edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Jim: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peters Jim: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14591] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it right appropriate and proper that reference be made to matters that are before another committee of the House which has not yet reported and made expressly in the way in which Dr Mapp covered in his speech? He could only have been referring to one such committee. If that is the correct interpretation I would ask him to withdraw the serious allegation that was made about New Zealand First. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No the speaker was not out of order. It would have been out of order if the committee meeting in question was held in private. I do not believe it was. 
Jim Peters 
: It was. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No that is not a point of order. It was quite in order for the speaker to say what he said.
Prebble Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Prebble Richard: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19598] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a new point of order. If we are to have this ruling it has to be new because we did not have party votes before. It does not follow what was the convention—which was quite clear; the lobby vote had to follow the voice vote. The so-called personal vote I assure you is a new contrivance. All votes were personal until we started having party votes so I say to you that that rule still applies. But it strikes me as bizarre. The whole House knows that we went through a vote. That ought to be recorded in  
Hansard 
. It does not appear to me to be correct that someone can now get up and argue that what his party did did not happen. I think it wrong for you to direct Mr Donnelly not to ask for leave to withdraw his party’s vote. That is the action that should happen. I realise you are being advised by the Clerk but with the greatest respect to him I think he is wrong. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The advice is to the contrary Mr Prebble. 
Bill read a second time.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12711] 
7.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have any concerns regarding the reported allegations by suspected fraudsters that New Zealand is a soft touch? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Government is always concerned at any reports of such a view but the fact that the people were caught suggests that the New Zealand border protection system is working well. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that some of the outrageous final decisions of quasi-judicial bodies such as the Deportation Review Tribunal and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority are the cause for New Zealand’s reputation as “a soft touch” and why do we have yet another Minister of Immigration who is not prepared to use the courts to veto such absurd decisions by appealing them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The issue the member raised in respect of certain recent decisions of the deportation review body caused considerable concern to the Government and the legislation in that respect is being investigated. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: When will the Government stop issuing drivers’ licences to people known to the licensing agents themselves to be illegal immigrants given the Government’s apparent concern about fraud? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no information in front of me with which to be able to answer a question in relation to the issuing of drivers’ licences. If the member cares to put down another question to the appropriate Minister I am sure an answer will be provided. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of how many convicted violent criminals have been approved for residence or refugee status in each of the past 4 years; if so what does she intend to do about it and when can we hope she does something about? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have the numbers in front of me but the issue the member raises has also been recognised by the Minister in charge of these matters and the legislation is under review with a view to bringing amending legislation to the House. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question to the Minister of Transport that shows he has failed to release a report on the issuing of drivers’ licences to illegal immigrants because of apparent privacy and human rights issues. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13936] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 As the vote on this bill is a so-called conscience vote I rise to explain my personal reasons for the vote I will cast today. But the time that I am given for this speech is time allocated to the ACT party so I also owe it to my colleagues and to the thousands of thoughtful New Zealanders who are worrying today to set out some of the things that are in the minds of my fellow ACT MPs. We have discussed this bill. Some of us will weigh some issues more than others. But each of us will vote according to what we believe is best for New Zealand.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21745] 
4.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does he support lifting the international moratorium on whaling; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Conservation 
: No because successive Governments have been strong supporters of the moratorium. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is he concerned that New Zealand’s excellent stance at the International Whaling Commission may be compromised by the fact that a Japanese whaling company that cans and markets whale meat under the so-called scientific whaling programme owns half of our largest fishing company and an eighth of our total fishing quota? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 
David Parker 
: What has New Zealand done in the last 24 hours to further the cause of whale preservation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In conjunction with other like-minded countries we defeated the pro-whaling nations on three important votes on the first day of the International Whaling Commission meeting in Korea. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with the comments of future Labour leader Shane Jones who was reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 8 November 2000 as saying: “The Green movement’s disgust over commercial whaling was a Pakeha cultural perspective only.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The member was not speaking in a Labour Party role at that point any more than I am sure that member would really want to be bound by the utter nonsense that Allan Peachey is going around telling teachers about National’s education policy. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What advice does he have for the chairman of Sealord’s who was reported to have said: “We have no intention of being associated with any efforts to lobby against Japanese scientific whaling.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: None at all. This is a matter for the New Zealand Government on behalf of New Zealand. Other people are allowed to take different views. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he still not agree that it was a mistake in 2001 to approve the sale of a major stake in Sealord’s to a Japanese whaling company Nissui or is it just that trade and business come ahead of environment and conservation again? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I am advised that the two Ministers who took that decision considered it extraordinarily carefully before it was made.
