edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22324] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 2 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8837] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We cannot hear you Mr Chairperson. Either there is something wrong with your microphone or there is too much noise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Could those who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly and leave now. I ask members to bear with us for a moment.
Paraone Pita: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Paraone Pita: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21483] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I want to say that I am standing in for Barbara Stewart on this matter and to indicate that New Zealand First is pleased to support this part of the bill. Before I go on I also want to indicate our support for the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put before the House by the Hon Mr Anderton. We certainly support the arguments that he has put up to substantiate the need for Supplementary Order Paper 377. 
We particularly support the proposed section 12AC which is to be inserted into the Misuse of Drugs Act by clause 11 in Part 1 of the bill where legislation that relates to precursor substances such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is strengthened. Both are key substances used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. We understand there is currently no offence relating to the import or export of precursors to the manufacture of methamphetamine. In fact the legislation has not kept up with the trends of the day so to speak. Given the adverse impact that this whole issue has not only in this country but indeed the world it needed to be responded to quickly and we believe that this bill does that. 
The lagging of the required legislation has meant that our law enforcement agencies particularly the Customs Service and the police have been hamstrung under the present law. It has also meant that the lesser charge of possession is the only charge that can be made in a whole lot of instances and as we know the penalties for possession are not as great as the penalties a person would face if charged with other matters related to this drug. In addition it is difficult to make such a charge stick where those substances are sent through the post which has become a regular mode of transfer from one country to another. In that situation we need to ask who is actually in possession. That loophole needs to be closed and I believe that this bill will do that. 
Parliament has a duty to support both the police and the Customs Service in their fight against the use of illicit drugs. This bill will certainly do that particularly in the area of search and seizure requirements and the amendments to that part of the Act are certainly appropriate. 
New Zealand First also supports clause 14 in this part of the bill which shifts the onus of proof for possessing a needle or syringe so that it lies with the prosecution. We all know the importance of the use of needles and syringes and the dangers that second-hand use can cause particularly with reference to the transmission of HIV and related diseases. So I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we support this part of the bill.
Smith Murray: Building Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Murray: Building Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14926] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is this a point of order? 
MURRAY SMITH 
: No I am taking a call. 
Jill Pettis 
: No you are not.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3741] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Hon Steve Maharey to Part 1 be agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — Tariff Reductions Transmission Gully Crimes Act 
Urgent Debates Declined — Tariff Reductions Transmission Gully Crimes Act 
[Volume:612;Page:8886] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Tariff Reductions 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a number of applications for debates under Standing Order 376. Rod Donald seeks to debate the Government’s decision to reduce the level of tariffs on imported goods. The decision is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I cannot regard a decision on the level of tariffs post-2005 as requiring the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. 
Transmission Gully 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Peter Dunne seeks to debate a statement by the Prime Minister regarding the building of the Transmission Gully project. While the Prime Minister did respond to a question on the project she did so without changing Government policy at all. In these circumstances there is no particular case of recent occurrence to give grounds for a debate. 
Crimes Act 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Murray Smith wishes to debate an announcement by the Minister for Social Development and Employment that section 59 of the Crimes Act which permits reasonable force against children will be repealed. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but as the Minister indicated that a time frame of 2 years and legislation will be needed to effect it there is no ground for an urgent debate on it today.
Franks Stephen: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15621] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This short part raises an issue of major significance and I do hope the Minister realises that today of all days he should be prepared to speak on this part. Part 5 states that disputes will go to the Maori Land Court. The Maori Land Court is under a cloud at the moment. It has been put under a cloud by this Government. The Maori Land Court was being taken to the High Court for conflict of interest. That is a three-word term for bias. The bias alleged by this Government was that someone who had iwi affiliations could not sit on a matter that touched that iwi. How will we find Maori Land Court judges who do not have an interest in an argument involving a settlement? Every Maori Land court judge who has any Maori inheritance will have an interest one way or another in who gets part of the settlement. 
