edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Awatere Huata Donna: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Awatere Huata Donna: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10177] 
DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) 
: 
I am pleased to rise to support this part of the bill. I was a member of the ACT board of trustees in 1996 when we signed off on a treaty policy that said we would support any settlement that was fair full and final. By anyone’s reading of this bill this is as fair as full and as final as I believe any Parliament can achieve in these difficult times of trying to negotiate with competing interests trying to get mandate and trying to be as fair to everyone as possible.  
I believe that it is in full accordance with ACT policy that every settlement be as fair as possible. It is a very modest settlement given the recital that I read of the events that these people have endured over the years. It is very modest. It is as full as one can expect given that of course future generations will want to relitigate these matters in the light of the sheer modesty of the settlement. It is really a koha—an acknowledgment—that wrongs have been done but it is certainly not a full financial repayment. So of course one could expect that in future other generations will want to relitigate it. But it is as full and final as I believe any Parliament can achieve.  
I was part of the ACT list that went into the 1999 election and into the 2002 election arguing again that any settlement be fair full and final. So I am happy to support a part in a bill that is in my view fully in accordance with the policies of the ACT party. As ACT is a party that prides itself on supporting the sanctity of property rights I believe that too compels me to support this bill so I will be voting in favour of it.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9019] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Richard Worth to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(3)Notwithstanding the provisions of section 23 of the Constitution Act in the event that the Supreme Court is disestablished the Judges of the Court must not continue in office and must not receive salary or other allowance from that date.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Floods Lower North Island—Government Response Minister of Immigration — Resignation 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Floods Lower North Island—Government Response Minister of Immigration — Resignation 
[Volume:615;Page:11224] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In accepting your ruling I ask whether you have considered the fact that the two inquiries you speak of into matters relating to the resignation of the Minister will not in fact inquire into activities in the Minister’s office will not inquire into the behaviour of the Minister and will not inquire into the behaviour of the Prime Minister in that matter.
Pillay Lynne: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6158] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 Currently workers in the sex industry are suffering by being coerced bullied beaten and raped. They dare not speak out because if they do they are criminals. I ask those members who are hiding their heads in the sand: if prostitutes want to leave the industry what choices do they have when they have a criminal record? They have no choice whatsoever—they are trapped within the industry.  
Those who advocate that the client should be the criminal are quite wrong. That will only drive this industry further underground and it is underground already. That will increase the power of the corrupt involved in the industry. That will prevent workers having access to health and safety standards and to rights of employment that every worker should enjoy. I support this bill because it is about justice safety and dignity.
Turei Metiria: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21971] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Please excuse my confusion. I want to address Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Does that mean I should state that now or wait until you raise that yourself? Please excuse my ignorance on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It comes up later. There is a list here.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9017] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Richard Worth to clause 3(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the word “Nothing” and substitute the word “Everything”.
Tizard Judith: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
Tizard Judith: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19778] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That the Rail Network Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
for consideration that the committee report by 23 June 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting despite Standing Orders 191 193(a) and 194(1)(b) and (c).
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 Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11588] 
5.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: Does his department assist with enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Yes the Customs Service works with the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in a very successful cross-agency arrangement known as the Wildlife Enforcement Group to ensure that no protected species under the New Zealand convention are smuggled in or out of New Zealand. 
David Parker 
: Was the Wildlife Enforcement Group involved in the recent interception of native orchids that were about to be smuggled out of New Zealand? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Indeed it was and that is a very good example of the work this group does. In addition to the New Zealand agencies involved the Czech Customs Service and Environmental Inspectorate resulted in Czech nationals being intercepted at the border with a total of 362 individual plant specimens including 93 orchids—a number of which had been removed from national parks in flagrant breach of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The two smugglers were convicted and fined and that sends a clear message to would-be smugglers that this country does not tolerate that sort of behaviour.
Vote: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7122] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 20 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7. 
Noes 86 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 20; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of R Doug Woolerton to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
17No compensation for loss of office 
No director of the Board is entitled to compensation for loss of office either from the Boardany subsidiary of the Board or any other company or entity.
