edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
[Volume:620;Page:15735] 
Points of Order 
Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it with you in relation to questions for written answer No. 12723 and Nos. 12732 to 12805 inclusive. In all those cases I have asked written questions of Ministers to indicate the number of employees in each Crown entity State-owned enterprise and department of State for which they hold ministerial responsibility. In each case I have received an identical response—now 29 in number—that indicates I should go to the organisation’s annual report seek the information through its financial review process or wait for the State Services Commission’s human resources survey that will come out later in the year. In relation to each of the processes nominated in the answer there is the delay of at least weeks and potentially of months. 
I put it to you that if that standard of answer is acceptable in response to a question that simply seeks without any great difficulty a factual answer as to the number of employees in each entity for which those Ministers hold accountability then we will have a very poor time in holding Ministers accountable in this House. There was one answer only with a direct response in terms of the number of employees in each entity for which ministerial or similar responsibility was held. That was the answer you gave as Speaker and therefore as the person responsible for the Parliamentary Service Commission the Office of the Ombudsmen and one or two other entities. I would like you to look at the adequacy of the other answers and to give your serious consideration to whether the Ministers concerned should be directed to give more fulsome and helpful responses than has been the case. In essence I ask you to direct Ministers of the Crown to meet the exemplary standards set by your good self in responding to questions from members of this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course I answer on my behalf and not on anyone else’s. The member has written to me. I am still looking at the matter and he will get his response.
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16064] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish to draw your attention and members’ attention to the structure of this bill and compare it to the last bill. In the last Committee stage debate we spent 4¼ hours debating the Holidays Amendment Bill which has a total of 13 clauses. If we think of the ratio of time per clause we note that it is nearly a quarter of an hour per clause. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: So what is the point of order? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: In this bill the current bill there are 117 clauses in Part 1. One reason why there are 117 clauses is that some of the clauses adopt up to 10 or more provisions. They cover a huge range of issues. On top of that there are three Supplementary Order Papers from the Minister plus numerous other Supplementary Order Papers and amendments. My point Mr Chairperson is that we in Opposition expect yourself and subsequent Chairpersons to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to discuss the range and breadth of issues contained in this important legislation. The Government referred to the previous legislation as unintended consequences. In contrast this is a major piece legislation and we expect a full hearing on it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes the member has made his point. I inform the member that Chairpersons take into account a number of issues when considering debate. In fact we are guided by Standing Order 102. I take on board what the member has said and every consideration will be given. I now seek the call.
Pillay Lynne: Third Readings 
Pillay Lynne: Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6925] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: This is good legislation and I am pleased to support it.
Prebble Richard: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4939] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I was not thinking of participating in this Committee stage but I do so to say that the ACT party most certainly will not support the Greens’ suggestions that this is not a full and final settlement. I tell the previous National speaker that it is a fond hope that it is a full and final settlement. The reason I say that is that for parts of the land involved this is the fourth settlement. I know it is fashionable to say that our predecessors never tried to settle anything. That is just not true. Parliament itself passed settlement Acts that in today’s dollars were more generous than what we are doing today. Three different commissions have been involved—two in the 1880s and one the Sim Commission in the 1820s. If members read the reports of those commissions they will find they are a great deal better than those of the Waitangi Tribunal which has that caused a great deal of offence by rewriting history and describing things as a holocaust. Well it is regrettable. What happened was wrong but it was not a holocaust. In that sense I tell the member from the Green Party that I think the bulk of New Zealanders both Maori and non-Maori do want to settle Waitangi claims. They do want to put those things—to use Helen Clark’s favourite phrase—behind us and move on. In doing so the ACT party supports this bill even though it has some reservations about the process that has been gone through. We too would like to see reconciliation in Taranaki. 
It is regrettable that the Minister has not taken a call to assure the Committee that in fact the settlement is fair and that those Maori groups that have complained have been treated correctly. I was not a member of the Maori Affairs Committee but I would have expected the Minister on an important treaty claim to address those issues and answer them. I notice that the Greens put in a minority report on that matter then basically did not speak to it. 
Hon Member 
: Yes we did. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No the Greens did not speak to the question of whether they thought the objections being raised by hapu in Taranaki do have merit. In fact what the Greens appear to me to be saying is the worst sort of politics. They just wave a green flag at it without making a decision one way or another. I tell the Minister that I am relying on the committee and the Crown to have acted properly because my party was not represented on the select committee. I would like to hear an assurance from the Minister in this Committee that this is a fair settlement a full settlement and a final settlement.
