edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Copeland Gordon: General Debate 
Copeland Gordon: General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2300] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a letter I mentioned in my contribution to the debate which is from the Hon Nick Smith to the Hon David Parker and dated December 2005 regarding National’s willingness to work with the Government on climate change issues. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Henare Tau: Tabling of Documents — Government Motion No. 1—28 March 2006 Wine-box Inquiry—Legal Fees 
Henare Tau: Tabling of Documents — Government Motion No. 1—28 March 2006 Wine-box Inquiry—Legal Fees 
[Volume:630;Page:2285] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a report that outlines that $1.4 million was spent by the Government—by the nation—on the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ legal fees in the wine-box case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Tabling of Documents — Government Motion No. 1—28 March 2006 Wine-box Inquiry—Legal Fees 
Tabling of Documents — Government Motion No. 1—28 March 2006 Wine-box Inquiry—Legal Fees 
[Volume:630;Page:2285] 
Tabling of Documents 
Government Motion No. 1—28 March 2006 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 About this time yesterday I sought and received the leave of the House to table a letter to me from the chief executive officer of the Porirua City Council. I have since received from him by fax a legal opinion that was referred to in that letter but accidentally not enclosed with it. I now seek the leave of the House to table that document so that we have a complete set. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Wine-box Inquiry—Legal Fees 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a report that outlines that $1.4 million was spent by the Government—by the nation—on the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ legal fees in the wine-box case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Copeland Gordon: Tabling of Documents — Government Motion No. 1—28 March 2006 Wine-box Inquiry—Legal Fees 
Copeland Gordon: Tabling of Documents — Government Motion No. 1—28 March 2006 Wine-box Inquiry—Legal Fees 
[Volume:630;Page:2285] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 About this time yesterday I sought and received the leave of the House to table a letter to me from the chief executive officer of the Porirua City Council. I have since received from him by fax a legal opinion that was referred to in that letter but accidentally not enclosed with it. I now seek the leave of the House to table that document so that we have a complete set. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2283] 
11.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What changes is the Government making to improve the lives of young New Zealanders? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 From 1 April—this Saturday—interest-free student loans will be introduced as a core commitment by this Labour-led Government to improve the lives of many young New Zealanders. It is a good story to tell. For example a graduate with a debt of $15000 who earns $35000 a year will save $6935 and repay his or her loan in 7 years. Without the changes the student would have taken 10 years to repay $21935 in accumulated debt. There is a good story to tell to young New Zealanders.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2281] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member has just repeated the same statement which if it were said outside of here would be defamatory. He knows full well where the money went. Not one cent went to me. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I’m not saying that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes the member did. He asked how much Winston Peters got. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave was denied. That is the end of the matter please. 
Question time resumed.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2281] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document showing exactly how much the taxpayer did pay for Winston Peters’ legal expenses in the wine-box inquiry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2281] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have put my reputation on the line and made a statement to this House today. The least I could expect is for that member to withdraw and apologise for what he said and to not sit there mute and silent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2281] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have to register our disappointment that having picked up Mr Peters for the inappropriate use of language the allegation made by Mr Peters was then repeated by the Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I appreciate that the circumstances probably led to that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes thank you. I accept that and I apologise.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2280] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I did not say that the member was an idiot I said: “in case some other idiot”—that is the point. Members cannot just get up and make any allegation they like. The  
Hansard 
— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry would the member— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I withdraw and apologise if the member is offended. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you that is all we need to make progress.
Wilson Margaret: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Wilson Margaret: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2280] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is unacceptable. I agree with Mr Tisch. The rules are that when members are asked for a withdrawal and an apology they give it without any other statement. The member is coming close to trifling with the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Tisch Lindsay: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2280] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member just apologised then qualified that by saying he now knows who the idiot is. That is completely unacceptable.
Wilson Margaret: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Wilson Margaret: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2280] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If that is what the member seeks. Does the member who was called an idiot ask for that to be withdrawn? [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please be quiet or there will be no one left in the House. I was looking at the member and I understand that he is new but he has asked for that statement to be withdrawn and for an apology. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What did the member say? I could not hear it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member asked for the reference that was made to him by you to be withdrawn and for an apology to be given. That is what is sought. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I said “some other idiot” and I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you that’s all— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have just found out who he is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: All members do is withdraw and apologise. They make no other statement.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2280] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Should the Rt Hon Winston Peters now be required to withdraw and apologise?
Wilson Margaret: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Wilson Margaret: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2280] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You know that it is not for the Speaker to give advisory opinions like that. I have ruled on what was the appropriate action and what was not appropriate. That is what I have ruled on.
Mark Ron: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Mark Ron: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2280] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just for clarification would it have been permissible for New Zealand First instead of taking this course to take a more extreme course and lodge a privileges case?