Pita Paraone 
: There will be non-Maori judges. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I can think of one. If Pakeha judges sit on it perhaps that may work. If that is the case why was it not just sent to the High Court? Why were those disputes not left for resolution with the benefit of the impartiality that is available to every other commercial entity in this country? Today of course the Government has done some sort of a deal with the Maori Land Court and it has withdrawn its application. It says that it is thinking about whether it will go ahead and try to get an adjournment of the case brought by NgatiPorou on the seabed and foreshore. What that says about this part of the bill is that it has woken up to the likelihood that the Maori Land Court is hopelessly compromised. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Prior to dinner at 6 o’clock the Committee was considering Part 5 of the Maori Fisheries Bill. The honourable member Stephen Franks was speaking. He has 3 minutes remaining if he wishes.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17144] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to 
. 
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. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10611] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to support this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon Mark Burton. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I sought the call. You heard me—because you looked at me. You then looked across and called Ms Pettis. I was aware that Labour members were giving one-sentence speeches and not speaking on this legislation. I remained standing and sought the call again and I believe that I should now have the call because they should alternate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry. I call the Hon Roger Sowry.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4105] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 45 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Speaker and Delegation from Legislative Assembly of Sarawak Delegation from National Congress of Republic of Chile 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Speaker and Delegation from Legislative Assembly of Sarawak Delegation from National Congress of Republic of Chile 
[Volume:615;Page:11207] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Dato Sri Haji Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Sarawak accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members not only would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair but also would wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
Hon Dato Sri Haji Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13228] 
9.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What action is the Government taking to strengthen the system of official statistics? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Last week we announced a Budget 2004 investment of nearly $70 million over 4 years to strengthen New Zealand’s official statistics. This will lead to more accurate targeting of Government spending and better information for New Zealanders to plan their business decisions. Just to use two particular parts of the package by way of example there is $14 million to strengthen the official statistical system by improving coordination a data archive and a search engine for easier access and use. 
Simon Power 
: At least sound excited. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Another one is $10.5 million—and this is very exciting for members opposite—to develop a linked Employer-Employee Data system to facilitate research into the dynamics of the labour market and more particularly influencing business dynamics and productivity. 
Mark Peck 
: Why is it necessary to have high-quality data about the economy and society? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: One important role that official statistics play is providing the basis for robust international comparisons such as that recently carried out by the International Monetary Fund. For those who are not familiar—particularly those opposite—with the IMF’s report it found that the New Zealand economy was growing strongly the fiscal policy remains strong the stance on fiscal policy is fundamentally sound and that the Government’s efforts in welfare and education reform should contribute to enhancing the economy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member has used up his supplementary questions; New Zealand First has used up its supplementary questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I know how you arrived at that summation but the fact is when the Minister said he did not understand what my question was I asked whether I could repeat it. I think you have then counted it as two. I am sure my colleagues over here will say that. I am not challenging your— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it was another question slightly different from the first. I will take the leave of the House as to whether the member may have a supplementary question. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I thank the House for that generosity and yourself too. I ask the Minister: how can we have any confidence in his Department of Statistics when for example in one area such as immigration we have a 20000 overstayer figure which is purely a guesstimate and which First World country would accept that sort of statistic being kept by a Government? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The member will be pleased that a significant investment has been made and work is under way to ensure the sanctity of the information provided.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19687] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker and I apologise to Mr Peters. I am forced under the Standing Orders to raise my point of order at the first available opportunity and again this is it. I draw your attention to  
Hansard 
 which I have sent you a copy of and to the comments you made to the House last night. I invite you to correct the record because you told the House last night that you had had no advice of what Dr Cullen was proposing. I have now learnt that at the Business Committee which you chaired he in fact made that very threat. I think you should have told the House that you knew he was intending to use that mechanism instead of leaving me with the impression that you were as stunned as I was by his action in staging a walk-out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will take one contribution on this.
Burton Mark: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Burton Mark: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4844] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Unanimity has broken out wildly around the House on this bill and I want to say “cheers” to members who have made a speech. I seek leave after my discussions with the whips of all the parties to move directly to the third reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is not.