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20286] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15235] 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree with the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand the New Zealand Association of Counsellors and some schools that parents and guardians have no right to know if their child has been sexually assaulted? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Each case must be guided by what is judged to be the best interests of the child. The judgment is informed by the age of the child the child’s level of maturity the child’s wishes his or her competence to make such a judgment and an assessment of the risks to the child from the consequences of disclosure or non-disclosure. That judgment is made by the professionals to whom the child has made the disclosure and those professionals are bound by the standards and ethics of their profession. 
Hon Bill English 
: What measures can be taken by a parent or guardian who strongly disagrees with the decision that is made—in this case the girl had enough of a learning disability for the parents to regard her as unable to follow the instructions for the medical treatment that she had been given—and what can parents do about it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will not comment on individual cases. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What are the possible consequences of forcing counsellors to automatically share information they receive with parents? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Students would feel less confident about discussing personal matters with a counsellor. When students ask for help they should be treated with respect and discretion. Often these are cases of family sexual abuse and automatic disclosure would just be wrong. 
Hon Bill English 
: How sensible is it for schools to have policies that require parents to be notified if a student leaves the school grounds for a dental appointment but not to notify parents if the same child makes an allegation of rape? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is important that children be given every opportunity to reveal to counsellors when they have been abused and that they should be encouraged to bring their parents into the discussions. But if children were forced to do that they would not reveal abuse and that would mean that they would be permanently damaged. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does the Minister then make of the decision by this school to tell the parents but to do so 3 months later when the parents thought they were trying to deal with a bullying problem; is he right to defend the school’s policy of not telling the parents or did it make the right decision in telling them? Why can he not make up his mind about that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will not comment on any individual case.
Carter John: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
Carter John: Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9556] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt my colleague’s speech but during the course of his delivery I overhead the junior Government whip Jill Pettis make a claim that one of my colleagues was on someone’s payroll which is quite unparliamentary and not acceptable. I take exception to that and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes she will do so. 
Jill Pettis 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Urgent Debates Declined — Rise in National Certificate of Educational Achievement Fees 
Urgent Debates Declined — Rise in National Certificate of Educational Achievement Fees 
[Volume:606;Page:3354] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Rise in National Certificate of Educational Achievement Fees 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Brian Donnelly seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 a rise in NCEA fees. The member has not provided authentication with his application and I decline it on that ground. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 131/4 and my rulings in  
Hansard 
 Volume 585 at page 3768 and Volume 604 at page 1810.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8715] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 47B be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Robertson H V Ross: Sittings of the House 
Robertson H V Ross: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:14157] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. If the Minister wishes to seek leave— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I am happy to leave it.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17965] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Public Finance Amendment Bill the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 4) the Crown Entities Bill and the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bills read a third time.
Robertson H V Ross: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13043] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Stephen Franks’ amendment to omit paragraph (e) from clause 196 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 is out of order. It is the same as the previous amendment in the name of the honourable member Marc Alexander. The next one to be voted on is to clause 196 in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall. It is an amendment to omit paragraph (e). That is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment. Both of those amendments are out of order so they will be deleted. They were both the same. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 196 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (e) after the word “effect” the words “other than the management contract of Australian Correctional Management Ltd to manage the Auckland Central Remand Prison which is hereby deemed to have been extended”.
