edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Duynhoven Harry: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19907] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I assure Mr Power that I would have immediately taken the call had he not risen to seek leave and used some time in the Chamber. 
The Hon Maurice Williamson has made a very good contribution and I thank him for his offer of cooperation. I am aware that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee debated the issue of clause 51(a) and with the officials agreed initially that it was probably not needed in the bill and should be struck out. However the New Zealand Railways Corporation has sought the reintroduction of this enabling provision in the rule-making powers to enable better management of the network and to ensure that the overall management of the network can be thoroughly achieved. It is an enabling provision. It allows for changes to be made as needed. It may be that for a period parts of the network shall be controlled in some way—restricted due to operational requirements or other matters perhaps. They may even be the sorts of matters that Mr Brown raised a while back about track maintenance. For whatever reason the New Zealand Railways Corporation which owns the tracks as the former Minister will be aware has asked for this clause to be re-included. The officials having heard the case have recommended that that is the case. That is why the clause is back on the Supplementary Order Paper.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13045] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 199 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) of subclause (2) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(b)the number and nature of complaints and inquiries made by the victims of prisoners at the prison the nature of those complaints and inquiries and what action was taken to address those matters:”.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6308] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Simich Clem: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3757] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A further amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 10(2)(a)(x) is out of order. It is the same in substance as one that the Committee has already agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to:  
to omit subparagraph (ii) from subclause (2)(b).
Peters Winston: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Peters Winston: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14317] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The reality is that there was no voice vote in favour of the Ayes and there was an Opposition vote in respect of the Noes. That member then asked—and Dr Cullen has got himself into a real fix now—for a party vote and he was denied it. The only thing that possibly can stand now is the “No” vote from the Greens.
Hunt Jonathan: Privilege — Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
Hunt Jonathan: Privilege — Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
[Volume:617;Page:13051] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received notice of an application for orders and declaration sought by Mr Darryl Bruce Queen in the High Court Christchurch. The application amongst other things seeks orders against the Justice and Electoral Committee in its consideration of the Care of Children Bill. The application involves a question of privilege in that it asks a court to direct a select committee with regard to its consideration of business. The question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee. In the meantime I will be applying to the court to have those parts of the application struck out.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19321] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member cannot refer to the absence of members. If the member had asked his shadow Leader of the House who is a member of the Business Committee he would know that there are people away at select committees today who are counted as being present for the purposes of voting. He cannot refer to the absence of members otherwise I shall keep referring to the absence of most of the members of the Opposition. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a valid point of order.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6895] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 6(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b)(v) of section 2(1) from the definition of  
goods 
.
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
[Volume:619;Page:14593] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a hypothetical point of order in this kind of instance. Perhaps a Minister who has been accused of giving an incorrect answer comes to the House and seeks leave to make a personal explanation to correct the answer and the leave is denied. I assume that then no question of privilege could apply in that the Minister had sought to correct that answer at the first opportunity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course. It would then be for the Minister to write to me.
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4589] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Chair is not creating any precedent whatsoever. This is the normal course and has been for quite a considerable time. I take the opportunity now to recognise that both members have made a contribution. I have heard what they had to say and I will take it into consideration.
Tisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12271] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 At nearly midnight we are discussing one of the most important pieces of legislation on our national security. This legislation was first introduced in 2002. In fact the bill was introduced to the House on 12 November 2002 and referred to the Law and Order Committee on 18 February 2003. Over a year later and at this hour at night we are discussing very very important legislation about our national security. Other countries have taken national security seriously. For example Australia has the Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1997. The United Kingdom has the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. What is happening in New Zealand? Here were are in 2004 and this legislation is being debated under urgency at midnight. That is an insult. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m (Thursday).
Peck Mark: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
Peck Mark: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10755] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 Unfortunately we always hear stories from the Opposition about how this country’s economic credibility will be damaged by one or other of the measuresthe Government has pursued in the last 4 years. Of course that has not been the case but the member does raise a number of important issues and they are issues that the select committee will need to deal with. One in particular is about the flexibility that Ministers will have under this new regime. 