Jones Dail: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Jones Dail: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3969] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I assume as I look at clause 25 that most racing clubs are incorporated clubs under the Incorporated Societies Act or are registered in some form perhaps under the Charitable Trusts Act. 
Hon Annette King 
: Most are incorporated. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes. If they are incorporated then the rules of the Incorporated Societies Act require that they specify what happens on a winding up anyway. There is a slight ambiguity between that and clause 25 which suggests that on the dissolution of a club the assets must be disposed of for racing public charitable or other purposes because if they are incorporated societies they are bound in terms of the Incorporated Societies Act to wind up and to pay out the assets of a club in terms of its incorporated societies rules. 
I see that subclause (2A) deals with the possibility of a dispute. I would have thought that whether or not a dispute occurred if the society was an incorporated society then it must be paid out in terms of that Act. Similarly if registered under the Charitable Trusts Act it would be obliged to pay out in terms of that Act. Clause 25(1) is somewhat ambiguous and might cause problems as it stands.
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16414] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is determined to make some amendments to this bill. My colleague Bill Gudgeon has a Supplementary Order Paper which provides for self-employed women to receive paid parental leave. We say that it is totally unfair that this bill should apply only to employed people. I notice that United Future was sympathetic to that amendment and I know that the Greens are sympathetic but they say that it would take too long and could not be done in the time frame of this bill. 
I asked Jeanette Fitzsimons afterwards and she was quite genuine about it and said we need a definition of a self-employed person. Well New Zealand First has fixed it! We have a definition. It took us all of 5 minutes but we have got it. In the Committee stage we will put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in my name which defines a self-employed person. I take this opportunity to read it out: “For the purposes of this Act a self-employed person is a person whose work routine and time frame are usually not controlled and who may hire others to do the work. They are seldom paid at a set rate e.g. hourly weekly or by units of production and do not work set hours or a given number of hours each week or month. Those contracting them do not pay them sick pay holiday pay overtime or penal rates.” New Zealand First thinks that is a good definition. We know that it is acceptable because the Inland Revenue Department operates to that definition of a self-employed person. As that department will pay out for this provision we think it is only common sense that the same definition should apply to those who collect the money and to those who pay it out. 
So I look forward to total support from the Greens because this amendment is in response to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ comment and to total support from United Future. United Future says it is a family-based party and it has made a lot of noise about self-employed workers so I am very confident of its support. I am sure the National Party will support such an amendment. I am very very confident that when this bill has gone through the Committee stage it will come out providing for paid parental leave for self-employed people and this Parliament will have achieved something that the Government members only dreamt about. New Zealand First will have fixed it.
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20668] 
10.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What recent funding announcements has the Labour-Progressive Government made to combat the problem of drug and alcohol abuse and suicide prevention? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 In last year’s Budget $53.6 million over 4 years was secured to fight P alcohol and other drug abuse and last week I announced that this year’s Progressive Party initiatives include a further investment of $13.5 million to continue the fight against drug abuse and develop further suicide prevention strategies. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Why does the Labour-Progressive Government make these significant investments in programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol and other drugs in society when all those millions of dollars according to some parties in this House could instead be returned to taxpayers in the form of income tax cuts? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think the truth is that unlike the days of National-led coalition Governments in the 1990s when individual income tax cuts were a higher priority than increased investments in essential social services like health and education this coalition Government is responsive to New Zealanders’ yearning for programmes and action to promote successful and safer communities. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Associate Minister confirm that the lowering of the drinking age in 1999 has exacerbated alcohol abuse amongst young people and can he also confirm that that legislation was voted for not only by the Hon Matt Robson but also by the majority of Labour members at the time and was opposed by every single member of New Zealand First? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: My personal view is that the lowering of the drinking age was inappropriate but other members of the House have different views. As far as the vote in the House is concerned my recollection is that the Alliance members at the time—I think including Matt Robson but certainly including myself—actually voted against the lowering of the drinking age as I think  
Hansard 
 will show.