Visitors — Centre for Democratic Institutions—Sixth Pacific Parliamentary Retreat 
Visitors — Centre for Democratic Institutions—Sixth Pacific Parliamentary Retreat 
[Volume:621;Page:16875] 
Tuesday 16 November 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Centre for Democratic Institutions—Sixth Pacific Parliamentary Retreat 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that participants in the sixth Pacific parliamentary retreat of the Centre for Democratic Institutions are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed.
Cosgrove Clayton: Tabling of Documents — Minister of Police—Allegations made by New Zealand First Member's Bill—Prisoners' Human Rights 
Cosgrove Clayton: Tabling of Documents — Minister of Police—Allegations made by New Zealand First Member's Bill—Prisoners' Human Rights 
[Volume:620;Page:15754] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Yesterday in the House New Zealand First List MP Ron Mark accused me of misrepresentation in respect of an allegation I made that the New Zealand First Party had called on the Minister of Police to breach the longstanding constitutional convention relating to the separation of powers between the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of Police by calling on the Minister to intervene in matters rightly the preserve of the police by accessing and reviewing police files. Therefore I seek leave to table transcripts from the parliamentary website that clearly show that members of the New Zealand First Party have called on the Minister of Police to intervene by accessing and reviewing police files. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Mahuta Nanaia: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6899] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8225] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 249 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(2A)Section 51(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection 6(f) the following subsection: 
(g)That in the case of an application for a licence to operate a pharmacy the applicant is a person who is able to satisfy the condition set out in  
section 55A 
.
Goudie Sandra: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Goudie Sandra: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:618;Page:13869] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I too would like to rise in support of the comments made by the Hon Nick Smith in his support of the bill. It is pleasing to see that this particular council will be able to exercise its functions and duties. The council will probably have to and has the ability to undertake the special consultative process of a long-term council community plan and I am sure that that will satisfy the democratic process and the right for the public to have a say in the disposal of that land and that is just and proper. 
I think it is timely that this is all happening before the foreshore and seabed legislation takes effect so that this council has the opportunity to do what it can with regard to this land. As members will no doubt be aware local authorities are excluded from the definition of specified freehold interest and I think councils need to be very mindful of and careful about their relationship with the foreshore and seabed legislative provisions. So I say again that the bill is probably timely for the Wellington City Council because the Minister of Conservation will provide redress but no compensation for any local authority land the Crown takes under clause 19 of the foreshore and seabed legislation. So this bill is timely and Wellington City Council can probably consider itself fortunate. I am sure there will be a number of councils looking very closely at the other piece of legislation. National is happy to support this bill into enactment.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19439] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened to the answer. The Associate Minister did address the question. He may not have answered it to the member’s satisfaction but he did address the question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table documents obtained under the Official Information Act showing that Te Wananga o Aotearoa failed 32 audits in 2001 the year immediately prior to the massive escalation in Government funding to that education provider. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
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:20980] 
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 Marc Alexander to clause 16(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (a) and (b) and add to subclause (1) the words “as an out-of-court final settlement of a specified claim.”
Vote: Financial Review Debate 
Vote: Financial Review Debate 
[Volume:607;Page:4221] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8798] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. It was my view that it would not have made any difference. Of course a new test of that would not quite be fair because all members have prepared for it and have as you know discussed the issue. But if the member would like to do that.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21198] 
2.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Has he sought an assurance from the Chinese Ambassador that there is no Chinese spy network operating in New Zealand in light of claims that China has 1000 spies operating in Australia; if so was such an assurance forthcoming? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister now seek such an assurance from the Chinese Ambassador in view of the allegations being made in Australia; or does he share the timidity of his own ministry which seems too scared to do anything about China for fear of upsetting the free-trade negotiations? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer is no and frankly it would be rather naive to go to any embassy and ask it whether it was involved in spying. What would the member expect the embassy to say? We have our own means of determining whether any foreign country embassy agency or individual is indulging in espionage but the Government of course does not comment on security and intelligence matters of this nature. 