Simich Clem: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17085] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment is to clause 49 and is in the name of Metiria Turei. It is an amendment to omit words from the amendment to subclause (2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Michael Cullen. This amendment is out of order because a previous amendment was not agreed to. There is a further amendment to clause 49. It is also in the name of Metiria Turei. It is an amendment to omit words from the amendment to subclause (3) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Michael Cullen. It is also out of order because a previous amendment was not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the amendment to clause 50 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed new paragraph (a) the words “or cancellation”.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14576] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gerrard Eckhoff to clause 68 be agreed to: 
to add to section 369R the following new subsection: 
(6)Notwithstanding anything else in this section or this Act 
(a)Each quota initially allocated for scampi pursuant to Section 369O must be made subject to an encumbrance requiring the payment of an amount not exceeding 20 percent of the value of the quota at the payment calculation time to the Chief Executive for distribution in accordance of paragraph b of this subsection. The payment calculation time will be a date not later than 31 August 2006. 
(b)The Catch History Review Committee must consider and take into account the findings of the Parliamentary Primary Production Committee and the State Services Commission inquiry into matters relating to catch histories for “scampi” and determine what the most likely catch history scenario would have been had the matters of misjudgement or mismanagement for unfairness disclosed by those reports not occurred. 
(c)In determining a scenario for the purposes of paragraph b the catch history Review Committee may make whatever assumptions it reasonably considers necessary for the purpose. 
(d)The Catch History Review Committee must determine the net effect on affected parties of the difference between the outcome under the scenario and the initial allocations effected by the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 4) of 2004 and so far as it may be achieved within the 20 percent of value allowance provided by this subsection make payments funded by parties who have been advantaged in comparison to the scenario to parties who have been disadvantaged in comparison to the scenario. 
(e)On the payment calculation date the advantaged parties must pay the disadvantaged parties the amounts determined by the Catch History Review Committee having been advised of those amounts no less than 50 working days previously.
Hartley Ann: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10105] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As I have advised the amendment to Part 1 in the name of Rod Donald on Supplementary Order Paper 171 has been vetoed.
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18735] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member please sit down. I have let this go on—I know what it is—because I have tended in many ways to let members run their course. The judgment on whether they have been misusing this Committee or trifling with the Chair is for other members to make and I have no doubt that they will. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
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:20994] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17870. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 27(2)(b) above subparagraph (v) the following new subparagraph: 
(iva)a statement of all securities derivative transactions investments and guarantees.
Beyer Georgina: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Second Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18502] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am privileged to take a brief call on Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. I offer my congratulations to the people of Ngati Awa for their efforts to date and I wish them every success for the future in the process they will undertake. I conclude with a quote from the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Margaret Wilson: “Settlements help to heal real grievances. They put cultural and financial investment into often poor rural communities. This will not only strengthen tribes but also their communities and New Zealand as a whole.” 
In that vein I wish Ngati Awa every success with this bill.
Carter John: Tabling of Documents — Spring Hill Corrections Facility 
Carter John: Tabling of Documents — Spring Hill Corrections Facility 
[Volume:617;Page:12621] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you clarify for me whether the document is an amendment or correction of an answer? I am unclear as to what the Minister is asking us to do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was nothing to do with a question. It was to do with a document that was tabled.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6931] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fair Trading Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15928] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 9(4) be agreed to.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14868] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22296] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Question agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Pettis Jill: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9998] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Burton Mark: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20252] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I just want to clarify for the member and repeat what I think I have said previously that firstly the statutory references—statements of association—are not exclusive and secondly they are a recognition of what those people believe. They are not in any way an encumbrance on the belief of any other New Zealander. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Peck Mark: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peck Mark: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11043] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I have one sentence to say to that member in respect of his speech: 9 years and he did nothing. For 9 years he had his head in the sand and he did nothing about these particular issues and now this Government has to address them. 