Wilson Margaret: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Wilson Margaret: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2280] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member took the proper course of action in seeking the leave of the House to make a personal statement to be able to correct the statement. There was nothing wrong with that. The problem was the use of language in the last sentence; that was the difficulty we had with that bit of the personal statement. The rest of it was perfectly in order.
Mark Ron: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Mark Ron: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2280] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On the back of the point of order raised by Mr English could you then advise the House whether if this is considered by some to be an inappropriate means of putting the record straight when another member of the House has deliberately said something to the House that is clearly untrue I would be right in concluding that the only other method of recourse we would have for correcting this is to lodge a privileges case against the member for deliberately and maliciously misleading the House. Is that the other course of action we could take?
Wilson Margaret: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Wilson Margaret: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2280] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member was entitled to make his personal explanation and the Hon Bill English was correct in saying that a personal explanation is a privilege of the House given by leave. But it is of course the convention that members do not make personal attacks or reflections in such statements and the term “idiot” was entirely unacceptable.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2279] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 With respect the National Party knows full well the history of that long-running saga—that it took 7 years and a significant number of court cases going all the way to the Privy Council. For that member to be allowed to get away with saying what he did with not so much as a by your leave or an apology would be an absolute affront to the House. That is why I said what I said.
English Bill: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
English Bill: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2279] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The personal explanation is a privilege made available to members of Parliament that we use only occasionally and it is a privilege given by leave. That leave is given because of the convention that such statements are non-controversial in the sense that they are not partisan or do not attack members of the House. The member who just made a personal explanation is a senior member of the House and knows that convention well. I ask you to point out that the last sentence of his statement was out of order. If you do not do so then the Opposition at least will not be able to give leave for personal explanations if the privilege is to be abused in that manner.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — Legal Aid—Refutation of Allegation 
[Volume:630;Page:2279] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I had hoped to wait until the end of question time but because of the time questions are taking I seek leave now to make a personal explanation about a matter David Bennett raised in the House on 22 March. I have just had my first chance to read the  
Hansard 
 of his speech. On 22 March David Bennett the National Party MP for Hamilton East claimed that during the wine-box inquiry I personally received money from legal aid paid for by the taxpayer. That statement is demonstrably totally false as every member of the National Party who was there at the time knows full well. On the contrary I myself financed substantial parts of that court case and cases preliminary to it. The member also knows that. I seek to put that correction on the record in case some other idiot decides to make that sort of statement in the House.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2279] 
9.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What initiatives is the Government taking to strengthen New Zealand’s border security? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 New Zealand has recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ambassador of the United States that provides for the sharing of information on border security. The Regional Movement Alert List will enhance New Zealand’s ability to detect lost stolen or invalid travel documents that travellers are attempting to use. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What evidence does the Minister have that this initiative will benefit New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Since 2003 New Zealand and Australia have had a similar arrangement to the Regional Movement Alert List. In 2004-05 660 people were prevented from boarding flights to New Zealand who had either security alerts against them or travel documents that were invalid or stolen. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that Britain has signed a memorandum of understanding with Jordan and Libya and is working on signing one with Algeria; if the Minister is aware of that will he recommend that the Prime Minister talk to Tony Blair whilst he is in this country to ask how it is done so that we can send Mr Zaoui packing at the earliest possible moment? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes and no. 
Question time interrupted.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2275] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In light of a claim earlier that I had made up a costing of $11 billion over 3 years for National’s tax cuts. I seek leave to table the Newstalk ZB transcript from 9 February 2006 where Mr Key says: “I mean it was $11 billion worth of tax cuts over 3 years.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2271] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from the Government’s website—and I apologise—in relation to question No. 3. I also apologise to the Minister of Finance. He is of course correct. It is possible to have a payment under Working for Families if one has 20 children. That payment would apply if one earned up to $385000 a year and I apologise for my oversight. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. May I say that it is comments like that that lead to disorder in the House. Just remember the next time the complaint comes as to why this happens. But I will ask the House. Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:630;Page:2261] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I will certainly do that; no problems at all.
Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:630;Page:2260] 
Points of Order 
Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have had a couple of minutes now to think about the ruling you brought back to the House at the start of the afternoon. The unanswered part for us though remains as to whether the question that led to this ruling would by the ruling be in order. That was the question from Dr Nick Smith to Dover Samuels in which he was asking the Minister to comment on a report and indeed on quotes from that report made by the Minister himself but apparently in a different capacity. It seems that we should get an answer to that because the frustration that came from the rejection of that question on the day led to Dr Smith being out of the House for an extended period of time. After thinking about your ruling it would appear that Dr Smith’s question was in fact in order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That question as I recall it—and I am happy to look at it again—was on a different issue relating to the capacity in which the question was being answered. But as I said I am happy to look at that for you. But my understanding was that a whole lot of questions were around quotations as well and that is what I was addressing there. So I will look at that for you. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 We would appreciate you coming back to the House with that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I will certainly do that; no problems at all.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:630;Page:2261] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 We would appreciate you coming back to the House with that.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:630;Page:2261] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That question as I recall it—and I am happy to look at it again—was on a different issue relating to the capacity in which the question was being answered. But as I said I am happy to look at that for you. But my understanding was that a whole lot of questions were around quotations as well and that is what I was addressing there. So I will look at that for you.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Questions for Oral Answer 
[Volume:630;Page:2260] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have had a couple of minutes now to think about the ruling you brought back to the House at the start of the afternoon. The unanswered part for us though remains as to whether the question that led to this ruling would by the ruling be in order. That was the question from Dr Nick Smith to Dover Samuels in which he was asking the Minister to comment on a report and indeed on quotes from that report made by the Minister himself but apparently in a different capacity. It seems that we should get an answer to that because the frustration that came from the rejection of that question on the day led to Dr Smith being out of the House for an extended period of time. After thinking about your ruling it would appear that Dr Smith’s question was in fact in order.
Roy Heather: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Roy Heather: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2260] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party also joins other parties in this House in supporting Mr Locke’s motion. Some may well have wondered why the Government did not in fact bring the notice of motion and I thank Mr Locke very sincerely for doing so. 
All of the New Zealand athletes at the Commonwealth Games were winners. They are athletes who have always trained hard. New Zealand athletes have always prided themselves on training hard and doing their very best at international competition such as this. The ACT party thought that some very unfortunate comments were made not only in the media but by members of this House—unfortunate comments indeed to people who have spent a lot of time and effort in their individual codes. 
New Zealanders do celebrate success but they also celebrate the fine effort that we saw from the New Zealand athletes at the Commonwealth Games. I would say that there is no shame in being the fourth best in the Commonwealth at any sport. I would also say that if New Zealand was ranked No. 4 in the OECD this country would really have something to celebrate. 
Motion agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Dunne Peter: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2260] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future joins with others in supporting the motion congratulating the athletes on their achievement and wishing them a safe return to New Zealand. We note and lament the fact that no sooner had the games ended than our country once again indulged in the ritualistic self-flagellation that follows every Commonwealth Games Olympic Games and Rugby World Cup about why we did not do as well as we should have and what we need to do better next time around. Frankly what we need to do is give our athletes a chance and stop this mindless bickering and criticism of their performances.
Harawira Hone: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Harawira Hone: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2260] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 The Maori Party joins with all others in congratulating our Commonwealth Games team on their success at the Melbourne games. We also note that hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the sports; that we brought back I understand about half a dozen gold medals; and that we have just finished participating in the 2006 Waka Ama IVF Va’a World Sprint Champs from which Aotearoa brought home 20 gold medals for a miserly support allocation of $150000. I thank the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Youth Affairs very much for their support in that initiative. Perhaps this House might recommend to the authorities that fund such sports that given that the nation’s feel-good factor is improved by the success of our sports teams considerably more support should be given to Nga Kaihoe o Aotearoa the New Zealand waka ama federation in its bid to be even more successful at the next world waka ama championships in Sacramento California in 2008.
Peters Winston: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Peters Winston: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2259] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The jeering and barracking from the National Party is again unacceptable. I know that some of them are denied speaking chances in question time but they should not make up the shortfall with general barracking and shouting in the House. We just had a very good example: when Ron Mark was finishing one could barely hear a word. If members cannot keep quiet in a debate on a motion heaven help us when it comes to other more serious parts of discussions in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member.
Mark Ron: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Mark Ron: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2259] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 As New Zealand First’s spokesperson on sport I rise to indicate that New Zealand First supports the intent of this motion. But we have to say from where we sit that coming third often makes one the winner and that is quite a bizarre situation is it not? And long may that continue to be the case. 
There have been some winners in the Commonwealth Games and I do not think—[ 
Interruption 
] Well Maurice Williamson gets gold for “Yap of the Month” or “Mouth of the Month” but we will move on from that. We have to move on and recognise an outstanding young lady who made it very clear what her intentions were and they were to win. In my background in the military it was often said that second was the first loser. However Valerie Vili had no intention of losing and special congratulations need to go to her on her mammoth effort in bringing home gold for us. 
Minister Mallard has quite rightly signalled to the sporting fraternity in New Zealand that the country that spends money on and the taxpayers who put money into the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games do expect a result and I have no doubt that everybody will be scrutinising not so much the athletes but the sports administration. Some may say that the focus should start with the athletes but others will suggest that we need to look at the administration of New Zealand sport—the selection of coaches and the process by which people become leaders coaches and administrators. Maybe the House through its select committees might like to pay some attention to those areas in time. 