Rod Donald 
: In the same way that the Prime Minister did the right thing by offering  
Tampa 
 refugees a home here will the Government offer former Chinese diplomat Chen Yonglin political asylum in New Zealand following Australia’s refusal to do so; or is she concerned—or is he concerned—that such a humanitarian act would jeopardise the Government’s free-trade negotiations with China? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Firstly in relation to the latter point made by both the member and the previous questioner this matter has absolutely nothing to do with any trade negotiation. The member’s assumption is wrong: the Australian Government has not made any decision on any asylum application by Mr Chen. In fact I will read out to the member what Alexander Downer the Foreign Minister said: “If Mr Chen is genuinely somebody in need of protection then he will receive that protection.” The member’s request for New Zealand to make an offer of asylum is therefore at the very least premature and would in any case not be the subject of public comment by me. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Do I take it from the Minister’s somewhat intemperate response to my earlier question that he and the Government are satisfied that no espionage is being conducted in New Zealand by the Chinese Embassy or representatives of the Chinese Embassy including the use of paid informers in this country; if he is so satisfied is he prepared to give an absolute assurance of that to the House this afternoon? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No and the member can take from my answer what I said—and it was clear what I said. In fact my answer was not intemperate. I thought that the member who is generally a very reasonable member asked a question that was intemperate.
Pettis Jill: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7000] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. The bill has had significant debate during the previous stages and I think one of the best things this House can do is to expedite its passage. Therefore I will not speak any further on it and I hope that we can facilitate the rapid passage of the bill through the House.
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20000] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14041] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:626;Page:21300] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises and the passing through their remaining stages of the Land Transport Amendment Bill the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) the Overseas Investment Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
This motion is moved to allow for additional sitting hours this week to consider legislation the Government wishes to see passed before the end of June. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. Could the Leader of the House just confirm that it was his intention in that motion to have those matters go through all stages? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion 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 7; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Woolerton R Doug: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7119] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Clauses 5 to 17 in Part 2 set up the new companies that I was referring to before. There is movement of the same people from the old Wool Board structure into the new one Wool Equities. From Wool Equities flow all these companies that one could suspect people apart from growers—and I am being very careful with my words here—might benefit from. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: You’re privileged. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: The Green member tells me I have privilege but I assure the Committee that I do not intend to get into anything controversial. We suggest that the members of the Committee should show caution and should look at the amendments I am promoting because we believe that once the money flows to Wool Equities it will be a case of “out of sight out of mind” and the institutions that are picked up beyond the scope of this bill are put in place by there being agreement that the money go to Wool Equities. 
We believe that a person should be put in a position of some power to look not only forward but back at what has happened leading to this point. In other words were the farmers fully informed of what will happen in the future? Are the farmers happy to go forward into these companies which everybody has said go into uncharted territory? I think the ACT member referred to them as a leap of faith. We in New Zealand First believe that leaps of faith are not something that should be promoted by this House. We do not believe that leaps of faith are something that it is in farmers’ natures to take. There are enough leaps of faith with God’s gift of the weather in this country without their taking commercial leaps of faith. 
So we believe that a note of caution needs to come in here. We believe that a statutory manager needs to be put in place to look backwards and to the future in order to give some clarity and to unravel what every member has said is an extremely complicated set-up. I recommend that course to the Committee and I can only ask that the other members namely the Labour ACT and National members will consider at this point changing their vote and supporting what I believe are very very worthy amendments.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
[Volume:619;Page:14716] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future joins other parties and members in supporting the resolution that is before the House this afternoon. The most vile way in which people can be attacked are through their ethnicity and their religion. In this country and in this Parliament over the years we have been quick to condemn attacks in other places that have been rooted on racial and religious bases and we have properly deplored the extremism that accompanies such actions. 
 The true horror of the events of recent days in this city has been that those same features that we have sought to be so critical of in other countries—quite rightly—are now occurring in our own country. Just as we have always said in terms of terrorism—which is what this act is—overseas that we can never surrender to terrorists or the values that they profess so too must we say in respect of our country that we can never surrender to intolerance on racial or religious grounds. We can never surrender to the desecration of sacred burial places. We can never surrender to an attitude that says it is all right to behave in this despicable and irresponsible way. 