Chadwick Steve: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7937] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call to refute a couple of the allegations made today. First I note that the Hon Peter Dunne now understands that the title is the “Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill” not the “Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill” and I clarify that because the exact intention of the bill is to make workplaces smoke free environments. So bill clarifies that for members very nicely. One of the other comments made was about the “smoking police”. I want to clarify that this is a public health piece of legislation that is not about policing; it is about bringing communities with us through public health education and public health promotion. That was just a small point that Dail Jones made. 
I want to talk about research. We heard all the submissions about the research and about the effects of second-hand smoke. I am very surprised that the ACT spokesperson on health can take such a stand against the health effects of smoking. In fact we heard from the World Health Organization that it irrefutably states there is scientific evidence unequivocally establishing that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death disease and disability. The Ministry of Health in New Zealand cited several studies from Murray Laugesen and Professor Alistair Woodward at the Wellington School of Medicine. Those studies were all about the health effects of second-hand smoke. We can say quite unequivocally that smoking kills. As a midwife I want to clarify for the Committee that we know that 50 babies die every year from the effects of exposure to second-hand smoke; from sudden infant death syndrome. That is irrefutable. Members can argue about overseas research studies that they find useful but those of us on the Health Committee—those of us who had an open mind—heard all the science and all the reports from around the world and that gave us the very clear steer that we had to take this bill right across the board so that we had a total smoke-free environment. That is why the title so aptly describes where we are at today.
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6108. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 It would be very unfair to Parliament if you were to recognise for speaking purposes the speaker who has just taken a point of order. You have recognised him for a point of order. There is nothing in the Standing Orders that states that you must follow a script. What you must do is recognise the first person on his or her feet who is seeking the call. Given that Mr Smith was seeking the call for a point of order which you recognised that leaves me as the person now seeking the call. It makes no difference to how many calls a party gets—that is all organised—but in this case I got to my feet sooner than he did and that puts some duty on the Speaker to recognise the member seeking the call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and tell him that I have a list in front of me that has been agreed on by the Business Committee. I did expect the honourable member Murray Smith to take the call because I have his party listed here.
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19716] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that the usual situation when a debate resumes is that a member picks up his or her allotted time and concludes and if the member is not here then he or she simply does not have that time available to them. But no one could have predicted that the Government was eventually going to grant leave for Mrs Kedgley’s bill to proceed. I wonder whether we might give Mr Prebble the opportunity should he come down to the House during the course of the debate before a vote is taken to have his 4 minutes and 55 seconds. It might also be useful if Mrs Kedgley was able to perhaps start this rather extraordinary debate notwithstanding her previous speech—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mrs Pettis that I know that and that member knows that other people have been booted out of the House this afternoon for interrupting points of order but I will not make a big deal of it because I know that she was just trying to help the House. I think it would be useful and I so seek leave for the Chair to recognise the mover of the bill so that we can all know exactly what it is all about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise members that Ms Kedgley has already spoken to the bill. She can do so again only with the leave of the House. Is Ms Kedgley seeking leave to do that?
Beyer Georgina: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18716] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am very very pleased to take a brief call on the third reading of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill. I must express how impressed I am with the quality of the debate that has occurred this evening and with all the various views that have been shared about these important matters regarding censorship and pornography and the greater penalties for offences that are provided for in the bill. 
I planned to take a longer call because I could refer to my own problems with censorship in the past. I too was in a film once—a legitimate one—that ended up on television. It was censored and that delayed the programme going to air for a year because apparently the subject matter was contrary to the public’s good taste. The subject matter was about a day in the life of a transsexual and a transvestite. It took a year for the chief of television of the day—and this was in the 1980s—to get it to air. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Get over it! 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: Exactly! Get over it. It did go to air and received five nominations for the 1987 film and television awards including I humbly say one nomination for myself. 