Can I remind the House too that this is the first significant change in 10 years to the way the State sector operates. Indeed it has come about from a thorough review of the way the State sector has worked and a need to unleash the talents not only of Ministers but also of senior managers within the State sector so that they can get on and do the job. It is a bit silly for Ministers to have to be constrained in what they can do on occasions when there is work that obviously needs to be done as a result of the way things are changing along the way. They should be able to do it. 
Within the bill—and this is specifically addressing Dr Lockwood Smith’s point about accountability functions—there is a responsibility on Ministers to report serious breaches to Parliament. That provides Parliament with the level of certainty and accountability around the use of the flexibility provisions to be built in that will see the Government and State sector management being able to get on with the job of delivering social services in a much more modern way in New Zealand. 
I am sure the select committee will deal with a number of the other issues that have been raised in the debate. I think it is a good bill and I hope the House will very quickly pass it through its stages.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6308] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 93 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 66 be agreed to.
Simich Clem: Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Simich Clem: Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11578] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It will be taken as a single debate.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:611;Page:8103] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Nandor Tanczos to be a member of the Law and Order Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15261] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Fisheries Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4039] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This is actually quite an interesting issue and not one that I hope we will deal with on a partisan basis. It raises quite an important issue in terms of the way bills are dealt with. My understanding is that the member in his speech did not refer to a specific select committee—which might well be regarded as an oversight. He should have referred to a specific select committee. Indeed had he done so in that speech then I think that the point raised by Mr Sowry would be absolutely correct. If he referred to the bill going to a select committee in his speech then clearly the motion would have to be to refer it to that select committee or leave would be required to change that motion. However he did not do so and raised a point of order. It is rather interesting as to whether a statement made in a point of order has the same binding quality as a statement made in the original speech. That raises a further question about whether it is permissible in any case for an amendment to be moved to the motion to refer a bill to a select committee. In other words should you rule that the member has to refer the bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—if the motion is that—presumably it is within the competence of another member to move an amendment that the bill be referred to a different select committee.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21576] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: An amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 20 to omit and substitute an expression in subclause (1)(a) is out of order because it is inconsistent with decisions that have already been made. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 32 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraphs: 
(i)compile and maintain a full and correct record of all land business and building sales to foreign investors. 
(j)report annually on the extent of foreign ownership in New Zealand.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17938] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 6 be agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20669] 
11.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What standards of ministerial behaviour have she and her Government set in light of her statement “New Zealanders should be able to look to their government for a lead on standards of behaviour and accountability.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Ministers are required to be hard-working and conscientious. 
Rodney Hide 
: What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for the growing tally of scandals in her Government from John Tamihere rubbishing her her Ministers and her policies to the 111 scandal her covert knifing of a former Commissioner of Police Peter Doone the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) debacle and now one of her Ministers publicly being called a liar for his answers in Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously one would take exception to a number of the statements in that question. But what is becoming a mounting tally is the member’s baseless smear attacks on a whole range of people. No wonder his party is turning to John Banks to be the leader! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister think the handling of the 111 crisis by George Hawkins of the NCEA scholarship debacle by Trevor Mallard and of the Te Wananga o Aotearoa excesses by Steve Maharey or her own misleading of the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 with the off-the-record comments on the Doone case are exhibits of hard-working and conscientious behaviour and show leading standards of behaviour and accountability?  
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That question also contains a number of statements that are not true. I am satisfied that when Ministers in this Government have problems identified they fix them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What confidence can New Zealanders have in her administration when over 25 percent of her Ministers since 2000 have been sacked suspended or removed from Cabinet under a cloud and I cite Phillida Bunkle and Marian Hobbs on expense claims; Ruth Dyson drunk in charge of a motor vehicle; Lianne Dalziel deliberate deception; Dover Samuels; John Tamihere taking a golden handshake when he said he would not; Tariana Turia for desertion; and David Benson-Pope—does the Prime Minister accept that she has a recruitment a retention and a quality problem? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Had the same standards been applied to Denis Marshall Murray McCully John Banks Tau Henare and numerous others the tally would have been even bigger under previous Governments.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4137] 
10.  
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: When was he first advised of the proposed merger between the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and what opportunity if any did he have to contribute to that decision-making process? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 There is currently no proposed merger between the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Youth Affairs. As a sensible savvy and responsible Government we are constantly looking at ways of ensuring that the public service works efficiently and effectively and my colleague the Minister of State Services announced last week that the Ministry of Youth Affairs will be examined as part of the review of the centre programme. 