I hope when Parliament adopts this motion that it is widely proclaimed and that the work done by the Race Relations Commissioner in recent days in bringing together a wide range of community support for a similar sentiment is widely proclaimed as well so that not only do we recognise the contribution of the Jewish community to the life and culture of New Zealand; we recognise their absolute right in this nation to live free from prejudice free from intolerance and free from bitterness and that as a consequence we all learn a lesson and see this country move forward and not degenerate into the sort of nation that we have seen on our television screens and that we properly deplore.
Stewart Barbara: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5570] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to do this before the vote is declared. I note that during question time which is the time when the House fills up 22 Labour members were not present. We know that Labour is entitled to have a group absent but I hope the Labour whip is sure that he has got his numbers here. We are happy to take the whip’s word but there were 22 members away at question time and it is my experience that on a Thursday afternoon people do not come back to Parliament after question time. In fact they stay away. I want an assurance that with that number having been away Government members have returned to the House since question time—in the last hour. A substantial number of them would have had to come back. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. All members in this House are honourable members. Their word is unreservedly accepted; their word is their bond. If for any reason it was found to be otherwise there are courses of action that can be taken in this Parliament.
Hunt Jonathan: Business of the House 
Hunt Jonathan: Business of the House 
[Volume:616;Page:11775] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Barker Rick: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12490] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) is an outstanding example of the legislator’s craft. It is brilliantly crafted by an outstanding Minister of Local Government Chris Carter and I have no hesitation in supporting it absolutely.
Pettis Jill: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17979] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I have enjoyed listening to the debate this afternoon because it has largely been a considered debate. However I was rather surprised with some of the comments made by Mr Eckhoff about the Resource Management Act. I just remind Mr Eckhoff that the Act was largely supported by both sides of the House and it was passed by National with the support of ACT. Mr Eckhoff should just keep eating bananas because I understand that they are good for memory. I also remember that Mr Eckhoff has a penchant for farming kiwis to protect their future. 
Nick Smith made an interesting contribution but I do have to say that National talks an awful lot in a very populist vein and a very superficial manner about what it will do about the Resource Management Act. I suggest that National will do nothing of any substance about the Resource Management Act other than a little bit of window dressing and a little bit of tinkering here and there that will do nothing to change the Act’s substance at all because it knows only too well that most responsible New Zealanders would oppose its so far dramatic and draconian suggestions. 
This bill is a good bill. A lot of consideration has gone into it. It is essential to provide leadership on issues of such importance to New Zealand. The changes to the Resource Management Act will focus on improving the quality of decisions and processes by increasing certainty reducing costs and delays and ensuring consistency. Of course consistency is what the vast majority of New Zealanders who have to work within the Resource Management Act are seeking. 
This Government is absolutely committed to protecting and preserving the unique aspects of New Zealand’s very very special natural environment. That of course means that we have to strike the right balance between everyone’s desire for a clean healthy environment and our country’s expectations for growth and opportunity. This is a good bill and I am very pleased to support its passage through the House.
Kedgley Sue: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8093] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak to an amendment I have proposed to clause 44(2). It is a very simple amendment and I hope most members will support it. Basically the present clause states that if a person who is a health practitioner is unable to perform his or her functions and if somebody has reason to believe that a health practitioner is unable to perform his or her functions then that person will promptly give the registrar of the responsible authority written notice of all circumstances. The amendment I am moving to this clause will require health practitioners to report on another health practitioner if they have reason to believe that person is unable to perform his or her job. My amendment will simply make an exemption to this requirement for those health professionals who are also performing functions as union representatives. 
If this clause were to proceed as it is currently written it would place union representatives who are also registered health practitioners in a very difficult—indeed a very awkward—position. Union representatives such as organisers delegates and officials are expected to provide advice and counsel to their health practitioner members who are experiencing any problems relating to their employment. It would place those representatives in an untenable position if they were then required as health practitioners to report to the relevant authority on what they had learnt as a union representative. This would particularly apply to nurses. Many of the officials and organisers who work for the Nurses Organisation are also registered nurses and they will obviously seek to be registered under the new bill as nurses. This particular clause would put them in an extremely awkward and difficult position and indeed I would have thought an untenable position. 