However I do not want to trivialise the serious nature of this bill. I congratulate the members of the House who by majority at least are supporting the bill. I appreciate and respect the ACT party’s view. They are entitled to it. We may not agree with it and obviously we do not on this particular matter but nevertheless Mr Franks made himself clear. It is just that he left us seeing it as clearly as mud sometimes. I commend the bill to the House and hope that it proceeds speedily through the rest of its course.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16438] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member who usually always raises a point of order when it is valid has made a very interesting point. I want to give that some consideration and I will come back with an answer.
Points of Order — Tabling of Document—Hon Phil Goff 
Points of Order — Tabling of Document—Hon Phil Goff 
[Volume:627;Page:22262] 
Points of Order 
Tabling of Document—Hon Phil Goff 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the conclusion of the last debate the Hon Phil Goff was waving around an official document and quoting from it. I request that he table that document. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I tabled it yesterday. The member needs to come up to speed. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 No what Mr Goff tabled yesterday was a very minor quotation from the document. I believe he had the full document here today and I request that he table the full document he was quoting from. The member needs to come up to speed with the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has indicated the paper he was reading from.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Date 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Date 
[Volume:613;Page:10137] 
Wednesday 19 November 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Date 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
I seek leave for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to be extended to 8 April 2004.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8513] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 287(1AA) and (1) be agreed to.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14166] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4 be agreed to.
Catchpole Brent: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Catchpole Brent: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21161] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill is very much a technical bill. It simply formalises the change from one ownership to another. As the Minister and the previous speaker said this is something that happens from time to time. There are four such trust companies that have been through this process. I understand that another trust company bill is about to come up for the same reason as this one. The trust company needs to go through the formal process of changing the ownership and the name of the owner in the Act. 
To New Zealand First this is a waste of Parliament’s time and the select committee agrees with that. It went through the process and basically came up with the simple solution that this could be done by Order in Council with the recommendations of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Commerce and approved by the Governor-General. It is not necessary to go through the House every time such a change needs to take effect because it is just a simple waste of time. As the previous speaker said we are going through the motions of simply formalising a change. New Zealand First feels strongly that one simple Act should cover all the trust companies so that the process can be formalised and simply done through an Order in Council. New Zealand First would support that. We recognise that it was not possible to do it in this particular case because it needs an overall umbrella Act. 
I take issue with the Minister for saying that this is not a high priority. I ask her what is high priority? Is it wasting Parliament’s time or is it getting the job done properly—and doing it properly once—so that we have an umbrella piece of legislation that covers all those companies and so that it can be done by a simple Order in Council? I say to the Minister that she should get the whole process under way now and do it properly once.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Tonga Committee on Ecology—Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Tonga Committee on Ecology—Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation 
[Volume:608;Page:5815] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Committee on Ecology of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation led by Mr Vladimir Grachev are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Prebble Richard: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Prebble Richard: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7674] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I realise that Mr Donald is still riled about the fact that the Green Party did very badly in the last election did not meet any of his predictions and got fewer votes than the ACT party. I realise also that his party is about to vote for a measure to have Parliament decide who gets elected but we have not yet done that. We are now required to follow Standing Orders. Standing Order 103 which Mr Donald no doubt has not got around to reading states that in deciding the order of debate: “(b) overall participation in a debate should be approximately proportional to party membership in the House:”. I say to Mr Donald that the ACT party had more MPs elected; it had a greater vote at the last election than the Green Party. The member can do little silly deals with the Government whip as much as he likes but those are the Standing Orders. 
I also strongly object to any suggestion from that member that I have not kept to the correct speaking time. I most certainly have and the remarks made by him I find grossly offensive. The other matter I draw attention to is that once the call has been made it cannot be challenged so the member is wasting the time of the House as usual.
Goudie Sandra: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18916] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I recognise that National is supporting the bill but I want to raise a question with regard to the definition of “customary rights”. Clause 3(1) states: “customary rights means rights according to tikanga Maori (Maori customary values and practices); including the following: (a) rights to occupy land;” but I cannot see where it specifies which land. It leaves it somewhat open-ended. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui could take a call and explain that to me. 