Simon Power 
: What faith does he have that youth issues will be adequately realised if the proposed merger goes ahead when he has recently stated: “It’s clear that our potentials can never be realised or released by an all-knowing all-caring centralised bureaucracy called the Ministry of Social Development.”? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: A great deal of faith. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What benefits if any are there for young New Zealanders that he can see in the process currently being undertaken? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The Labour Party’s 2002 election manifesto stated that Labour will investigate whether the strategy  
Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa  
can be more effectively monitored within a separate ministry or whether youth affairs should become a semi-autonomous division of the Ministry of Social Development. We live by our manifesto and our election promises. 
Craig McNair 
: Is the Minister prepared to allow the process of merger to proceed with all its inevitable costs in time and money simply in order to have himself muzzled or is it nothing more than a case of his being a lion in the media and a lamb in Cabinet? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: It has a lot to do with being a lion I think. 
Paul Adams 
: Taking into consideration Phil Goff’s comments in 1996 that the youth affairs portfolio used to take only a couple of hours a week of his time is the Cabinet post of Minister of Youth Affairs likely to be abolished once the Ministry of Youth Affairs and the Ministry of Social Development have merged in an effort to cut back the over-inflated executive? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: At this particular point in time no. 
Simon Power 
: Is he concerned that he will become part of the “bureaucratic tribe” if the Ministry of Youth Affairs is swallowed by the Ministry of Social Development when he has previously stated: “It’s all about patch protection and empire building. When they get into their bureaucratic tribe their tribalism comes out.”; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:20353] 
Sittings of the House 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 In view of the fact that we are only half a minute away from the House rising I seek leave for the House to lift early rather than to interrupt the start of the next bill. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is their any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17103] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It has been ruled on a number of occasions by previous Speakers and Chairs that the integrity of the voting cannot be questioned in the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that all members are honourable members. Their word is their bond and if it is found to be otherwise they will suffer the consequences. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 61 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Horomia Parekura: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Horomia Parekura: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:4995] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 In relation to the translation this dictum here has a whole lot of different versions around single words. In relation to the language this Government is not shying away from its treaty responsibility. Can I say quite clearly—alluding to the lengthy period of time—that this Government has started. I have a chronological date dating back 40 years ago from the 1960s and 1970s to when that party in 1991 went through this thing and did nothing. I am proud to be the Minister of Maori Affairs and to be getting towards the end point. 
I refer members to the preamble. Members may have different views on whether we should have a preamble or what the preamble might state. However the preamble records and acknowledges past endeavours and events that have led to this bill now being before the Committee. The preamble refers to the Waitangi Tribunal  
Te Reo Maori 
 report and the litigation in the early 1990s first in the New Zealand courts and then the Privy Council in which the Crown gave undertakings at that time concerning the development of Maori television. This bill will bring those commitments of more than several years ago into being.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:609;Page:6919] 
Tuesday 1 July 2003 
( 
continued on Thursday 3 July 2003 
) 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This might be a convenient time for me to seek leave for a valedictory statement by Graham Kelly to be set down for 5.30 p.m. on 22 July. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. It will appear on the Order Paper.
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5475] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Just to make it clear this would cause the last 5-minute speaker to be dropped from the speaking list. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will move on.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10506] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: I seek leave to table a report from the chief executive of Transfund in which he makes clear that the bulk of Transfund’s $225 million excess this year arises from projects that cannot progress because— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Pettis Jill: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20176] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a very brief call on this bill. The debate this afternoon has been interesting and very constructive but I do want to point out to the House that since the Accident Compensation Corporation regained its monopoly it has reduced levies. Accident compensation is an area that sometimes attracts a lot of misinformation in the reporting of it. I do not know why Opposition members want to put out incorrectly worded press statements but never mind; that is their wont. The average composite levy now stands at $1.21 which means that under the system in New Zealand it is still less than half the cost of the average levy in the Australian private system. So our accident compensation levies are very attractive compared with those of our nearest neighbours. Of course we did not suffer the dreadful situation caused by the collapse of HIH in Australia which left many people uninsured. Many of us remember the disaster that befell many innocent people in Australia upon the collapse of that company. So competition privatisation is not always able to deliver the nirvana that some people like to promise. 