Turei Metiria: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5030] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I would like to run through three further amendments that we are putting up on Part 2. These amendments are amendments to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 77 in which there are provisions relating to the UHF right and the potential to lease or to transfer that right to third parties. 
The primary changes we are suggesting are to replace the words “principal function” with the words “functions as set out in section 8” and those changes are to clause 28B and clause 28C(4) on the Supplementary Order Paper. In addition in clause 28D(1) we are adding the words: “to be used in fulfilling the functions as set out in section 8.” The purpose is to ensure that if the UHF right is leased to some third party because the Maori Television Service is no longer using it—because it no longer needs it or has closed down or for whatever reason—it gets used for the purpose of promoting te reo and tikanga Maori and also that the delivery of those services is also an obligation on that third party. 
Clause 8 sets out the functions of the service and subclause (1) describes the principal function of the service as being to promote te reo and tikanga Maori. That is the phrase that is used throughout the Supplementary Order Paper. We are seeking to change that so that the further functions that are set out in clause 8(2) are also included as part of the obligation on any third party. These amendments put a brake in our view on any third party who intends to acquire the spectrum and provide only the minimal amount of te reo and tikanga in content and only the minimal amount of service delivery to the New Zealand public. 
Progress reported.
Dyson Ruth: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Dyson Ruth: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17613] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17098] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15720] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Brent Catchpole to be a member of the Government Administration Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Building 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.
Chadwick Steve: Visiting Forces Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Visiting Forces Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10256] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. In the 64 years since the Visiting Forces Act was first passed many gaps have emerged that international instruments do not really resolve. I am glad that this bill is bringing us into line with international law. I am very pleased to support this bill today.
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18734] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is right. That is what I was suggesting quite some time ago and I realise that we are going to get on with it. I say to Mr Franks that the interpreter is there to give an oral version in English of words that have been uttered orally in Maori. Members may well say that that is exactly what Mr Brownlee did but that is not what he did. Mr Brownlee read out—very well—what he had in front of him and there is a distinction there. 
Members are effectively asking the interpreter to give evidence to the Committee. He cannot do so any more than the Clerk can. If members do not like the Maori text they can move amendments to it but they cannot ask the interpreter to second-guess a member’s statement. There will always be variations when we are dealing with that sort of thing. Can we move on now please?
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7955] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 88 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9. 
Noes 29 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7802] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except Nandor Tanczos”.
Dyson Ruth: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13381] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee.
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4596] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Chairman—
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Home Detention—Review of Scheme 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Home Detention—Review of Scheme 
[Volume:618;Page:13927] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Marc Alexander seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 an announcement that the Government is to review the home detention scheme. This is merely an announcement of review. It does not contain any substantive policy changes. In those circumstances I do not believe there is a particular case of recent occurrence requiring the immediate attention of the House. The application is therefore declined.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8947] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to add new subsection (3) to new section 38D in clause 18 be agreed to.
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8810] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I would like to support the views that have been offered to you in connection with the clear understanding of the parties that this would be a part by part debate which has the consequence that Mr Prebble has referred to. In the world of choices where there are choices you should prefer the choice that permits the greatest possible debating time on what are clearly significant issues.
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:9525] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that the bill be taken as one question in the Committee stage and that there be one wide-ranging debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought by Mr Tisch. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8778] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sure everyone is aware of what is at stake here. There is only one decision the Speaker can make and that is to deal with the leave that has been sought. I am sure both sides know what will happen if it goes one way or the other. Leave has been sought by Tim Barnett.
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4502] 
2.  
