pope Beyer Burton Carter C Chadwick Choudhary Clark Cosgrove Cullen Cunliffe Dalziel Duynhoven Dyson Fairbrother Fenton Gallagher Goff Gosche Hartley Hawkins Hereora Hobbs Hodgson Horomia Hughes Jones King A Laban Mackey Maharey Mahuta Mallard Moroney O’Connor Okeroa Parker Pettis Pillay Ririnui Robertson Samuels Street Sutton Swain Tizard Wilson Yates); New Zealand National 12 (Blumsky Connell Finlayson Groser Henare Key Power Rich Simich te Heuheu Williamson Wong); New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Mark); Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1 
Motion not agreed to.
Tolley Anne: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tolley Anne: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:677] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. National will be voting on this bill by way of a split party vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for informing me of that. That is a way we can proceed and those parties that are voting by means of a split party vote will recall Standing Order 144(2) and deliver the names to the Table immediately after.
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:663] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:663] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I thank all members here tonight for what has been a very interesting debate. There are strongly held views on this matter just as there were a few years ago when the original legislation came before the House. I must say and I concede straight away that David Carter seemed to blame me for the bill although he is far more expert on the matter of prostitution than I am. However— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Spell it out! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That member may also be more expert than me; I do not know about that. 
I have not heard anyone tonight invite these street workers into his or her town. I have not heard people say that that is a great idea and they should have them in their towns. Manukau is a young city. It has many problems and it tries to deal with them. It tries to deal with ill health and with the problems associated with growing up in such a young city. It does some tremendous work for its citizens. The city’s motivation is good. 
I ask everyone to vote for the bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee so that these things can be questioned. I know that some people may vote for the referral of the bill to the committee and that their support may end there. However many Government members are supporting its referral to the select committee to enable wider public debate to inform the work of the Prostitution Law Review Committee. 
It does not matter that the Manukau City Council’s motivation may in the eyes of some people be wrong. What is important is that the council has its day before the select committee. I dare say there will be other councils appearing at the committee. If Manukau City Council has a fault it is that it cares too much; it is a city council that is concerned about all its citizens. Earlier tonight we sent a bill that deals with graffiti to a select committee. What we are really hearing tonight is that a council is turning to its Parliament and saying that it wants to be given some help. I do not think there is anything wrong in doing that. In fact I am quite keen to see the bill go to the select committee. I may not be a person who thinks this bill is perhaps the best solution to the problem but it is Manukau City’s solution and the council wants it to be tested by this Parliament. 
This issue may be offensive to many people. It may be undesirable that condoms are being left in school grounds. I think that is deplorable; I think it is dangerous for young kids. I think about the people who have to clean away condoms from their shopfronts before opening for business. That is not desirable. No one likes that. Manukau is responding to the call of its population. I hope that people will vote for the bill to go to the select committee.
Beyer Georgina: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:662] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to take a brief call on the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave of the House to have a call. Is there any objection? There is not. Is this a 5-minute call? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: Yes but it will not be as long as that. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and I thank my colleagues for their generosity. I want to make a few brief comments. 
I have grave concerns about the content of the bill. I respect the intent and the sincerity genuine I believe of Sir Barry Curtis and the people of Manukau City whom he represents as mayor in seeking to have this matter dealt with. However I believe that some of what is in the bill is completely erroneous. The hysteria that has gone on this evening in some of the speeches regarding the Prostitution Reform Act is just that—hysteria. Some of those issues would not have come to light if we had not gone down that track. I believe we are able to chuck out or address many if not all of the issues in this bill because of what is happening already—for example the review that is already occurring of the Prostitution Reform Act as a result of it and other such matters. 
I should declare that I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I almost welcome the opportunity to rubbish a lot of what is in the bill. However I do maintain that I uphold the right of Manukau City and of Sir Barry in generously bringing the bill forward and using a parliamentary process—almost mischievously in a sense but nevertheless it is a right and correct use of the process. So I look forward to the bill coming before the select committee. I will give the bill extraordinarily close scrutiny and very deep questioning for I as most members of this Parliament know have a very close association with the sex industry. 
I do believe that street soliciting is the more dangerous of the prostitution activities that occur and I would like nothing more than to see people not necessarily need to be in the situation of street work. That is why I wonder where that council has been. This has not been a problem of recent occurrence but one of some history. So where are the initiatives to get those people into more desirable work and the opportunities for it perhaps so as to get them out of the horrible rut they can sometimes be in? 
I ask members not to remain ignorant to the goodness of what the Prostitution Reform Act provided for this country. Yes the matters are distasteful but we should face them as we are responsibly. I do believe that is what the Act provided. 
This bill is a local bill. My colleague George Hawkins has quite rightly as a local member brought it forward on behalf of the Manukau City Council. That is why I am happy to support the referral of the bill to the select committee. I certainly cannot promise that I will support it beyond there.
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:651] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I think the committee has only 6 months before it has to be reported back. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee
Tisch Lindsay: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:650] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although the member has mentioned which committee is there any necessity to have a report-back date on this?
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:650] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government and Environment Committee consider the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill.