This is a good bill. It is the third accident compensation bill since Labour has been the Government and we continue to make excellent progress.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:614;Page:10362] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I see that the Minister of Justice to whom this question is addressed is not available in the House today. I know how much he enjoys answering my questions in the House. I seek leave to have this question deferred until he is present. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to have this question deferred. Is there any objection? There is.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18464] 
9.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports about the strength of New Zealand capital markets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. According to the World Federation of Exchanges the New Zealand Stock Exchange recorded the second-highest percentage increase in new listings last year. That of course is in addition to the substantial growth in the New Zealand Stock Exchange index during that year. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What does the high level of new listings indicate about the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It reflects the very welcome strengthening and deepening of capital markets in New Zealand over the last few years. Major contributors to that include the strength of the economy the build-up of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the strong leadership of the New Zealand Stock Exchange itself. 
John Key 
: Did the Minister read the report  
Economic Indicators  
2005 before he put out his press statement praising it last week; if he did why is he supporting a report that on page 51 said: “The development of the New Zealand stock market appears to have lagged somewhat.”—a statement that seems at odds with what he has just told the House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the report—if I can also wave it back at the member—is somewhat out of date in that particular— 
John Key 
: You put it out last week. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He has the same elastic problem as Mr Smith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot refer to me like that. He will stand withdraw and apologise. 
John Key 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do think members of the Opposition should stop using Soviet-era underwear. It appears to be affecting them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not in order either. I ask the Minister to withdraw that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw that underwear and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. The weakness in New Zealand’s capital markets has been a feature since— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that when a member is asked to withdraw and apologise no accompanying comment is to be made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is why I asked him to do it again and he did. 
Simon Power 
: I did not hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did and the member will be seated. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The weakness in New Zealand’s capital markets since the crash of 1987 has been a great feature of this economy. The recent growth has been very recent and is due as I said in large part to the emergence of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to the strength of the economy but also—and it is not a matter of Government responsibility—to the strength of the leadership of the New Zealand Stock Exchange itself over recent times.
Hartley Ann: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18731] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am ready to rule on the point of order. I heard the debate. There are three things that I want to say. It is the Chairperson’s absolute right to call on a member to interpret. He or she is perfectly entitled to do that and a member’s word in the House is to be taken. But the most important thing about this matter is that there is no translator in the House. There is an interpreter. The interpreter is here to interpret words used by members in the course of a debate not to give definitive translations of the texts of bills. If members are not satisfied with the words in a Minister’s amendments they should vote against them. The interpreter is an official of this House not a person to be brought into the debate. Where a Minister has an amendment questions about the amendment should be addressed to the Minister. What I would say though is that in future it would be helpful if Ministers in moving an amendment on a Supplementary Order Paper included the translation in the explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper. Had that been done I do not think that this issue would have arisen.
Pettis Jill: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8277] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Dail: Motions — Terrorism Suppression Act—Referral of Provisions to Foreign Affairs  Defence and Trade Committee 
Jones Dail: Motions — Terrorism Suppression Act—Referral of Provisions to Foreign Affairs  Defence and Trade Committee 
[Volume:423;Page:18559] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this motion. I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I look forward to— 
Simon Power 
: A hard-working and diligent member. 
DAIL JONES 
: Thank you very much. I will spend as much time as is absolutely necessary to give the fullest consideration to this motion at the select committee. New Zealand First is a non-aligned party in this Parliament and of course we never support the Government on a motion of confidence unlike the National Party which did support the Government on a motion of confidence just the other day. 
Simon Power 
: Rubbish! 
DAIL JONES 
: The National Party did support the Government. 
Simon Power 
: Where was the amendment? 
DAIL JONES 
: We had an amendment. [ 
Interruption 
] We tabled an amendment and the National Party supported the Government on a motion of confidence. New Zealand First was the only party to oppose the Government on that motion of confidence. Every other party in the House supported the Government so we are the only non-aligned party in this Parliament. We never support the Government on a motion of confidence. 
Simon Power 
: What was that member doing in 1980? 