Hon MURRAY MCCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Privileges Committee 
: Has a meeting of the Privileges Committee been set to consider the question of privilege in relation to an allegation that New Zealand Post Limited breached privilege in certain responses to questions at hearings being conducted by the Finance and Expenditure Committee? 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee) 
: 
 The Privileges Committee will meet next on Thursday 10 April 2003. The question of privilege referred on 28 February 2002 through the Speaker in relation to information given by New Zealand Post Ltd to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be among the questions of privilege to be considered.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15785] 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps is he taking if any to protect the interests of New Zealand stakeholders over the sale of Powerco to overseas buyers? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: New Zealand’s regulatory framework through the Takeovers Code the Companies Act and the Overseas Investment Act protects the interest of New Zealand stakeholders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does the Minister reconcile that statement with those made by Brian Gaynor business analyst who said of the Powerco deal: “We really don’t know the full details of the deal that the council has cut.” and just who will benefit out of yet another sale of a valuable New Zealand - owned energy asset—in this case for a substantial amount of junk bonds? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: It is not for me to reconcile the statements made by Mr Brian Gaynor as to whether this is a good deal. That is a matter between willing buyers and willing sellers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the Minister of Finance himself is the Minister in charge of the Overseas Investment Commission is he satisfied that from 20 September to 30 September 2004 $131 million worth of shares were traded and reportedly bought by overseas speculators who shortly are expected to flick them off to Prime Infrastructure for a quick profit at the expense of the New Zealand stakeholders? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Minister is the Minister responsible for the Overseas Investment Commission. He does not however personally monitor all sales of shares. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What will it take for the Minister to give some clarification to the Powerco appeal and where does he think his responsibilities lie in respect of yet another appalling sale of a valuable New Zealand asset whereby overseas interests will benefit hugely and the stakeholders and the people of this country lose significantly? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Minister’s responsibility is to ensure that the law is in good shape to enable the free stakeholders of New Zealand to protect their own interests. I believe that is correct.
Barker Rick: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18053] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 That member spoke so brilliantly that he has worn me down. I accept that the bill should be supported by this House and I commend it to every member. 
Bill read a first time.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 With regard to the discussion yesterday in the Business Committee and subsequent information I seek leave for the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill to be set down for their remaining stages tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Peck Mark: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peck Mark: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15401] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 One of the things I will miss about the House is following that member’s speeches. He is always good copy. Let me tell him a little bit about laundry allowances. I think he was the Minister whose plane dropped 20000 feet and he had to do something about some underwear. On that occasion he probably felt like having a laundry allowance. He was also the man who was going to save coastal shipping. He saved it—there is none left. I will miss him. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Your guys were going to repeal it as your first move. 
MARK PECK 
: Well we have other things to do like fixing the Holidays Act. This is good legislation. It does tidy up some unintended consequences. I want to congratulate the Minister on listening and getting it right. I say to the member who quoted eminent lawyers in his speech that one of the things about the legal profession is that sometimes one is on the prosecuting side and at other times one is on the defending side and by definition one is wrong half the time. So we can leave it up to members of Parliament to get this legislation right. 
There are two things I want to say. Can members on the Government side of the House tell me how long the Australians have had 4 weeks’ annual leave? 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Thirty years. 
MARK PECK 
: It has existed in Australia for 30 years. We have not had it in New Zealand and National would take it away. That is OK. But it is not only that. National would take Christmas Day away as well. It has never repealed Max Bradford’s policy that workers should not have their Christmas Day. So that is OK. Those characters on the front bench on the other side of the House are going to take them all away and let workers work all the time. I suppose they call that “flexibility”. 
I think the select committee has a lot to work through in this legislation. I say to the member who moved the resolution to send it to the Commerce Committee that I noted one member wanted to save rail and one wanted to save coastal shipping so I think we should send it to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and let it deal with it. It is a good bill and I recommend it to the House.
Locke Keith: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7340] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill. It is important that the International Criminal Court—a very important international institution that other speakers have mentioned—is able to function freely without any restraints on the judges witnesses and others who are granted immunity under the provisions of this bill. It is important that the international community and New Zealand does advocate that there are no restraints whatsoever on the functioning of the International Criminal Court. Unfortunately one nation—the most powerful in the world—is restraining the functioning of this International Criminal Court very substantially. Of course that country is the United States. 
Peter Dunne referred to the problems with the application of justice by the United States and unfortunately it is not putting itself under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It has not signed or ratified the Rome treaty but even worse it is going around the world trying to force other Governments to sign up to agreements with the United States so that United States citizens members of the United States armed forces are not under the jurisdiction of the court and that those countries agree not to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court in terms of the prosecution of such United States citizens even when they are deemed to have offended the provisions of the court in relation to such things as crimes against humanity or war crimes. They will not be brought to justice. 