I thought the Minister outlined the position very well indeed. This particular bill has nine clauses. It is not a very big bill at all. It does have some important principles in it and it does make some fairly important statements about energy efficiency and the role of local authorities in respect of the Resource Management Act when looking at those particular matters. I ask the member this question: what is wrong with a landfill in my area which is now taking the waste from most of our urban centres using the methane that is produced from the rotting vegetation and so on to fire a lime kiln that will be used to provide fertiliser for Southland farmers thereby reducing the reliance on coal? What is wrong with that? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s good. 
MARK PECK 
: It is good that that should be done. And what is wrong with that occurring in other projects as well as we look at the issue of climate change? 
I say to the member that there is no difficulty in arguing and dealing with the issues of climate change in this House. Indeed we probably need to have more debates on them. It used to be a competitive advantage in Southland that we never had to worry about drought. Yet I was in Lumsden a couple of Mondays ago to meet with farmers because of drought. What those farmers could not be guaranteed by the climate specialists who were there was whether that was a particular weather pattern or whether we were facing climate change. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: There have always been droughts. What drivel! 
MARK PECK 
: The member can rant and rave if he likes but the truth of the matter is that as we look at what is going on not just in our country but globally we see that the changes in weather patterns around the world are such that climate change is in fact big news. 
This legislation is part of the response to climate change. It is not the Government’s total response to climate change issues. Neither is it the total response to our energy requirements either. But it is part of that. It is part of a raft of changes that will be needed as this Government addresses those issues. I think the Local Government and Environment Committee did a very good job on this particular bill and I look forward to its continued progress through the House.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:622;Page:17621] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I would imagine that bill would take the longest of the list of matters on the Order Paper that I have outlined. It is a matter for obviously the House in Committee and the Chairs of the Committee how long the debate will take. It is very largely also in the hands of the Opposition. But now that the Opposition is committed to 4 weeks’ annual holiday I am sure it would be keen to finish next week. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Leader of the House when the Police Amendment Bill (No 2) will be coming up because I note that we are now past the third anniversary of the interrupted debate on the second reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. There is a convention that the leading Opposition spokesperson asks questions on behalf of the Opposition. If the member wants a question asked I am sure that if he approached Mr Brownlee Mr Brownlee could encompass that question. I did that often when I had that particular role when I was in Opposition. That is my ruling and that is the way it stands. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It does raise an interesting point. How can the interests of the minor parties under an MMP Parliament be represented in the regime that you have just outlined? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order very briefly I say that there is no requirement at all for any questions to be allowed of the Leader of the House on the business statement. That itself is only a matter of convention and courtesy effectively on the part of the Government. Certainly I think it would become ridiculous if we had a round robin of every party in the House asking questions about items on the Order Paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are doing this by leave of the House. Technically we should not be doing it. It has always been a tradition that we do it. I suggest that if members want to change the rules they have a Standing Orders Committee that sits and it can change the rules. But I am required to have the rules adhered to.
Hughes Darren: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5082] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
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:21013] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; 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 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act” and substitute the words “Inmate Detainee and Person Under Supervision Compensation and Claims Act”.
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20252] 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18606] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: This debate includes debate on the schedule.
Goff Phil: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goff Phil: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18644] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I do not want to speak for long because that speech was about Part 1 and we are now dealing with Part 2. 
Rodney Hide 
: I never got a chance to speak to Part 1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Well the member’s colleague of course did get a chance. He took two calls. There were some 15 speakers on that part but that is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Chair. I want to tell that member that he has totally misrepresented what is in this bill. 
Rodney Hide 
: Rubbish! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: He says: “Rubbish!” but I doubt that he had read the bill before tonight. I doubt that he knows what he is talking about because he displayed his ignorance in what he said. This bill maintains the strict limits of the gateway subjects that can be classified as objectionable. 