DAIL JONES 
: A lot more than that member was doing probably. Anyway I do not want to waste the time of this House. 
This is a fairly simple motion. New Zealand First will have a close look at it at the select committee and in due course we will report back to the House.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Hunt Jonathan: 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:9999] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I need no further assistance. The member will please be seated while I am standing or he will leave. I am not having any nonsense on this. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 54/2 which is quite specific. It goes back to 1931 to Speaker Statham and states: “The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not he ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion and it must be left entirely in his”—or her—“hands. The [chairperson] who has been presiding and has listened to the debate in committee must be the best judge whether the closure ought to be put. I can only express the hope that it will not be applied too harshly.” I listened to the member and I heard the debate over the radio. I heard him say that Part 3 was not as wide as Part 2 and I note that point. I uphold the rule of the Chairperson and that is where the matter ends.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12444] 
11.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How does she justify her reported acceptance of a Minister abstaining from voting for a Government bill in light of paragraph 3.24 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 that states “ ‘Agree to disagree’ processes may only be used in relation to different party positions. Any public dissociation from Cabinet decisions by individual Ministers outside the agreed processes is unacceptable.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
:  
It is for me as Prime Minister to determine the boundaries for ministerial behaviour. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister is saying that it is acceptable for her to have one law for Maori ministers and another law for others? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The ethnicity of Ministers is irrelevant in this matter. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Prime Minister not agree that the  
Cabinet Manual 
 makes no distinction between a Minister abstaining on legislation and a Minister voting against legislation and that being so is the real reason for the Prime Minister’s new tough stance on the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs that she has determined that her Government will be more popular if she gets rid of that Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The  
Cabinet Manual 
 is not a statute and it is not a set of laws. It is a set of expectations and they of course change from time to time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister and her executive abide only by the rules and regulations of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 that suit their purposes and ignore all of those that do not; and what can New Zealanders really expect from a Prime Minister who so flagrantly disregards a document that is well considered to be part of the constitutional arrangements of this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In some aspects the  
Cabinet Manual 
 does indeed set down hard and fast constitutional rules—this is not one of them. It is as I said a set of expectations and those are revised from time to time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Are we now to believe from the Prime Minister that the concept of Cabinet collective responsibility is not core and central to the constitution and democracy of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No not at all. But I have drawn a distinction between active opposition as evidenced by crossing the floor and an abstention which by its nature is more passive.
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Vote: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:609;Page:6238] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Motion agreed to.
Hutchison Paul: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9532] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is getting close to the midnight run for sure. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: It’s fantastic to have you here. Great speaker from the National Party! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I failed to hear what the member said. There was a considerable amount of verbal—I note it is getting late. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I just said it’s fantastic to have you here. Great speaker from National! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The member is recognising the clarity and excellence of this speech and it will be directed towards the Minister of Justice who in dealing with this bill has miserably failed the parliamentary process. I called for him to make an explanation why a bill so sensitive and so important as this where there has been cross-party collaboration has been brought in by him 3 years later under urgency and without any explanation. That is clearly an abuse of parliamentary process and it has been carried out by of all people the Minister of Justice! He has failed to explain why he has done that and I would call on him to do precisely that. As Mr Franks pointed out just a few moments ago this is the third time in the last 24 or 48 hours where this Labour Government has just continued to abuse process. 
It was absolutely fascinating to see that commentary which was influenced so much by Judy Keall who used to be here. She said: “Occasionally Government departments will propose substantive and significant changes to bills after select committees have finished hearing submissions. We disapprove of that practice.” Here we have this crucially important bill dealing with— 
Ron Mark 
: Who said that? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is in the commentary of the select committee on this very bill. Here we are 3 years later and none other than the Minister of Justice of this tawdry Labour Government abuses the process. 
