edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18734] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. When the Deputy Speaker came back to the Chamber she quite rightly said that the role of the interpreter is to interpret not to translate. The House accepted that and Mr Tamihere translated. We are now saying that it is a concern to a number of people in the Committee that the translation was not correct. It comes down to the question of whether “te runanga” is mentioned in the Maori text. I cannot see it there but there could well be a translation available that would state that the expressions convey that sentiment. 
It strikes me as strange that we have had in this country 160-plus years of argument over what was actually said and meant in the Treaty of Waitangi and here we are 160 years later trying to sort out grievances that apparently have arisen from the beliefs and understandings of obligations that were given conferred and accepted in that treaty. We ask for a simple interpretation from an interpreter who is provided to the Parliament so that we can find out what is in this text. We are going round and round in circles because you have told us that it is a debating matter. The last debate over a translation issue took 160 years. We would like to get on with this.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13853] 
10.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will she be ordering an inquiry into claims of serious abuse at psychiatric institutions during the 1960s and 1970s; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Until the Crown has completed its investigation no decision can be made on whether to hold an inquiry. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not believe that the serious allegations including physical and sexual abuse long periods of solitary confinement and the use of electroconvulsive therapy as punishment are not in themselves enough to warrant a full and proper inquiry by this Government as of now? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government takes the allegations very seriously and that is why they are being thoroughly investigated. However that will take some time because many of them go back over 30 years. 
Darren Hughes 
: When does the Attorney-General expect the investigations to be concluded? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Crown is investigating these matters as quickly as possible and I have in fact instructed that more staff be applied to the investigation process. However the difficulties are that records from over 30 years ago have to be found. Once found they have to be assessed. Witnesses who are alleged to have been involved in these instances also have to be found and interviewed. There is also a variety of other processes about practices and about what medical treatment was appropriate at that time that also have to be investigated. But I do assure the House that we are taking the allegations very seriously. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does the Minister believe that the level of abuse in psychiatric institutions during the 1960s and 1970s was one of the reasons deinstitutionalisation was promoted so strongly but that deinstitutionalisation has now gone too far leading to our high suicide rate and leaving families to cope with the tragedy of dealing with mental illness often unsupported? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I think that question calls for an opinion that is outside my expertise. It does relate to the management of mental institutions at this time and I have no knowledge of that. However I will say that in 1969 there was an investigation into allegations at Porirua and they were found not to be substantiated. 
Ron Mark 
: What was the level of support both financial and physical afforded by the State to Bailey Kurariki and the other youths who killed Michael Choy and does she not believe that the child victims of psychiatric care and abuse in the 1960s and 1970s are deserving of the very same degree of assistance in order to allow them to press their cases against the Crown? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I have no knowledge as to whether legal aid has been sought on behalf of these claimants but that would certainly be a source of assistance for them.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7223] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is up to members as to why they withdraw from the House. I am taking it that they have made a decision. They do not want to be here and that is their business. I hope it is not a reflection on me. Mr Mark indicates that it is not and I accept his word.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: 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:9972] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7392] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of this bill.
Adams Paul: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19591] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a quick call on behalf of United Future which will be supporting this bill. Contrary to what Mr Prebble has just said in addressing the House United Future does take the time to study amendments and sort out whether they are altering the legislation in any respect. We will support the legislation only if we are satisfied that it is doing what it is said it will do. I have learnt in life that everything is not perfect. I am glad this is not the only dilemma the ACT party is currently facing. I imagine that it has other dilemmas it will be working through as we approach election year as well which may well be more serious than the dilemma it has about whether it will support this particular legislation. 
But United Future is happy with this. We do take the time to study our legislation and I can assure Mr Prebble that we have been happy with all the legislation we have supported. We have checked it and are 100 percent happy with it. 
