edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
[Volume:624;Page:19167] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I do not want you to rule Madam Speaker because I think Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith raised some interesting points. I also ask you to consider the offer made by the Deputy Prime Minister that if the Opposition were to accommodate the Government in its business then effectively we might be able to have a snap debate. I do not want there to be any suggestion at all that your decision was in any way influenced by the fact that we may have to have prolonged voting this afternoon. I would further ask you Madam Speaker to consider those points that I raised before because I do not think that since Parliament has been under MMP Speakers have considered the range of opportunities that is available to discuss matters like this. Parliament is very perfunctory for most of its time. When issues like this do arise I think it is appropriate that members of Parliament have an opportunity to express their views publicly and that the Government gets an opportunity to explain what it is doing about a particular issue. Otherwise we just get as other members have said the opportunity for the Government to take a few pieces of action here and there that may or may not satisfy public opinion. Parliament does not belong to the Government; it belongs to the members. I would have thought that the interest would be in ensuring that members’ opportunities are enhanced. So I ask you to consider particularly those points that were put in front of you earlier.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:608;Page:5543] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I have a simple question for the Minister. Does he anticipate that the House would need to take urgency over any matters that are going to be announced in the Budget or are we likely to have any repeats of the extraordinary urgency that we saw this week over the passing of legislation that essentially should be a Budget matter?
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16023] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
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 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Cunliffe David: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8409] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I confess I am a little bemused by the response of the member who has just concluded his speech on two counts. The first is that the Government was under absolutely no obligation under the Standing Orders to consult him or any other party on Supplementary Order Paper 131. The fact that this Minister of Immigration the Hon Lianne Dalziel did so was purely a matter of courtesy. It is instructive to find how that courtesy is received in the House. I congratulate the Minister on consulting the other parties. 
The second and more important reason that I am bemused by the National Party response is that if one takes its rhetoric at face value for the life of me I cannot imagine why it would not support this bill. This bill does nothing to increase the number of immigrants but it increases the quality of the contribution of our immigrants to the growth of this nation’s wealth. This is all about building skills. It is a win-win because it also means that immigrants are able to exercise the skills that they bring into our country. My electorate of New Lynn must be the luckiest place on earth. We have trained scientists delivering Foodtown pamphlets and trained doctors driving taxis. It must be heaven on earth if we can afford such high-powered deliverers and taxi-drivers. Could it possibly be that the immigration framework we inherited from the previous Government allowed people into the country then forgot about them and did not integrate them into the workforce? This bill is overdue. I recommend its speedy passage through the House.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5579] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 82(3) be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (3) by omitting from new section 310(h) the words “except for an issue as to whether any of sections 93 to 94C have been or will be contravened” and substituting the words “including (for the avoidance of doubt) whether or not any provision of sections 93 or 94 has been or will be contravened”.
Carter John: Social Workers Registration Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Carter John: Social Workers Registration Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:607;Page:4847] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for there to be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House that we have one wide-ranging debate on the Social Workers Registration Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Leave is granted.
Copeland Gordon: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Copeland Gordon: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:622;Page:17330] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Having listened to the last three speeches which were somewhat long I struggled to find the connection between a lot of what was said and the motion before the House which is simply that Standing Order 259 be suspended to permit the introduction of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill to amend the Resource Management Act and the Electricity Act. 
I want to speak briefly to the motion rather than about all the rather extraneous matters that members have just heard previous speakers mention. The first thing I want to say is we are looking to amend the Electricity Act in addition to the Resource Management Act. The Electricity Act currently provides that road-controlling authorities have to be involved in granting permits conditions and so forth when electricity-generating lines cross over roads or level crossings or go under roads or level crossings. If Jeanette Fitzsimons for example did object to overhead lines another possibility is to put them underground. But either way the central point is that the Electricity Act imposes a duplicate unnecessary level of compliance cost when we seek to upgrade our transmission grid. 
 I certainly agree with previous speakers that we need to do that and we need to do that quickly we need to do that efficiently and we need to do that with a lowering of compliance costs. If those are one’s goals—and they are United Future’s goals—then obviously one would vote in favour of this motion which is exactly what we intend to do.