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:650] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 45; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time.
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:650] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I start by thanking members for their contributions. I do not agree with all of them but I think the vast majority of them believe that the Manukau City Council should have its day before the select committee and I think that is very important. I know that there are concerns in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the select committee is the place to thrash that out. I think that a select committee examining things carefully—many heads together—will ensure that this legislation eventually becomes law. 
Many people in Manukau City have for a long while tried to overcome the problem of graffiti. They have been doing so for many years. I do not see graffiti sprayed on someone’s garage or wall as creative. I see it as a mess and I am a former art teacher who encouraged people to be creative. I see graffiti as being a wee bit like a bird crapping in its own nest. It spoils the community. The people of Manukau want a better community—one that is respected by all the people who live in it. We have good people like the Rev. Mark Beale out on Saturdays with a group of people cleaning up graffiti as are Bill Marshall and plenty of other people. 
Hon David Carter 
: Name one. 
GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have often cleaned up graffiti. I do not mind going down and cleaning something off a building for people if it means cleaning up graffiti. If it means slapping on a paint brush good on them. 
I think the time has come when people are starting to take back their community and they are bringing back some pride. It is about time that those who have concerns bring them to the select committee have them examined and make this bill even better.
Power Simon: Manfeild Park Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Manfeild Park Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:640] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 27 March 2006. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Manfeild Park Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Manfeild Park Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:640] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Manfeild Park Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a first time.
Power Simon: Manfeild Park Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Manfeild Park Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:640] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the support of parties to seeing this bill through its first reading and in particular to a select committee; apart from the slightly bizarre outburst by Doug Woolerton over a misconstrued history of various political parties in this House I think the debate by and large has been pretty constructive. Could I just say to Dr Sharples that I completely acknowledge the issues that he raises and I raised those matters in my first reading speech. I must say though that I find it curious that the member and his party have chosen to make a decision to oppose the bill prior to any of the consultative submissions having occurred. I would have thought that the issues raised by Ngati Kauwhata will in the end be ones that need to have the committee turn its mind to them in a very serious way and I am sure it will—Dennis Emery and Mason Durie are very eminent Maori scholars and well-known identities in the Rangitikei area. 
But I think it odd that the Maori Party would vote against a bill prior to those submissions or consultations being carried out and I would ask the party when considering the bill to approach the select committee process with the same open mind as the rest of us will if indeed those concerns are brought to the committee by representatives of Ngati Kauwhata. 
Could I just conclude by thanking the House for its support for the bill and in particular as I said earlier my colleague Steve Maharey from the region who has worked with me to ensure that the best possible version of the bill is placed before the House. I await with interest the outcome of the vote.
Woolerton R Doug: Manfeild Park Bill — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Manfeild Park Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:638] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First likewise is happy to support this bill which we think is good common sense. In doing so we would like to acknowledge the recognition of the local iwi concerned. It is good to see in this House that we are recognising things nowadays that we did not recognise previously and we have a far more unified society because of it. 
This bill is common sense and it is good to see the cooperation between the rural sector and the city environment. It is also good to see that a park such as this is enjoying multi-use. Too often around the country we see one-use facilities built by previous generations no longer fitting the use they were put aside for. Sometimes the wrangling that takes place on a change of use has to be seen to be believed and does not make any sense at all. 
In this case it appears that the multi-use includes the A and P show and motor racing. Motor racing is the one sport I follow because it does not require me to get my body knocked around too much and being a small man that is not something one wants to happen too often. So it is good to see that the motor racing girls and boys are being looked after and it is good to see that there is cooperation between the rural and the urban environments. It is also good to see a National Party member supporting these things in the community after some dreadful years when that party seemed intent on burning off every local community in the country—burning off local initiative burning off anybody who did not have a couple of million bucks to chuck around and looking after what it saw as the free market and private enterprise. 
In spite of that and out of the goodness of our hearts we are prepared to overlook all those things that have gone before. We are prepared to overlook the hurt the nasty gibes that have been flung at us and the personal attacks we have suffered. We are not only happy to support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee but also we are proud to do so.
Choudhary Ashraf: Manfeild Park Bill — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Manfeild Park Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:637] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a very short call to support this bill. I am delighted that our two local members in the area Simon Power for Rangitikei and my colleague Steve Maharey from Palmerston North are supporting this bill and as I am a resident of Palmerston North I am delighted that I have this opportunity to support this bill. 
Mr Power has already explained the detail of the bill. It is a very short bill and it is really very difficult to add much more to what has been said before. I have known this park for many years myself because I have taken part in the A and P shows held there for many years. I have taken machinery and tractors particularly new machinery and technologies over to Feilding to promote them among the farming community. It is a great park which hosts many many different activities as Mr Power has just said. There is a sheep and ram saleyard open days for many things shearing championships and cattle shows. 
So this park is very essential to the people of Palmerston North and Feilding and it is very well-used. I am delighted that this bill provides for putting the ownership of the park into a trust which I think will be very useful in terms of managing the various functions and activities associated with the park. I am delighted to support this bill. I do not think there is a lot I can add but I am totally in favour of this bill.