This sort of bill is a very practical type of legislation. Often when laws are made—and I am one who would like fewer laws rather than more laws—when it is actually out there in the market and we find things that have been missed or we have got a little bit wrong at least we can be big enough to amend laws in this type of legislation. United Future will be supporting this bill. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Government Administration Committee.referred to Government Administration Committee
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8950] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 26; 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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 39A be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5501] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is this a new point of order? We are not relitigating. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No I accept the ruling you have made but I want an assurance from the Chair that you understand that we have speakers in this team who have been members of the select committee. They have taken an active part and they understand the issues. Right from the word go when we started this debate at a quarter past 4 there have been members on this side of the Chamber who have been seeking the call. They are speakers who have an understanding and who have made a commitment— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but I am going to rule the member out of order. He is relitigating the closure. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No I accept what you have done. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: He is relitigating the closure. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No I want some assurance for the future that the speakers we are putting up will be given a fair go. I am not relitigating what you have done. We accept that we have gone through the closure motion—I am looking forward to the rest of the debate Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. I refer the member to the Speaker’s ruling that was given when the bill was introduced and I also refer the member to Standing Order 138. That is the end of the matter.
Simich Clem: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
Simich Clem: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5703] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not. It is quite clear that they would not comply with that ruling. But in a case like that if the interjecting is not upsetting the speaker which it clearly was not—and in most cases in the general debate it assists the speaker—then there is no problem. But if members are having difficulty following the speech because of the interjections then I thank the member for raising that matter. However I go back to when this debate started and the Hon Rick Barker was speaking. I did not keep count of how many interjections there were but they were much louder. They were not as great in number but they were louder. They were drowned out because Mr Barker’s speech was very loud. It was not aggressive but it kind of drowned out the interjections. I point out to the two whips—and I did call order on both of them while they were interjecting—that they have a responsible position in this House more so than ordinary members and I ask them to please desist.
Prebble Richard: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11566] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 sets out a new order of payment. I have a question for Mr Peck if he is able to answer it. It would appear from my reading of clause 8 that one could actually sign a redundancy agreement the day before a company goes insolvent and as a result of that the employee would immediately get a credit. Is that correct? If so then we are enabling people to “defeat the creditors” and that is regarded as very naughty. In fact a person can go to jail for that. It appears to me that if the manager of a company realises that the firm is going broke then provided that person is not a director he or she ought to negotiate a redundancy agreement with himself or herself. He or she probably can being the manager. 
Nothing I have seen in the bill stops a manager of a company provided he or she is not a director from negotiating with himself or herself signing an immediate redundancy which would be for only $15000 then going to the liquidator and putting the company into liquidation. Is that correct or have I misread it? It may be on reading section 104(1)(d)(iv) in clause 8(1) that it has to be 4 months before a company is put into liquidation. However I would like an answer to that question. Members have been telling us how carefully they have studied it so Mr Brown could tell me. 
Are we really allowing the manager of a company to do this—a manager who may have made the company insolvent through his own misdeeds? Perhaps the manager gambles and drinks and is told by his accountant that he has to put the company into liquidation. The manager may say: “Nick I’ve just got to do one thing first. I need to negotiate myself a $15000 redundancy. Just wait a second while I sign the agreement then I’ll put the company into liquidation.” Are we seriously doing that? If we are I assure the Committee that what I am describing will not be a joke; it will happen. Of course it will happen. Human beings are not perfect but they are very ingenious. If the incentive is for a manager to write himself or herself a $15000 redundancy agreement because he or she will get priority over everyone else—and he or she will get paid—then that is exactly what will happen. 
Where is the commercial logic in that? Where is the morality of it? What is the point of us having an Insolvency Act that states it is a criminal offence for a person to defeat the creditors when we then put up a measure that enables people who put a company into liquidation to give themselves $15000 redundancy? I would like that simple question answered. Am I reading it correctly? If I am not what is the situation? It would appear to me that a redundancy deal signed the day before a company is put into liquidation would get priority. If that is so then there is nothing to stop a manager if he or she has the proper authority from signing himself or herself a $15000 redundancy deal. How can we possibly think that is fair law?
Pettis Jill: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16019] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am taking a brief call. This bill exhibits the leadership qualities this Government has unlike that member who has just resumed his seat in mock impersonation of some sort of Napoleonic behaviour. Thank goodness he will never ever lead anybody into battle. 