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15307] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I will keep my comments quite brief in terms of the important issue with regard to the Mackenzie Basin. I particularly want to issue a challenge to the Minister of Agriculture Mr Jim Sutton who is the member for Aoraki. I say to that member that there is a very intense interest in this issue in the Mackenzie Basin. This issue is a test of whether Mr Sutton will put first the interests of his constituents in the agreements that were made by his community with the Government back in 1969—whether he will ensure that the water allocation process puts right the injustice and does a fair deal for the people of the Mackenzie Basin—or whether he will back the Labour Party. That is the real test. We on the Opposition side of the Chamber say to Jim Sutton and to David Parker that they should back their constituents and should understand that their constitutional role is to do their best for their electorates. It is interesting that not a single Government member has risen to his or her feet and tried to justify that the people of the Mackenzie Basin should be short-changed. Yet secretly the Government members are so concerned for Meridian Energy that they are prepared to do that. 
Progress reported.
Copeland Gordon: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18604] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I would like to say because I think it is pertinent to the point of order that Mr Hide misquoted. Our minority report states that United Future supports the 5c per litre increase. Therefore the point raised in the point of order does not arise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is not a point of order to debate. Members of the select committee vote how they see it at the time. 
Peter Brown 
: Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the matter.
Scott Lynda: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5500] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it on the same point? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: It is a new point of order. I seek clarification. This is not a time-limited debate and I want to know when speeches stop if someone has new information. We have heard that this bill the No. 2 bill is a very truncated version. I want to know if I never had a call— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have to rule the member out of order. She is debating the closure again. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: I am seeking clarification Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The clarification was clearly given in the Speaker’s ruling when this bill was introduced. I refer the member to the Speaker’s ruling on 26 March when the bill was introduced. The Speaker made it very clear then. He said: “I would expect that a considerably longer debate would be permitted on a part with numerous subparts than would otherwise be the case. This is something that I will discuss with the chairpersons when the bill is scheduled for its Committee stage.” The Speaker has discussed that with the presiding officers as has the Business Committee.
Collins Judith: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12224] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Just following on from my colleague Mr Richard Worth there are a couple of points I would like to make on this part. First I note again that this is retrospective legislation. Retrospective legislation is of necessity something we should indulge in only when we really really have to. I wonder why when this bill was introduced back on 29 July 2003—5 days after it was deemed to have come into force—we are dealing with it here under urgency. Is this a situation where basically the bill has been put into urgency because the Government has nothing much else it wants to put into urgency? I have to question whether that is what is happening. There have certainly been other instances of urgency and plenty of other sitting days since the bill was introduced. I believe that the bill has the support of the entire House—it has had it all the way through so far anyway—and I cannot see why we have waited this long for it if there were any need for it to be looked at. 
One of the issues Mr Worth raised related to the Solomon Islands. Quite often our troops and peacekeepers—this only really deals with police and other peacekeeping people not our soldiers as I understand it—will be sent to and are being sent to places that are extremely unsafe for them and where there is no adequate criminal law jurisdiction policing or any other court system. Consequently the Government has decided—and I think with the authority of the House—that it is important that these people are subject to New Zealand criminal law if they are not already subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the place in which they are operating and criminal proceedings are not brought against them. However this bill does not protect our service personnel and police from the jurisdiction in which they are operating. That is an interesting point because if our New Zealand citizens are operating at our request in countries where for instance a criminal offence might bring with it the punishment of a hand being chopped off or execution then this bill will do nothing to help them. So this bill will not necessarily help our personnel at all—in fact quite the opposite. It is a bill to make sure that whatever they do will be subject to New Zealand law if they are not first prosecuted in that particular country. 
As Mr Worth said if there were any great and pressing need for the bill it would have been passed right back in August last year. It was not and I just wonder why it is taking so long to move through the House particularly when every party in the House to my knowledge supports it.
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18733] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: All of the matters raised are matters of debate. The matters raised will no doubt provide material for the debate as we go on with it. That process should be followed. If members do not agree with it they can vote against it. I do not see any sense in further points of order on this. It is very clear to me. 
Stephen Franks 
: How can we debate translation matters? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The points being raised by members are incorrect as to specific words and I am told that the month and the day are in the text.
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:8999] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; 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 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Supreme Court Act 2002” and substitute the words “Abolition of the Right of Appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Bill”.
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18841] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Part 5 is entitled “Commercial redress properties” and is essentially about the various transfers and so forth. In fact it is exactly what one would expect to be reflected in acknowledging breaches of article 2 of the treaty. Article 2 is fundamentally about property rights. Some of those property rights will have broader cultural significance to Ngati Awa and I have acknowledged that in my previous speeches but said that indeed we should not make specific reference in legislation to beliefs. Those are the province of Ngati Awa. On the other hand the redress is a proper matter for legislation. 