I hope that by amending the bill in the small way I have proposed—to have this exemption—we can ensure that the legislation does not breach the fundamental rights of health professionals to employment advocacy and support. I suspect that this is just one of those little things we overlooked when we were considering the bill. It was drawn to my attention subsequently. I think it is a very reasonable request. It would simply be an exemption for those practitioners who are performing a role as union representatives. I hope that all parties will support this particular amendment.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19306] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the Minister might like to look at the numbers—29 present out of 51 or 52 goes way over the required leave allowance for the Labour Party. Even a dim light like me can see that that is the case. What about some explanation? Where are these people? If they are out there campaigning now let us all go. If an election date has been declared tell us what— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please sit down Mr Brownlee. That is not a valid point of order. We will now proceed to question No. 2.
Prebble Richard: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Prebble Richard: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8653] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have been giving some thought to your statement on Thursday and reinforced by your statement to the House today it seems to me that this is a matter that goes to the privileges of the House. I suggest to you that the proper course of action for you to take is not to put out a parliamentary paper but to refer the issue and the matters that surround it to the Privileges Committee. I remind you that you were quite willing earlier to seek the advice of the Privileges Committee on Mr Harry Duynhoven. I think this matter affects the privileges of the whole House. While your ruling as Speaker will probably be the ruling that should ultimately be made I do suggest that you seek the guidance of the Privileges Committee. That is something you can do—you can rise and ask that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee—and I am sure the House will accommodate you.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:17211] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8395] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Speaker’s ruling 116/1: “Ultimately the Speaker could refuse to permit a question to be transferred to another Minister for answer if the responsibility for a subject is so primarily held by a particular Minister as to mean that the transfer of the question would be an abuse.”This question was put down to the Prime Minister and is a question about the Prime Minister’s personal diary and her reasons for making diary decisions. If the Prime Minister is able to transfer a question of that nature then the Prime Minister does not need to turn up to Parliament at all ever again. She could transfer any question. Of course in the British House of Commons questions about the Prime Minister’s diary are the means by which one actually asks the Prime Minister a question. We do not actually need to use that convention here but now we have gone to the other absurdity which is that we can ask a question about the Prime Minister’s diary and she can transfer it—and has done so and shot through. That cannot be right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well it is and it has been done on previous occasions. It is within the Standing Orders.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14170] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments 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. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 and the following amendments in the name of the Hon Rick Barkerto clause 6A be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of section 15A(5) the words “of each class identified in subsection (1)”; and 
to omit from paragraph (b) of section 15A(5) the words “of each class identified in subsection (1)”.
Donald Rod: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donald Rod: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14169] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 Our voting will differ depending on which Supplementary Order Paper we are dealing with. If we are voting separately on the amendment to clause 6A on Supplementary Order Paper 230 does that mean we will do the rest of the amendments on that Supplementary Order Paper as a block? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes. 
ROD DONALD 
: Then will we do Mr Barker’s amendment as a separate vote and deal with the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223 as a separate vote? Is that correct?
Pillay Lynne: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7002] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: This is a sensible bill. I am pleased to stand in support of it and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6783] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17792. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9053] 
12.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has his ministry provided assistance to any member of Parliament who is not part of the executive to prepare a member’s bill; for example one that seeks to decriminalise cannabis? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No the ministry has provided no assistance to provide for any member a member’s bill on decriminalising cannabis. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of that answer can the Minister then explain why his ministry has been working on a civil union bill since 3 May 2002 yet it adopted it as Government policy only in May 2003 and for most of the intervening period that draft bill was a member’s bill in the name of Mr Russell Fairbrother that had not even been drawn from the ballot? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member wants to ask a question about the civil union bill he will have to ask the Minister to whom that particular bill has been delegated. I have done no work in that area and do not have information pertaining to it. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Minister saying to the House that his ministry has done no work on a civil union bill since 2002? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The original question sets down as the example the issue of cannabis. That does come within my responsibilities. If he wants to ask about the civil union bill he should have used that as an example and asked the correct Minister. 