This bill puts in place all the decisions made by the Government this year on electricity supply security and on the governance of the electricity and gas industries. It repairs some of the errors that the previous National Government made. It is a good bill with a thoroughly good Minister in charge and the best thing we can do is to get this bill passed so that it can benefit the people out there in New Zealand.
Peters Jim: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5136] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to give support to the broad intention of this bill. I rise also because the minimum wage issue before us in the title clause is one that is worthy in respect of the issues covered by the last speaker at the lower level or at the higher level worthy in respect of giving a real opportunity to people in training. 
My experience in working with such schemes over the last 12 years has been by and large that employers—or would-be employers in the training sense—are doing their utmost to try to keep within the framework envisaged by the training schemes. My experience has been not so much with apprenticeships unfortunately but with training providers. This bill will give sustenance and opportunity with regard to the financial rewards that such training deserves. The only problem that New Zealand First has is not with the provision of training schemes such as we have here but with the vision of those that do not meet these criteria and with the numerous shonky training schemes that we know of around the country. One scheme in Auckland recently mentioned in this Chamber had met no such provision and the trainees or so-called trainees were working virtually as slave labour. That is also the issue for other training schemes I can speak about as well. 
The clause is correctly named because these young people—and mostly they are young although they may be in a second-chance situation—are deserving of a reasonable opportunity not just for training but also for receiving a wage commensurate with that. In particular this bill was conceived and put together in 2001 but in 2003 when the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and unit standards are far more accepted as the broad qualifications for trade training and training of any sort this bill is needed more now than it was at its inception in 2001. 
On behalf of New Zealand First and on behalf of our spokesperson the Hon Brian Donnelly I say that we support and commend the title.
Hereora Dave: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous provisions) bill — First Reading 
Hereora Dave: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous provisions) bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6661] 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak in support of the Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The bill brings into effect New Zealand’s part in a joint Australia-New Zealand agreement to remove a tax impediment to trans-Tasman investment. The imputation systems of each country are being extended to include companies resident in the other country that want to take part. The bill will make New Zealand imputation credits available to Australian companies while similar legislation before Parliament in Canberra makes Australian franking credits available to New Zealand companies. I commend this bill to the House.
Hartley Ann: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5288] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour— 
John Carter 
: Point of order— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: There are calls. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member had not called when the member had finished and I have put the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I called and you are just being silly and offensive to the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member did not call. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I called. To have an acting Speaker behave in that way is just an outrage. You may run things that way on your little councils but this is an outrage. You know the rules and you know who wants to speak on this matter. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated please. The member did not call and I have put the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I have called. Now you are calling me a liar. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s behaviour is disorderly. The member will leave the Chamber please. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No I will not. I want to speak in this debate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber please. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No I will not. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am putting the vote and the member— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No you are not putting the vote. I have called and you have refused to call me. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be quiet. The member will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No I will not. I wish to speak on this matter. You are actually preventing debate. You are not behaving like a Speaker. You are just trying to play up to your Government members. You are not behaving as a Speaker. Your behaviour is completely disorderly. Then you accused me of not calling when I rose to call. Then you carried on calling the debate. You are being silly now. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s behaviour— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You are lying to this House.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17545] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
Tisch  
Alexander  
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock (P) 
Franks  
Peters W (P) 
Wang  
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton  
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Shirley (P) 
Coddington  
Mapp(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith M 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Power  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson  
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother  
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs  
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald  
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan  
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9833] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I wish to take a brief call on the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill. I am particularly concerned about the compliance costs and the regulatory regimes that will be put in place. As the Hon Roger Sowry mentioned in his address National is opposing this bill. However we will be interested to see what the submissions to the select committee state. Page 23 of the explanatory note under the heading “Business compliance cost statement” states quite clearly that compliance costs will go up but there is no indication of how far they will go up. 
We are seeing increasing costs in all sectors of business with this Government. We have had 17 new taxes over the last few years. We are seeing here that the cost of doing business in New Zealand will rise rapidly. If we want people to invest we have to have a climate that does not make disincentives for investment and that does not have the compliance costs that will be associated with this. 