So in this part it is precisely that—simply a recording by and large of the types of properties that will be subject to redress and a listing of them. They include such property as the Ohope Beach Holiday Park land for instance that no doubt will then be subject to a lease to the operators of Ohope Beach Holiday Park. Presumably it is not the intention of the Government to run roughshod over private property rights or maybe it is—we will find out I guess—and no doubt there will be other properties. 
I note in clause 151 that there is a right of access on Crown forestry licences. The right of access has no effect on the rights of a licensee under a Crown forestry licence granted in relation to Ngati Awa land. I have a question for the Minister. Clearly there is a connection of that settlement to the central North Island forestry estate and I imagine that there will be claims by Ngati Awa along with other claimants in relation to those lands. When we are debating those kinds of provisions one of the helpful innovations from Ministers particularly the Minister who is in charge of the bill as opposed to a Minister who is just sitting in so to speak—in other words a Minister who knows the subject well—is to take the first call to explain briefly the purposes of the part and what the Government of the day intends by the part. 
Jill Pettis 
: The Minister has been taking calls. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Minister has not taken the first call to set out the rationale of the part. Therefore what happens is that members from various parties end up having to raise questions. This is really a general comment about parliamentary procedure. Frankly this Parliament and the public would be better served if the Standing Orders were modified so that at the beginning of each part in a debate the Minister took the first call to explain briefly the rationale to initiate the debate. Of course we would not expect the chief Government whip to have any idea about these kinds of things. 
I ask the Minister what is meant by clause 151 and its relationship to the central North Island claim generally in regard to forests. That is essentially the National Party’s principal question in respect of Part 5.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6478] 
11.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Why did he reportedly assure farmers at last year’s Meat New Zealand annual meeting that the Government would not impose a tax on greenhouse gases emitted by farm stock yet has now proposed to introduce such a tax? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Because he has not. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why then did the Minister say at the opening of the Federated Farmers office in Christchurch on 31 October 2002 in my presence that farmers had nothing to fear and would not incur extra cost by the Government’s ratifying the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government’s decision was announced at the time that there would be the probability of a levy to fund research— 
Hon David Carter 
: Oh no no. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member believes that that is a tax on emissions he has become confused between— 
Opposition Members 
: That’s what he said. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No it is not on emissions. It is per sheep per cow. The member is confused between the sausage and the sizzle. I assure him that his income tax is not on any emissions he may be making. 
Janet Mackey 
: What contribution is the Government making to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In 2003 the Foundation for Research Science and Technology and the Minister of Agriculture and of Forestry will spend approximately $4.7 million on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research. The Government intends to continue that investment. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why does his Government continue to call farmers “whingers” and “silly” and is that the attitude farmers can expect from this Government every time they seek accountability from Ministers to simply keep their promises? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed I believe that farmers are part of the backbone of this country and it is good to see that usually they do not take their behavioural habits from the National Party. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What is the Minister’s reaction to Taranaki Dairy Farmers of New Zealand Chairman Don Harvey describing the tax as disgusting to large-herd owner John Washer’s comment that Pete Hodgson had been reading too many comics and to Meat New Zealand Chairman Jeff Grant stating that the tax is overkill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I note that Mr Grant is a former National Party senior whip. I am sure that had absolutely nothing to do with the comments he made on this matter. 
Hon David Carter 
: If the Minister does believe that farmers are the backbone of this economy why does he refer to them as “whingers” and “silly”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that farmers have some whingers and some who are silly. Almost every organisation I know of has a few people who fall into that category. Only National Party members are 100 percent whingers and silly.
Baldock Larry: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15609] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will address my comments to Dr Wayne Mapp’s amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 257 as well as I have been challenged by him to show some courage and support his amendment. I thank the member for giving us sufficient time to process his amendments. We have done that and have considered what the amendments are all about. 
One thing I have not heard the member clearly elucidate is the list of all the hapu and iwi that have lobbied him for these amendments. I certainly would take that into serious consideration if I were to give any support to the amendments. I know that I personally have not received one letter or phone call from any Maorihapu or iwi representative asking me to support Mr Mapp’s amendments. I can only conclude that it is Mr Mapp’s good idea to try to amend the bill but that it is not something that has the support of the majority of iwi. 