Sitting suspended from midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs House of Representatives 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs House of Representatives 
[Volume:617;Page:12539] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that members of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs from the House of Representatives of Australia led by the chairperson the Hon Bronwyn Bishop MP are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish the committee be welcomed.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11374] 
6.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Biosecurity 
: What recent progress has been made to protect New Zealand’s marine environment from incursions of exotic marine pests? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 An international convention has just been adopted and it will require ships to cleanse their ballast with mid-ocean water while en route to another country. One ship’s ballast water can carry 300 species or more and uncleansed it exposes New Zealand to the potentially devastating effects of exotic marine pests. New Zealand has been involved from the outset in efforts to find an international solution to that international problem and has provided research and ideas leading directly to the adoption of the convention. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister explain how New Zealand has managed the problem of ballast water up until now? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: New Zealand already requires visiting ships to exchange ballast water before discharging in our ports. MAF Biosecurity checks over 3000 international vessels a year refusing permission for ships to discharge untreated ballast. However the new convention will strengthen the ability of Government agencies to enforce that obligation.
Hartley Ann: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Hartley Ann: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11760] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will not let this go on. This is not a debate about the closure motion; members know quite well that they cannot debate that. I will put the motion.
Carter Chris: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8731] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21167] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 78 
Adams  
Eckhoff(P) 
Mark   
Smith N (P) 
Anderton(P) 
English(P) 
McCully(P) 
Stewart  
Ardern(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
McNair   
Swain(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
O'Connor   
Tamihere  
Barker(P) 
Franks(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Gallagher   
Okeroa(P) 
Tisch  
Beyer(P) 
Goff(P) 
Paraone   
Turia(P) 
Brown(P) 
Gosche   
Parker(P) 
Turner  
Brownlee(P) 
Goudie   
Peck(P) 
Ward(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gudgeon   
Perry   
Williamson(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley   
Peters J 
Wong  
Carter J (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Peters W 
Woolerton  
Catchpole  
Hughes   
Pillay   
Worth(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Jones   
Power(P) 
Yates 
Clark(P) 
Key(P) 
Ririnui   
Collins(P) 
King(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Copeland  
Laban(P) 
Robson   
Cosgrove  
Mackey M 
Ryall   
Cunliffe(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Samuels   
Donnelly  
Mahuta   
Scott(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
Mapp   
Smith M (P) 
Pettis  
Noes 41 
Alexander  
Dyson(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard  
Barnett  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Newman(P) 
Turei(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Hawkins  
Prebble(P) 
Wang  
Brash(P) 
Hereora  
Rich(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hide(P) 
Roy  
Coddington  
Hobbs(P) 
Shirley   
Connell(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Simich(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Dalziel  
Hutchison(P) 
Soper   
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Duncan  
Locke  
Sutton(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Mackey J 
Tanczos   
Carter D 
Abstentions 1 
Fairbrother (P) 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.referred to Law and Order Committee
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20196] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; 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 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to recital (32) in the preamble be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13025] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 70 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 70.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7307] 
12.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What is being done to promote mountain biking on conservation land? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Lots! My department is working in partnership with mountain bikers to create exciting opportunities on conservation land. The Prime Minister and I recently opened a premier mountain-bike route in the Kahurangi National Park. A host of routes are available in Otago including the 150 kilometre - long Otago Central rail trail. 
David Parker 
: Is mountain biking permitted in national parks? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Mountain biking is permitted in national parks but only on formed roads. This rule is set by the national parks general policy and approved by the Conservation Authority. The public will be consulted on the issue when the policy is reviewed.
Goudie Sandra: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15647] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 dated 23 November 2003 titled “Fisheries’ can of worms”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought to do that. Is there any objection? There is.
Hide Rodney: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
Hide Rodney: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
[Volume:626;Page:21039] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a quick one. Your letter to me did state—and I am asking you when you consider my colleague Mr Franks’ point of order—that you were prepared to look at any material that may be put before you in future in regard to that matter and I suspect that that means further evidence. You will appreciate that I thought my evidence was all right but I accept your ruling that it was not. I do know that the gentlemen concerned are making statements to the police. Would those statements to the police be of interest to you or is there a problem because they are statements for the court?
Visitors — Spain—Speaker of the Senate of the Parliament of Spain 
Visitors — Spain—Speaker of the Senate of the Parliament of Spain 
[Volume:627;Page:21947] 
Tuesday 26 July 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Spain—Speaker of the Senate of the Parliament of Spain 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Francisco Javier Rojo Speaker of the Senate of the Parliament of Spain is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Francisco Javier Rojo accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
I also wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18529] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell Mr Hide that he has just stepped over the boundary. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will please leave the Chamber or he will be named. 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.