Stephen Franks 
: What’s the expression? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Mr Franks misrepresents the term “offensive language” which as is clear to every member who was on the Government Administration Committee refers to bad language swear words and relates only to those under the age of 18. This bill additionally says that things such as teaching people how to commit suicide should not be put in front of under-18-year-olds and therefore there is a restriction on that. Is Mr Franks so libertarian that he believes that our under-18-year-old children should be subject to that sort of demeaning degrading and dangerous literature? If Mr Franks believes that yes he is entitled to say that in the Chamber. But for him to claim that this is about expression of opinion and not the use of language is totally misleading and totally wrong. There is no foundation to his comments whatsoever.
Sex Offenders Registry Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Sex Offenders Registry Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10353] 
Wednesday 3 December 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Sex Offenders Registry Bill 
Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Sex Offenders Registry Bill to be transferred from the Law and Order Committee to the Justice and Electoral Committee and for the committee to report this bill by 18 May 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.
Beyer Georgina: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14251] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18691] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am not sure what is the most interesting part about following John Key in a debate. I am not sure whether the part when he conceded that the National Party cannot win the next election and that Labour will be returned to office and he is concerned about our transport programme following that was the most revealing part because we have not yet worked out what faction he is in. I am not sure whether the most revealing part was the kind of typical National Party voodoo economics that we see right throughout our electorates at the present time. The National Party keeps saying that this country is overtaxed and we need to slash tax rates to try to get more people to move to New Zealand while at the same time with every piece of Government expenditure they see they want to spend more. Whatever it is the National Party’s answer is: “Let’s spend more on it.” 
I have not seen a single thing that National members do not want to spend more on. They want to spend more on education and on health. Lindsay Tisch made a very animated speech about fire trucks. They want more money for that. John Key says they want more money spent on roads. The National Party has been whingeing up-hill and down-dale about roads and about the need to improve transport. Guess what? The Labour-led Government agrees. I want to see more roads built to get to my electorate on the Kapiti Coast. I am very very keen to see that happen because it is necessary for the economic development of our region. 
But I will finish the rest of the argument which is: how are we going to pay for it? The Government has brought to Parliament a bill that sets out very clearly and carefully how we want to fund the extra money for roading through the National Land Transport Fund. The parties whose members stand up in the House and say: “Woe is me we need more roads.” also walk through the Noes lobby and say they do not want to pay for them. They cannot have it both ways. The Government has been very upfront with the people of this country and people appreciate that kind of honesty. 
Let me ask the Opposition spokesperson on finance a question. If by some dreadful chance National became the Government at the next election would it repeal this petrol tax? He does not have so much to say now. Would the National Party in office repeal this petrol tax? They do not want to say a thing—there is silence. So they will oppose it today. They will walk out of this Parliament and demand more roads but they do not want to pay for them and they will not say what they would do if they had the chance to repeal this legislation. That says a lot about the rudderless National Party of the present. I am voting for the bill because it will bring more roads to our region and I think that will be good for New Zealand.
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4311] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the purpose only of receiving a briefing from officials that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 28 April 2003 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during questions for oral answer—and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c) 
. referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17142] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 18 
Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to the proposed omission of clause 111 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit the omission of this clause.
Pettis Jill: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3722] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Nobody wants this bill to be dragged out. I am pleased that common sense has prevailed and that there seems to be universal support for this bill. In 1992 National voted against this bill but it has had a change of heart. I am pleased that we have learnt about its change of heart. I support this bill and commend it to the House.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15938] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Carter John: General Debates 
Carter John: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8539] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What Mr Prebble has said is correct. However we then get ourselves into difficulty. Obviously we do not want to interrupt the flow of a member’s speech. Given that the Speaker had already made a ruling as you had the reason that I approached you in the Chair was to make the point that Mr Mallard was not abiding by your ruling. I did not want to interrupt the flow Mr English’s speech but I asked that you make sure your ruling was carried out. I asked you to do that. The point is that if a ruling is made and abided by then there would be no need for a whip or anyone else for that matter to come up to you in the Chair and ask for you to carry out the ruling that you have made. That is the fundamental point here—if we have total discipline in the House from the Chair as we on this side of the House ask for then we will not have these difficulties.