The proposed section 119B(1) reads: “As soon as practicable after an application has been made under section 119A Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd must determine whether the applicant iwi is commercially qualified for transfer of settlement quota”. That creates in my mind a bit of a conflict. In a number of speeches in the Committee stage I have heard members complain about patronising things and about overuse of bureaucracy yet this amendment seems to me to be setting up another such situation in that more power would be given to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to make decisions about iwi and hapu groups. I cannot see that being acceptable to or recommended by Maori who want this bill passed so they can get on with their commercial activities. 
Another of Dr Mapp’s amendments provides for a right of appeal against a determination of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. One thing this bill seeks to do is to remove the potential for further litigation appeals and so on. By inserting that amendment we would create another opportunity for people to appeal a decision of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and perhaps confuse and further complicate the settlement allocation. 
Although I thank the member for giving us the opportunity to consider his amendment United Future will not give support to it for the reasons I have stated.
Yates Dianne: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Yates Dianne: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20003] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank the Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand once again for her comments on the Public Records Bill. The Government Administration Committee was pleased to work on the bill which is about the history of New Zealand and about the necessity of keeping good and accurate records of what happens in this country. As the Minister mentioned archives have been a wonderful source for researchers and those who have been writing and researching the history of this country. It is up to us to secure and maintain records and to keep them in a modern and accessible way. It was a pleasure to work on this legislation. 
I think the member opposite Lindsay Tisch is tilting at windmills. I certainly hope the records kept of State-owned enterprises will show a good deal about windmills power and the role of State-owned enterprises in generating the energy of this country. Let us hope the windmills do show up in the history of New Zealand. 
He also mentioned the issue of the accountability of the Chief Archivist. I refer him to other parts of the legislation that provide for appeals to be made if people do not agree with decisions of the Chief Archivist. There are certainly checks and balances and audit checks on the Chief Archivist and the select committee did rewrite and tighten up some of those clauses. 
I thank my fellow members on the select committee. I particularly also want to thank the staff of Archives New Zealand who arranged for us to visit their facilities to show us how records are kept—particularly the very old records including copies of the Treaty of Waitangi and the New Zealand coat of arms. It was very interesting to view Archives New Zealand and to realise how important those records are for this country how important it is that they are well kept safe and in modern conditions and also how important it is to develop computerised records which will enable better access for New Zealanders to those records. Once again I issue a big thankyou to everybody who has been involved with this legislation. I commend it to the House and to the public.
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:20971] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 11 and substitute new clause 11 be agreed to.
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 Stephen Franks to clause 17(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) and substitute the following: 
(b)5 other judges appointed by the Governor General as Judges of the Supreme Court.
Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5735] 
Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (NZ Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill amends the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act. It deals with a piece of land that the council wishes to sell to the local girls high school. It needs this legislation because it is not empowered to sell the land and that is why we are here. Everybody is in agreement on the bill. It has been through the Local Government and Environment Committee where there was unanimity between the members. It has therefore returned to the House with the committee’s full support. I commend it to the House. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I will speak very quickly and make just one political point. Here we have a Government that has two standards—one for the West Coast where it will not allow reserve land to be used for other purposes and another here where it is to allow reserve land to be used for education purposes. There are two standards. Nevertheless we support the reason for this bill going ahead and will support the bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
Third Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (NZ Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I think the bill now has complete unanimity despite the small political point that has been made. Therefore I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.
Brown Peter: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15505] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In my opening speech I foreshadowed that I would move that this bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have now taken the advice of many members in the House and I seek leave to move the bill to the Commerce Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:611;Page:8183] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I want to confirm with the Leader of the House that there will no urgency during this session. I wonder whether he might give us some indication of when he would expect to progress the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill which I understand is due to be reported back to the House about 9 September.
Carter John: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Carter John: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13236] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is just a machinery matter. Are we starting the 3 hours again when we go back into Committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The debate has already started but the time spent back in the House does not count. 
Debate resumed.
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8814] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I came down to the House only when this debate started as I had listened to the earlier debate in my office where I was tied up. I listened to the closing speech made by the Hon Peter Dunne in the previous part. I have to say that I have a regard for the Hon Peter Dunne’s ability in this Parliament. On this bill I share many of his sentiments and support his amendments and I know that New Zealand First does also. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: What is the point of order? 