The fourth paragraph on that page states: “A business compliance cost statement will be written at the time the Minister of Energy recommends regulations pursuant to the regulation-making powers in the Bill.” This Government has increasingly legislated by Order in Council using regulations to increase the cost of doing business. As Gerry Eckhoff mentioned in his speech regulations do not allow for investment and he quoted the situation in California. As soon as regulations are brought in they stifle investment. One of the things we are concerned about is the way this bill is drafted and specifically the points about the business compliance cost statement. 
Roger Sowry made the point that this bill coming into effect will not actually stop any shortages of power. We are concerned that this is just another introduction of a compliance cost in legislation that does not allow for investment and that stifles initiative and the innovative approach that we need to adopt in this country so National will be opposing it. 
I said earlier and I will repeat it that we will be very interested in seeing what the submissions are likely to be. We question why this bill is being rushed through at this time. Why are we doing this at this time? It is our view that the haste is unnecessary. Submitters need to be given the opportunity to have a fair lash at this and to be able to come up with alternatives to be able to look at what we believe are the shortcomings in this legislation specifically on the regulatory creep as I call it that we are seeing with business compliance costs. Those are the points I want to mention. National opposes this bill.
Hobbs Marian: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11116] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (NZ Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12478] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:627;Page:22040] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt question time but I may have to leave before we have finished given the way the time is going. Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday and to further discussions particularly with the Hon Richard Prebble I seek leave for the Hon Richard Prebble to make a valedictory statement at 5 p.m. tomorrow and for other members to make valedictory statements immediately after question time on Tuesday 2 August apart from Helen Duncan who is to make a valedictory statement later that sitting day at a time agreed with the Speaker. All valedictory statements are to be up to 15 minutes in duration. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a matter of clarification. Obviously a significant amount of time will be consumed in this process. I want to know whether it includes other members of the ACT party and the Green Party members or just Mr Prebble. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It will include the I think eight members of the House who have indicated that they are retiring. By long tradition those who involuntarily retire at elections never get to make a valedictory statement. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 On that point of clarification I missed one of my valedictories. Can I have two? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. It will be followed. 
Question time resumed.
Hunt Jonathan: Offices of Parliament—Presentation of Address to Governor-General 
Hunt Jonathan: Offices of Parliament—Presentation of Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:608;Page:5595] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that the Address agreed to by the House relating to the alterations to the appropriations for the 2002/03 financial year for Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was transmitted to Her Excellency the Governor-General on 7 May 2003.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17080] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 39 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) of subclause (1).
Vote: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7276] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Treaty Negotiations be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Vote agreed to.
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18733] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not think we need anything more on this. As we go on through it will be entirely up to members to move an amendment if they think a word is out of place or is not understood. I think the Committee has made its best attempt to resolve the issue. There was a translation made for most purposes and I accept it. It may not be acceptable to all members but we could go on all night. All 119 other members in this Chamber could give their version and no one need accept it. We will now move on to the preamble.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Assistant Speaker Simich—Ruling Questioned by Member Ahmed Zaoui—Birthday 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Assistant Speaker Simich—Ruling Questioned by Member Ahmed Zaoui—Birthday 
[Volume:622;Page:17421] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not taking this any further. I have made my ruling. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the Hon Jim Sutton’s letter to you Mr Eckhoff’s letter to you and the letter that you wrote in reply to Mr Eckhoff. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Dalziel Lianne: Care of Children Bill Status of Children Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Dalziel Lianne: Care of Children Bill Status of Children Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16730] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I agree with the member’s final comment that children do not live their lives in textbooks. They do not live their lives in fairy tales either. I wish it were always true when mum and dad marry and say they are going to live happily ever after for evermore. This legislation really only takes effect when the fairy tale does not come true. I want to place on the record the gratitude this House owes to both the previous and the current Principal Family Court Judge. Both of them sought to assist the Justice and Electoral Committee in a free and frank manner. As a result we will have a much more accessible and open process in the Family Court and the enforceability of the court’s orders will be greatly improved. 