It is unfortunate that under the provisions of this bill we will see judges coming in to try cases and having the immunity to try those cases free of interference. There will be the witnesses and all those other people who are given immunity under this bill. But in several countries not New Zealand the defendant—if he or she is a United States citizen—may not show up because of the article 98 agreements that the United States Government is signing with these particular countries. 
It may be said: “Oh well we don’t really need to worry about the United States; it is just asserting its sovereignty and any offenders against human rights crimes against humanity war crimes etc. will be taken back to the United States and tried effectively under the jurisdiction of the United States.” But unfortunately this will not necessarily be the case. Even today Amnesty International has put out something. 
Debate interrupted.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship 
[Volume:623;Page:18673] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Deborah Coddington seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the announcement by the Associate Minister of Education of the assembly of an expert group to look into deficiencies in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) scholarship system. The assembly of the group is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However it does not meet the requirements for the immediate attention of the House for two reasons. Firstly the setting up of an inquiry will rarely justify an urgent debate. Even when an inquiry reports it is only in an exceptional case that the report will justify a debate—see Speaker’s ruling 155/6. Secondly the House held an urgent debate on the problems with the NCEA only last week. There can be no justification for another debate today.
Hutchison Paul: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16212] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have just witnessed in this House Minister Swain come in and first of all say that he was going to support the first reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. Then it went to the third reading of that bill and then I am not sure whether it actually did get back to the first reading— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. We have dealt with that and we have moved on. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Would you be able to clarify exactly what we are doing Madam Speaker? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. The member moved the motion correctly. There will now be silence during the voting.
Resignations — Graham Kelly NZ Labour 
Resignations — Graham Kelly NZ Labour 
[Volume:610;Page:7343] 
Tuesday 29 July 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Graham Kelly NZ Labour 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Mr Graham Kelly resigning his seat in the House with effect on 25 July 2003.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10041] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Dog Control Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Carter John: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9583] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I know that the members in the Chamber over lunch were worried that I would not take the extra 2 minutes and they have come down just to encourage me to do so. I am pleased to be able to share with them the fount of knowledge I have on this particular issue. What is really important is that I know that this Minister having listened and gained an understanding of the issue I was raising before dinner will have gone away and spoken with her officials and she will probably want to take the next call to answer the questions. I am sure; I myself am absolutely convinced as I think are members on this side—but I can see from the look on the faces that the others over there are not quite so convinced. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The member is probably backing Bill English as well. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Absolutely! The whole of New Zealand is. That is the good thing. The whole of New Zealand is backing Bill English as the next Prime Minister. Let us get that very clear. Life is just getting better and better—but back to the bill before the Chairman brings me back to the bill. 
There is a point I want to make about clause 12 and I was asking the Minister before lunch whether we have the resources to carry out this sort of gathering—the discussions the family group conferences etc. If we will be relying on the Department of Child Youth and Family Services to provide the service then I say that we are in trouble. If the Minister has some other idea on how we are going to provide the service then that is fantastic and I hope she will assure the Committee of the system that she will provide. This is a very important part of this legislation. The families have a right to know what is going on. They have a right to be able to discuss amongst themselves the things that they want to see for the people we are dealing with. They have a right to be consulted and involved. Of course the individuals themselves also do. It is good that we are setting this system up having taken it from previous legislation but we want to make sure that it works. We want to be absolutely assured that some of the resources the taxpayer funding that the Government is putting aside will be spent on making sure that this service and this facility is not only just written here in the legislation but is real and meaningful. Otherwise quite honestly we have wasted our time in discussing and debating and passing this legislation. I hope the Minister will take the next call and can give the Committee the assurance that she has something in mind to allow us to have these services delivered.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8327] 
9.  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What is she doing to progress business law coordination with Australia? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Last week I attended the closer economic relations 20th anniversary joint ministerial forum in Sydney which was also attended by Senator the Hon Helen Coonan the Australian Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. We issued a joint statement on business law coordination between Australia and New Zealand that highlighted an agreement to explore ways to improve the coordination of our competition regimes preliminary agreement on detailed proposals for mutual recognition of securities offerings measures to facilitate the efficient enforcement of trans-Tasman insolvencies and an agreement to establish a joint working-group to develop trans-Tasman accounting standards. 