PETER BROWN 
: The point of order is that either deliberately or inadvertently Mr Dunne referred to people as “health Nazis”. Where I come from anybody who referred to anybody as a “Nazi” would be likely to get the thrashing of his or her life. I am asking the Chair whether that is an acceptable parliamentary term. I am not asking for an apology because there is no one to apologise to. I am asking the Chair whether that is an acceptable term to refer to anybody by. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It has not been deemed unparliamentary previously. Often these things are in the context of how they are said. The issue was not raised at the time but I shall certainly consider what the member has said.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19305] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise the House of either one of two things: first whether the Government fulfilled its quorum requirements for the House today—I notice the very empty Labour back benches; and secondly is there some fire alarm that we have not been told about or perhaps some caucus alarm that we also have not been told about? It is rather extraordinary that more than half of them are absent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
[Volume:615;Page:10998] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There was no point of order in the original point of order in any case so this certainly is now becoming slightly farcical. The Standing Orders require us to accept the word of a member inside this Chamber. There are a number of words we are not allowed to use inside this Chamber that are used by the entire population outside this Chamber—indeed frequently of all of us collectively not just individually as politicians. The fact that a certain comment was made inside the Chamber denying that a certain thing was said does not mean to say that a member does not have the right to go and check whether in fact it might have been said. Of course if the member has reason to believe that it was said then that is precisely a case for a breach of privilege. Those tapes have been listened to. I think it is useful that Mr Hide has clarified what was said because I think he himself will admit that the words are somewhat indistinct on the tape. Indeed it is perfectly possible that somebody did hear what they think they heard in terms of the words they thought that member said. That is where the matter now must rest.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14867] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments 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 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5142] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4088] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I suggest to members that they should be careful with some of the language they use because it can lead to disorder.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9251] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear that I was not even asking you for such an assurance. I think it is inconceivable that the Speaker would have been giving out advice like that. That is not what the newspaper said and I was actually asking for an assurance from the chief Government whip who at the moment has left me with the impression that the story is true. If it is not I think it would help the whole House if he were to say that no such advice was given.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13044] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 198 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2).
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McCully Murray: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9185. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have made my ruling and I will not go into it. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I was not going to ask you to go into it. I was going to ask you to take the unusual step of first of all giving to us in writing the views that you have just expressed orally to the House. Members do have to make judgment calls about the matters they should trouble you with in relation to Standing Order 376—which matters create the unusual circumstances that require a snap debate. It would help me and I sure it would help other members if we could understand your reasoning in that respect.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Apology—Withdrawal of Comment 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Apology—Withdrawal of Comment 
[Volume:620;Page:15945] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether that fish and chip throwaway called the  
New Zealand Herald  
which wrote that stinking editorial byline this morning could possibly do the same tomorrow and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If you can instruct the New Zealand press on what to do then you are slightly better than I am.
Okeroa Mahara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Okeroa Mahara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11174] 
11.  
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What programmes does the Ministry of Justice have in place to assist children appearing as witnesses in court proceedings? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Recently I launched a new national service that will provide education support for young witnesses in criminal proceedings and their families and whanau. This new service called court education for young witnesses has been developed with input from a number of agencies. It will be delivered in both the High Court and the District Courts as part of the Ministry of Justice’s services for victims. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: How will the new service be delivered? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Going to court can be a very scary experience especially for a young child and the child’s evidence can affect a family member. To assist children trained victim advisers will work with them and their families before the actual hearing to help the children to understand the court process and what is being asked of them. The information will be presented in a colourful user-friendly range of material with activities books. There will also be a video for the child and the caregivers. The victim adviser will show the young witness around the courtroom before the case begins so he or she can be familiar with the proceedings. There is an example of that here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the Minister seeking to table it? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I will send a copy to every member of Parliament.
Jones Dail: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7006] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: This is just a short call to confirm that New Zealand First supports this legislation although I think the speech from the senior Government whip was in the circumstances provocative and totally uncalled for. That tends to extend the debate and more than anything else the speech was totally unhelpful. If the Labour Government wants debates on things like this bill during urgency that is a provocative situation and it is not surprising that at certain times all Opposition parties decide that if the Government is going to do things for the hell of it the Opposition sadly also feels that it should do things for the hell of it. This urgency should have been restricted to just the debates on the immigration bill and the health bill rather than addressing simple legislation of this kind. In any event New Zealand First supports the bill and has nothing further to add to the matter.