 I may be overlooking something but the bill does not actually specify the land in question; it leaves it completely open in that according to customary rights Maori would have the right to occupy land regardless of ownership. I raise that as a point of concern. I cannot see where the land is clearly identified—where the bill specifies that land. If the Minister could take a call to reassure me on this matter I would be most appreciative.
Tisch Lindsay: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9523] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 National and New Zealand First wish to split the next call to have a 5-minute speech each; the first by Mr Dail Jones and the second by Dr Paul Hutchison. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next call will be split; 5 minutes each and the bell at 5 minutes.
Tamihere John: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Tamihere John: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15192] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22172] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Prime Minister stated that she was aware that there were balance sheet implications. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister did address the question.
Mackey Janet: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Janet: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11035] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
:  
I am pleased to stand today and support the Meat Board Restructuring Bill which will enable the meat industry to join with the wool industry to bring industry-good functions into one entity funded under the Commodity Levies Act. As a member of the Primary Production Committee I look forward to receiving this bill in the committee so that we can apply our usual excellent and close scrutiny of it.
National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7464] 
National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 5 March. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As there is only a reply to come and the person is not present we come to the vote. The question is that this bill be now read a first time. 
Motion not agreed to.
Duncan Helen: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Duncan Helen: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14680] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
:  
I am pleased to have the opportunity to support this bill. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) is timely. It provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system and that really needs to happen. The Primary Production Committee has done an excellent job and we look forward to better management of our quota fisheries.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20592] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Question agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19714] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 4. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for Standing Order 4 to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is.
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5741] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I have a feeling that that is so. Perhaps we could continue on and we could come back to this after taking some advice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We will continue on and we will check that out.
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11134] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Power Simon: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21581] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. During the points of order about this matter Mr Copeland raised a very interesting point which was that the matter raised by Mr Donald by way of comparison was to draw an analogy with oral questions being signed by another member of Parliament. Mr Copeland’s contribution to the debate was quite right when he referred to Standing Order 365 which specifically makes provision at 365(1)(a) for oral questions to be signed by a member or by another member on that member’s behalf. In other words there is an express an explicit authorisation for another member with the consent of the member lodging the question or the moving member to do that on his or her behalf. No such explicit reference to another member signing on behalf of a mover in respect of an amendment exists under Standing Order 120. One of those Standing Orders relating to oral questions clearly makes provision for another member to sign on behalf of a member; Standing Order 120 makes no such allowance expressly or impliedly. Although I certainly do not want to question your ruling is it now the case that Standing Order 120 is amended by a Speaker’s ruling so that a member with another member’s consent may actually sign an amendment moved by the original member?
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7829] 
7.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: What reports has he received on walking access to rivers lakes the coastline and other parts of New Zealand’s countryside? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 Yesterday the land access reference group chairman John Acland and I issued the group’s report  
Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors 
. It is an excellent report and I recommend that members read it carefully. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What is the Government doing with that report? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The report is now available for people to read and make their views known. The Government is consulting people for the next 4 months. We are not pre-judging that consultation. No decisions have been made on this issue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister for Land Information in foreshadowing the release of this report said that significant chunks of foreshore were in private ownership amounting to hundreds of kilometres and that one-third of our beaches were privately owned where might I find that particular fact in those 111 pages? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: This report is not about ownership. I understand that Mr Tamihere’s department is still carrying out work on ownership. 
Dail Jones 
: Bearing in mind that chapter 9 on page 72 of the report indicates that the Acland group has not identified a demand for “as of right” access what is the point in continuing with any further discussion on the matter if there is no demand for it? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The group also found that there is a very strong commitment by the New Zealand public to the principle and practice of the Queen’s Chain. I suggest that the member read the report carefully. He will find much that is worth pursuing in it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister seen the case of the Pakeha multimillionaire toilet paper magnate John Spencer who has blocked walking access to beautiful Cactus Bay on Waiheke Island and what steps will the Government take to ensure that all New Zealanders both Pakeha and tangata whenua can have legal access to the brilliant white sand and azure waters of this national taonga? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: As I have just mentioned the Government has not made decisions. We will not presume the outcome of the next 4 months of consultation with the public.