Pettis Jill: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Education Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18087] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call on this bill. The debate on it has been very good and very constructive. Research has clearly shown that children who participate in early childhood education get a better start in life and are more likely to succeed later on as they progress through the education sector. I am very pleased to support this bill. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theEducation and Science Committee.referred to Education and Science Committee
Kedgley Sue: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13875] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is extraordinarily pleased to support the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill. Interestingly many people have asked me over the years why in this windy city we do not capitalise on our climate and our wind by having wind farms and wind turbines all over Wellington. We do have one wind turbine up in Brooklyn but that is all. This bill will enable wind farms and wind turbines to be built in reserve areas of Wellington. It is such a sensible idea that the Green Party is absolutely delighted to support it. 
Shane Ardern 
: What about the birds? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Some of the Opposition members have suddenly developed a great concern for birds. The truth of the matter is that if a wind turbine is built in the path of migrating birds there may be issues but for the most part there are not. 
If Wellington because of its wind was to embrace wind farms—as this bill will enable us to do—we could be self-sufficient in energy within 5 to 10 years. What a fantastic thing that would be for Wellington! Within 10 years we could be self-sufficient in renewable energy. Mr Shirley is getting very upset about that but I assure him that it is entirely feasible and entirely possible. What a wonderful vision for Wellington—that we could be self-sufficient in renewable energy. We could be impervious to the great energy debates that are going on around New Zealand. We could be certain that we anyway are self-sufficient in energy. 
This bill is basically an extraordinarily sensible bill. It is one that the Green Party very enthusiastically supports. One of the concerns people have about wind farms aside from the birds is whether they can be noisy next to a residential area. This bill will enable wind farms and wind turbines to be built away from urban areas so that we can get round that particular issue. 
In summary the Green Party is absolutely delighted with this bill. We strongly support it. We hope it can make speedy progress through this House. We hope that it finally will enable Wellingtonians to capitalise and build on the great strength of our climate and wind and that it will be the first step in enabling Wellington to be self-sufficient in renewable energy within the next decade.
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10086] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Yates Dianne: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
Yates Dianne: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4641] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 All I can say is what a miserable and negative Opposition we have! This bill is to change the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra into a non-company Crown entity. It is to put the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra on a positive financial footing. I find that the speeches made by the Opposition are entirely negative totally uncreative and totally unartistic. This is one bill that the Opposition could get behind and show a bit of spirit and patriotism towards New Zealand and New Zealand artistic endeavours. 
I also take this opportunity at this stage to both note and to pay tribute to Ted Carr who I understand died last week and thank him for his contribution to New Zealand music. As the chair of the Government Administration Committee I say that we look forward to having this bill come to our committee to return it back to the House to get it passed and to put the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra on a firm and stable footing to serve members of both the adult community who attend the concerts and also members of the young community who benefit from their educational performance and instruction.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
[Volume:608;Page:5679] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Whether it was raised with you at 2 o’clock today would not have mattered. If someone had raised this issue with you at 10 o’clock this morning—that the Prime Minister was guilty of misleading the House and deliberately so—you would have said: “She’s explained that away at 7.30 last night in a personal explanation and therefore such a charge cannot stand.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I cannot deal with hypothesis. I do not know what would have happened. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can. I am telling you what you would have said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to have the member interjecting on me when there is a point of order. He will keep quiet or he will go out and I mean it.
Franks Stephen: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7409] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I move  
That all the words after the word “Committee” be omitted.
Chadwick Steve: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3834] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tizard Judith: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14242] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill that it take the bill part by part.