Cosgrove Clayton: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17701] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As a member of the Primary Production Committee I rise to support this bill. As I kick off my brief call it is fair to say that this bill came to the select committee with a high degree of contention and with some major issues. But the committee—apart from the member who preceded me—in the spirit and nature of its work got through those matters and I think we have brought a substantial quality bill back to the House. 
I want to correct a couple things put forward by Mr Heatley the well-known so-called member from Whangarei. The first—and he is right in this—is that one of the major issues in the bill was the perceived lack of security of tenure by industry players. Contrary to Mr Heatley’s submission to the House that has been fixed and he knows it. Existing marine farmers unless the aquaculture management area is changed get the first right to apply if they have been good citizens and have not breached their consents. Effectively unless the plan is changed they get the first option. Of course Mr Heatley conveniently forgot to make that point. What we heard from the National Party was the usual stir-up on race. Somebody should tell Mr Heatley and Mr Carter that Don Brash tried that in Orewa and it worked for 5 minutes. Now the tables have turned and the people have told Don Brash to wake up. Mr Heatley said that he fought hard in the select committee. Well if he fought hard in the committee then he fought harder than Don Brash did over the issue of the foreshore and seabed. 
The committee visited a number of marine farmers in Clevedon Auckland and Blenheim including people like Callum McCallum who contribute a huge amount through both their fish-processing factories and their aquaculture farms. They are battling Kiwis—great business people—who as Mr Ewen-Street said contribute much to the economy. It would be fair to say that in Blenheim when the Minister was down there recently and met with aquaculture people subsequent to this bill coming back from the select committee peace had broken out in respect of this bill. I think that in general most aquaculture farmers are pleased with the content of the bill especially in relation to the security-of-tenure issue which is most important to them. 
I also join in congratulating the officials the staff and the clerks who worked tirelessly on this bill. We had an interesting hearings process. A number of our members developed some new skills towards the waterfront in Auckland especially Mr Woolerton. I am sure he knows what I mean. But the process was a very good one. It was open and in the spirit and tradition of the Primary Production Committee in a non-partisan way we have brought a solid bill back to the House. I support 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:9018] 
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 16(1) be agreed to: 
to add the words “at the first available opportunity”.
Hughes Darren: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21667] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). The need to extend the legislation which Parliament passed in 2002 reflects the way the world now has to do business. The reality of terrorism is with us in terms of the foreign policy of many countries; even a small country like our own of 4 million people at the bottom of the Pacific has to be very focused on this issue. 
The amendment to the legislation is needed as a result of the events of September 11 which are still very firmly in the minds of members as mentioned throughout the whole debate. That terrible event caused tragedy for so many people and the effects continue today. I note that Families of September 11 an advocacy organisation in New York is working on issues arising from the fall-out of that event and the terrible suffering of those people. The new executive director Jennifer Mincin has written very good articles about the issues that confront victims of terrorism. Those things are very firmly in the minds of all parliamentarians.
Dyson Ruth: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5400] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter John: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer 
Carter John: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:606;Page:3976] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that ruling. It has helped to clarify a number of issues. It does raise one point which maybe at some stage you will make a comment on. If a member as Mr McCully did puts down a question with the Clerk and a Minister has an issue about that question and asks for some alteration or change to the question then there should be an opportunity for the member to be notified and to have opportunity to comment. In your ruling I did not hear you provide for that opportunity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; that was assumed. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I think it would be important that there be an interchange if there is something not right with the question—that the member be given that opportunity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Absolutely and I thank the member for raising that point.
Tisch Lindsay: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15613] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that the Minister will possibly move a closure motion. It was very evident from the Opposition side of the Chamber that three members were on their feet and calling—my two colleagues here and the ACT member Stephen Franks—before the Minister thought about going for the call. You waited hoping he would seek the call and our people on the Opposition side of the Chamber were seeking the call. I think it is beholden on you to accept our position and to accept calls from the Opposition before accepting the Minister’s call. He was obviously not prepared for the closure motion and he was not paying attention. In my view and the Opposition’s view some extra calls should be allowed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and I say this. It is not a race for whoever jumps up first to get the call. The Government side had previously had two people who had risen and sought the closure motion. I looked to that side because I was expecting the call. The call eventually did come and I am accepting it. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.