I want the House to remember that only around 5 percent of all relationship breakdowns involving children and their ongoing care end up before the court for a decision. Many members have focused on the issue of shared parenting. I want to place on the record my very strong view that the phrase “shared parenting order” is an oxymoron. The idea is really that shared parenting can only occur by agreement. What children need most are parents who whether or not they are together cooperate with each other about the ongoing care of their children. We need parents to set aside their personal feelings for the sake of the children. 
This legislation is for the sake of the children and despite some of the speeches made in the House today is a vast improvement on the law it replaces.
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21896] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10552] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Mackey Moana: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14246] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8805] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12890] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8197] 
9.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What law changes if any are being considered to ease the cost of renewing driving licences for drivers 80 years and over? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Government has addressed the cost issue by reducing the application fee for older drivers’ licences from around $36 to $18.30 and retaining the older driver test fee at $41 rather than increasing it to the actual cost of $49. Older drivers also have been offered one free re-test if they are not successful in their first attempt. In addition I am considering a range of other proposals to do with older driver testing and decisions and announcements will be made in due course. 
Peter Brown 
: When can we expect these further changes to take effect and by how much will they reduce the current cost? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In due course and those issues are all under consideration. 
Peter Brown 
: When the Hon Ruth Dyson was speaking in a public meeting in Nelson the other day she said that several law changes were being considered around costs and the driving licence regime for older drivers. Will the Minister tell me whether she was speaking the truth or was it a figment of her imagination? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That member always speaks the truth. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table this newspaper cutting that states: “Dyson pledges to ease the way for older drivers”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8716] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Maharey Steve: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Maharey Steve: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14368] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I will answer those “quiet” questions from Mr English. He needs to watch that blood pressure—that is all I will say. He has had his answer as far as I understand about the asTTle data: he is allowed a briefing. 
Hon Bill English 
: No no. Why can’t I have the data? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am telling the member that he should go ahead and take that briefing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why can’t I have the data? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I heard the question in the first instance and I have just given the answer. I will explain for people at home. The way it works in here is that we have a turn each. Mr English has just had his turn but he is continuing it from his chair. The answer to the question is that he has been offered a briefing on the asTTle data and I would take it if I were him. I cannot think of any other question he asked about that point. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Have officials been prevented from coming into the Chamber? Are they being kept outside by order of the Chair or by some other request from an MP? Clearly the Minister is not going to answer the question as to why he thinks they are not in here to answer those sorts of technical questions we cannot expect the Minister to know the answer to. I want to be clear with you Madam Chairperson about whether officials have been prevented from coming into the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. It is entirely up to the Minister. 
Vote agreed to.
Baldock Larry: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4267] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I begin by stating that New Zealand can be proud of the achievements of its wine industry and the recognition it continues to get around the world for producing high-quality wines. United Future supports this legislation because while there is opposition to the imposition of European Union regulations there is an acceptance of the need to meet the requirements of those regulations in order to maintain continued access to the important European market. 
United Future supported the first reading of the Wine Bill from whence this bill came and which has now received 111 submissions. We look forward to the select committee process that will deal with the major issues confronting the wine industry but this particular bill should proceed expeditiously through the House. We therefore have pleasure in supporting it tonight. 
Bill read a second time.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:621;Page:16627] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the Committee stage of the Care of Children Bill. 
 The motion is moved in order that the House can move to the third reading on Tuesday and thus complete its consideration of the bill before it rises for the adjournment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Mackey Janet: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Mackey Janet: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6599] 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I am not going to try to predict what will happen if this bill passes tonight but the one thing I do know having sat on the committee that considered the bill in the previous Parliament is that it does not achieve the aims it sets out to achieve and that is of concern to me. I believe that this Parliament has one chance in 20 years to address this issue to address it well and to bring in a bill that provides real benefits. This bill does not do that. 
We have heard people tonight talk about those who are opposing the bill as not being liberal as being conservative and as not caring for women. I am a woman and I object very strongly to voting for a bill that legitimises those people who traffic in women. This bill makes it legal for people to live off the earnings of prostitutes. If we were looking for something that effectively dealt to the people who probably cause the greatest grief for prostitutes then this bill certainly does that: it legitimises them. It gets rid of pimps and turns them into managers. I find that offensive and I ask people to think strongly about that. 