Mark Peck 
: How does that trans-Tasman work programme relate to the report that was issued by the Australia - New Zealand Business Council at the closer economic relations ministerial forum? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Australia – New Zealand Business Council report that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research was commissioned to undertake is entitled  
Stepping Towards a Borderless Market 
. Given the focus on competition policy in that report and the Australia – New Zealand Business Council’s view that in a borderless market it would anticipate only one competition body and one set of rules I am sure that the council will be pleased with the signal both Governments have given in that regard.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10615] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise in support of this excellent and timely legislation.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:5045] 
9.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Information Technology 
: What reports has he received on the potential of the information and communications technology sector to assist with New Zealand’s economic growth? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister for Information Technology) 
: 
 The information and communications technology task force set up under the growth and innovation framework has delivered an excellent draft report to the Government entitled  
Breaking Through the Barriers 
. It has identified practical ways by which the information and communications technology sector could contribute to economic growth in New Zealand and the importance of the partnership between the Government and the information and communications technology sector to achieve that growth. I have welcomed the report. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What other initiatives in the area of information and communications technology has the Government introduced over the past 3 years? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are far too many to mention so I will just touch on a couple. The Government is funding the roll-out of high-speed Internet to all regions it is implementing the e-government strategy and it has improved the telecommunications regulatory regime in New Zealand. This is a visionary proactive 21st century kind of Government.
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brown Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8815] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is distinctly possible that this bill will go through in the fullness of time. As a result of that it is not impossible that the officials charged with policing the rules in the bill will be referred to as “health Nazis”. I do not think that we should give a lead with that sort of example. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Rightly so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
PETER BROWN 
: I suggest that that term could be used by the public if we are using it freely in Parliament. It is a dreadful term and as I said earlier on if somebody called certain people by that term he or she could well be up for the thrashing of their life. If that is an example of what we want to give a lead on then you rule accordingly. I am prepared to call the Speaker back on this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: First it was after the time. I had allowed people to speak on that. As I said it was in the context of how it was said. Mr Prebble made some good points and I am prepared to leave the matter there.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:609;Page:7082] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13950] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Civil Union Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton (P)  
Dyson  
Hunt (P) 
Robson 
Barker  
Eckhoff  
Kedgley 
Roy 
Barnett 
Ewen-Street(P) 
King 
Samuels (P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fairbrother  
Locke (P) 
Shirley  
Beyer  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M  
Simich 
Bradford  
Franks  
Maharey (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Brash  
Gallagher 
Mahuta 
Sutton (P) 
Burton (P) 
Goff  
Mallard 
Tanczos 
Carter C  
Gosche 
Mark 
Tizard (P) 
Chadwick (P) 
Hartley  
Okeroa (P) 
Turei 
Clark  
Hawkins  
Parker 
Ward 
Cullen (P) 
Hereora  
Peck 
Wilson 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hide (P) 
Pillay  
Wong (P) 
Dalziel 
Hobbs 
Prebble (P) 
Yates  (P) 
Donald (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Rich 
Donnelly (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui 
Teller: 
Duncan 
Hughes 
Robertson 
Pettis 
Noes 50 
Adams  
Cosgrove (P) 
McNair (P) 
Sowry (P) 
Alexander (P) 
Dunne  
Newman  
Stewart 
Ardern (P) 
Duynhoven   
O'Connor 
Swain  
Awatere Huata (P) 
English  
Ogilvy (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Baldock  
Field  
Paraone (P) 
te Heuheu 
Brown  
Goudie 
Perry 
Tisch (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Gudgeon 
Peters J (P) 
Turner (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley  
Peters W (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Power (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Jones 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Collins  
Key 
Scott (P) 
Connell 
Mapp 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Copeland (P) 
McCully (P) 
Smith N  
Carter J  
Motion agreed to. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theJustice and Electoral Committee.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: 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:9973] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise it now because I suspect we will have a number of similar incidents during the time we vote on these amendments. As you indicated there are a myriad number. Although members will be keeping track of them on the Supplementary Order Papers they have in front of them it might be useful particularly if you are about to rule an amendment out of order if you indicate to the Committee the broad tenor of the amendment so that members who are desperately trying to follow where we are at can be better informed. I happen to be familiar with the tenor of Mr Baldock’s amendment but I am not sure that every member will be. Therefore members will be a little at odds to wonder what the ruling is. So I suggest it would be helpful if you were to indicate without going into huge detail just what the amendments are about before we have to make decisions on them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. I thank the member for that. In respect of the amendment we are dealing with I tell members that it relates to private areas and the bill and the principal Act are concerned with smoking in public places only. Therein lies the conflict and I rule that amendment out of order. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of Peter Brown to section 10(2) in clause 6B be agreed to.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
New Zealand National 1; Green Party 9; United Future 1. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 7; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 22 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14315] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just want clarification. When the Prime Minister left the chair I understood that we would be looking at those votes individually. She has left the chair and we have moved on to Dr Cullen. That is fine. However now we are going back and I thought we would have to seek the leave of the Committee to look at those votes individually. That is what I am asking. We have come back to Vote Communications Security and Intelligence which is the Prime Minister’s responsibility. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I said in opening that I would put the votes as a block unless there was any objection. Then they would be put one at a time. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Madam Chairperson you have actually put the votes. We have now moved on. It was only after that that Mr Tanczos asked for his vote to be recorded separately. So he should seek leave to do that.