Richard Worth 
: Following on the question asked of the Minister would it be the case that if someone like Mr Tanczos were to put forward a bill of the type proposed there would be support from the ministry to assist in that drafting exercise? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. If a member wants to introduce a member’s bill the normal way to go about it is to get assistance from the parliamentary Office of the Clerk. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Following on from that answer will the Minister give this House a categorical assurance that no ordinary non-executive member of Parliament is receiving assistance from his ministry to draft a member’s bill that might or might not subsequently become part of the Government’s legislative agenda? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: When I asked my ministry whether it has prepared or is preparing a member’s bill for any member the answer was clearly “No”.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Personal Explanations Microphones 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Personal Explanations Microphones 
[Volume:608;Page:5241] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a matter with some care and I think I am raising it within the Standing Orders. I ask you to give advice to the House about when a member ought to give a personal explanation to the whole House especially when it is partly to protect the reputation of other members. One of my members of Parliament is a member of a select committee at which a matter has arisen that is not open to the public but the media appears to know all about it. I will not say what the matter is but I am having MPs being doorstepped and asked whether they are the MP in question or whether they know about the matter. 
It appears to me that a member of Parliament who has apparently found himself in a conflict of interest situation has a duty not just to that select committee but to the House as a whole partly to allow the other members of that committee to be relieved from an intolerable situation. There are media outside this Chamber I understand doorstepping MPs coming into the Chamber and asking them for an explanation. A member has the opportunity to make a personal explanation and in a situation such as that he should make that explanation in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point of order. It is an important point. I will have a look at it. The background which I certainly was not aware of has been indicated to me briefly. Of course the short answer is that it is up to the member himself but I will say that I will look at the matter further for the benefit of the House because I think an important point has been raised.
Mackey Janet: Building Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Janet: Building Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14546] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 In standing to support this bill there are one or two issues that I would quite seriously like to canvass. I have discussed it with my colleague the Minister and he assures me these matters will be resolved. One of the issues is that of steel-capped boots. In its wisdom the Government Administration Committee has recommended that protective clothing and safety gear be provided by the employer or by the builder who is doing the employing. Of course all builders being responsible employers have no problem with that. They agree with it and they make it their business to ensure that their workers are adequately equipped to go out on to a dangerous building site. 
However in saying that there has been a decision by the bureaucrats that boots will be included in the definition of protective clothing and safety gear. That provision effectively means that every builder in the country every time he or she employs somebody will have to go to the quite expensive cost of purchasing that employee a new pair of boots. Now anyone who has employed someone on a building site will know that one employs quite a few labourers and skilled people. One employs them one day they turn up for work one gives them a new pair of boots and there is a very high chance that one will never see them or their boots again. So my contribution to the bill and I am supporting the intent of this bill is that I would appreciate it if the Minister could resolve that matter either through the officials—because I believe it is an interpretative matter—or if necessary by amendment.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership Meetings 
[Volume:613;Page:9919] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Brent Catchpole to be a member of the Government Administration Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Architects Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16705] 
3.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What action is he taking to protect persons from becoming victims of voyeuristic photography or filming in intimate and private situations? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Under policy decisions made this week by the Government legislation will be drafted shortly that makes it a criminal offence punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment to make or publish such a voyeuristic recording without a person’s consent in circumstances that would reasonably be expected to provide privacy. Possession of such a recording will become a criminal offence punishable by up to 1 year’s imprisonment. 
Tim Barnett 
: Are any of those activities currently offences under the law; if so why is new legislation needed? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Under existing law there is no provision that specifically prohibits the taking and publishing without consent of a visual record of a person in a private situation who is nude partially nude or engaging in sexual or other intimate activity although alternative indecency charges may sometimes be applied. The advance of new technology and in particular the use of cellphone cameras has enhanced the ability of voyeurs to engage in such recordings. This legislation will bring New Zealand into line with what has recently been done in the US and the UK and with what is now being considered in New South Wales and Canada.
Tisch Lindsay: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7056] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This debate is probably the most important we will be having. It affects New Zealand’s viability its position in the world and its security. In the last part you called one member from National and one from the other three parties in 15 minutes of debate. Two other National Party members were seeking the call and I would have thought that on such important legislation you would have accepted those calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the next section—clauses 3 to 25 in Part 1—is certainly the main part of the bill.