One of the issues that has not been spoken on regarding the bill is the social impact this bill could have in small rural communities. We are asking our district council—the Wairoa District Council—to nominate the place where it is willing to have a brothel. These are communities that are very small and are transparent. They do not have industrial areas. It is very difficult to hide things in a very small community. I think this is another example of Auckland Wellington or Christchurch legislation that will have a totally different more dangerous and more severe impact on small communities. There is huge opposition to this bill in small rural communities. I ask those members who are making up their mind to give some consideration to how councils in Wairoa Opotiki and Gisborne will manage the effects of this legislation. 
I hope that the bill does not pass tonight. I hope that the issue does not go away. I hope that we as a Parliament pick it up. I hope that the Government picks up this issue and that we have a chance to discuss this matter fully with our communities and to come up with legislation that does address the health and safety issues that need addressing.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14881] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the relevant sections of the Local Government Act 2002 in respect of planning decision making and accountability and relating to the requirements in respect of consultation with the community. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Jones Dail: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18003] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 As there was no twelfth Speaker from the other side—and I take the point made by David Carter to me the other day that if we wanted a second call we are free to take one in a situation where National has had three calls—I thought I would spend just a few moments on the issue. 
I am quite concerned about some of the statements made especially by Dr Mapp. When he mentioned the Iraq situation it made me think of the Middle East and Afghanistan. It made me think also of the situation in Guantanamo Bay. What level could we possibly get to in New Zealand if we did not have this type of legislation? Almost what Dr Mapp says is that the prison officer involved should be slapped over the wrist perhaps demoted or fired and off he or she goes home. We could have a Guantanamo Bay situation in New Zealand and there would be no penalty on any Government. I am astonished that the Greens are opposing this legislation. I would have thought that this legislation was strong and did the sort of thing the Greens want to see done because the suggestion by the National Party—one that I do not think is fully appreciated by the Greens—is that we could have a Guantanamo Bay situation in New Zealand not in Cuba or somewhere else and all that would happen is the prison officer would get a slap over the wrist. 
New Zealand First is strong on law and order. We are interested in this bill going to the select committee. We have been calling for it for a long time and we have wanted to see it go there. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Gross misrepresentation. 
DAIL JONES 
: Dr Mapp says I am grossly misinterpreting what he was saying but it is a logical conclusion of what he said. It suggests that the National Party with its continuing coalition with the Greens on the last couple of bills has not fully understood the nature of the legislation. That was very very clear in the speech made by Ms te Heuheu. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: It does not protect them from physical abuse. 
DAIL JONES 
: Mr Tanczos keeps interjecting on me. I do not mind explaining to him that we could get a situation where if we opposed this legislation and supported Dr Mapp’s view some Government could have a regime—and I know it would never happen in New Zealand; I am speaking theoretically and as lawmakers we make sure that even the worst situation cannot develop—[ 
Interruption 
] Dr Mapp and Mr Tanczos are voting the same way on this legislation so they are supporting each other even though they say they are not. I suppose that is the best place for me to finish on this particular issue. It shows the ridiculousness of the whole situation. The Greens and the National Party oppose this legislation but say they do not support each other. 
Bill read a first time.
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15128] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part.
Pillay Lynne: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17903] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17103] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9690] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to the amendment to clause 61 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit new subclause (5) set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 165 and substitute the following: 
(5)The term of a concession agreement is open to negotiation between the parties involved.
Hide Rodney: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9692] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sorry the matter of the closure motion cannot be debated. It is not a matter of further debate. I have ruled on the point of order. Is this is a new point of order? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. My point of order is that what you have just said is incorrect. It would be impossible for there to be proportionality when we got two calls and the others got only one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not the only factor that is taken into account. In terms of the proportionality issue that Mr Brown raised I refer members to Standing Order 103. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You said to the Committee that the speaking slots were allocated in terms of proportionality. The entire Committee heard you say that and it was not correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It was correct.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5574] 
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 the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(17)Section 2(1) of the principle Act is amended by omitting from the definition of the term “amenity values” the words “ aesthetic coherence”.