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate —  
Cullen Michael: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7149] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is intended to be helpful. Since we have introduced the new Standing Orders in this area there is a slight problem about the way in which the Committee proceeds. I think it is still appropriate that the longer tradition is followed—that is by and large Government members do not speak on a particular vote unless members of the Opposition parties choose to speak so there is actually an engagement— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I cannot hear the member. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The new Standing Orders which came in some time ago present a sequential problem in this debate in that the chairperson of a select committee that reported on a vote—normally a Government member—has the right to take the first call. However if the Opposition parties do not want to debate that particular vote it is rather pointless for a Government member to take a call. As a matter of procedure Mr Chairman it might be advisable that when you put a vote you ask whether any non-Government party wishes to seek a call. If it does the chair of the select committee could seek the call at that point. I think that would make things easier in terms of the process we follow.
Hunt Jonathan: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3607] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I enter into the debate I had suggested having slightly shorter times but I was told that that would be negated by when I took leave so we will just consider the question that the Prostitution Reform Bill be now read a second time. I will endeavour to give all parties at least one speech.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11515] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to give that assurance—
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:19782] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions at the Business Committee this afternoon and unanimous agreement and on the understanding that all business in the urgency motion down to the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill will be completed by 6 p.m. on Friday I seek leave for there to be questions for oral answer on Wednesday and Thursday of this sitting. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7987] 
6.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What has been the response to the launch of the BIZ portal website earlier this month? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 The BIZ portal website went live on 8 July. The feedback has been extraordinarily positive across the country. I have been advised that the BIZ portal site has been awarded the  
Net Guide 
 site of the month award in the most recent edition due out this week. 
David Parker 
: How has the business sector reacted to the launch of the BIZ portal? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The establishment of a one-stop business portal was a key recommendation of the Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs ably put together and led by the Hon Paul Swain. The business people on the panel have provided very positive feedback including the chair of the panel Alan Dunn managing director of McDonald’s Restaurants of New Zealand. McDonald’s Restaurants of New Zealand employs over 6000 Kiwis and is the country’s largest first-time employer. It includes a collection of more than 140 restaurants— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What about the others? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: It is Gerry Brownlee’s favourite eatery. The majority of McDonald’s restaurants are operated by 49 small-business owners nationwide. Unlike the Opposition we do not think that sitting around tables while sipping champagne and eating caviar is the right way to meet with businesses.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Number of Questions 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Number of Questions 
[Volume:616;Page:11825] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the Standing Orders provide for 12 oral questions every day and today there are only 11 questions. My understanding is that the reason is that one of ACT’s questions has now been allocated to Mrs Awatere Huata who has not exercised that right. I think that that shows the ridiculous situation the House is now in. I would like you to take the matter up with the Business Committee. It appears to me that we are losing Parliament’s right to hold the executive accountable if we are in a situation where we are allocating a question to a member who cannot even turn up to ask the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This was a decision of the Business Committee. I am happy to accept the honourable member’s attention and I will put the matter on the agenda for the next meeting.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Apology to the House Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Apology to the House Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to be seated. It is up to the Minister as to when he gets back to the member. The member cannot enter into a debate about that.
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20000] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule agreed to.