Finally I think that if a gold meal were to be given out to anyone in this House it would go to Mr Keith Locke for being the winner of “Prat of the Year” for the way in which he ambushed Tony Blair yesterday— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No no. That is not appropriate.
McCully Murray: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
McCully Murray: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2259] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I would like to associate the National Party with the congratulations conveyed in the resolution that has been moved. In particular I congratulate those who were successful in winning medals at the Commonwealth Games. It has been a matter of some comment that the medal tally was somewhat short of the aspirations expressed at the outset of the games. On that matter I simply commend to the House that this is a time when an orderly review process will be undertaken. It should be noted that a substantial commitment of taxpayers’ money was made to support the team. No doubt officials will be filing their reports and a review process will ensue that will enable us to ensure that every possible step is taken to improve our performance in future games. I urge those who are interested in that matter to wait for that process to take its course.
Cullen Michael: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Cullen Michael: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2259] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 On behalf of the Labour Party might I say how much I endorse those comments. There is no shame in being No. 2 in an excellent team. I will point out that only one country smaller than ours actually won more medals than we did and that was Jamaica. Given that country’s crime rate I would not swap our slightly lower medal count in that respect.
Locke Keith: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Locke Keith: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2258] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this House express its pride in the performance of the New Zealand Commonwealth Games team in Melbourne and recognise the long hours of training put in by our sportsmen and sportswomen in their preparation for the Games 
. The Green Party along with I think all parties in this House congratulates all of our sportsmen and sportswomen on their performances. They all put in very long hours to prepare for the games and I am sure they did their best. We particularly congratulate the 31 medal winners but I do not think we should get hung up on our medal tally or on our gold medal tally. For example Dean Kent a longstanding swimmer did fantastically well to achieve a personal best in the 200 metre individual medley. There is no shame at all in his getting only a silver medal. I think it is in that tradition that we should support all of our team and not succumb to some of the armchair critics who only watch the games on TV every couple of years. We really need to support our sportsmen and sportswomen into the future.
Cullen Michael: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Cullen Michael: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2258] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 What I am saying is that we were informed that the motion was to be moved without debate and pursuant to the Business Committee’s discussion of this matter we assumed there would be no comments. The member has sought leave and clearly we will not refuse it in the circumstances. I simply draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Business Committee discussed this matter for future reference and understanding of when leave is being sought by discussion with the whips. In other words if one is seeking leave to discuss something without debate it means that. If one wants to seek leave without debate but with brief comments then that is what must be indicated to the whips around the House—not without debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will put the leave that has been sought which is for brief comment. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Locke Keith: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Locke Keith: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2258] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 As I understand it “without debate” means that the motion does not go through the normal procedure. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it means no comment at all. It means just moving the motion and the House agreeing to it. There is no further comment. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I think the House can grant leave for whichever course it wants. In my experience in the House basically there are three courses. The first is to have a formal debate with 10-minute speeches. The second is for the member just to move the motion. The third is to have just brief comments from party representatives and I think it would be wrong to rule out that intermediate course. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is for the House to decide. I am merely clarifying that the member has sought leave for in effect brief comments to be made.
Cullen Michael: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Cullen Michael: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2258] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We had notice that this motion was to be moved without debate. If you recall we had a discussion in the Business Committee around this matter. Obviously given the nature of the subject we will not be refusing leave. But for the future members should be very well aware that the Business Committee is asking us to return to the notion that “without debate” means without debate. If one wants debate then one does not ask for the motion to be without debate.
Locke Keith: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
Locke Keith: Motions — New Zealand Commonwealth Games Team—Recognition 
[Volume:630;Page:2258] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to move without debate except for brief comments from the parties members’ notice of motion No. 4 on the Order Paper.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
[Volume:630;Page:2257] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I undertook last week to reflect on answers made by Ministers quoting reports that they have seen—sometimes reports of remarks made by Opposition members. 
Questions often contain quotations and ask a Minister to respond to the quotation. This is a long-established practice; indeed Speaker’s ruling 147/4 records a Speaker as long ago as 1970 bemoaning the fact that quotations are permitted in questions. As long as the quotation relates to public affairs with which the Minister is connected or to a matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible it can be put to the Minister and it does not matter whose quotation it is. If quotations can be included in questions then they can be included in answers for the rules as to content are virtually identical—compare Standing Order 371(1) and Standing Order 377(2). 
There is thus nothing wrong in principle with a Minister in a reply quoting an Opposition member as long as the quotation relates to public affairs with which the Minister is connected or to a matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. Thus a Minister may be asked a question about what reports the Minister has received relating to the Minister’s area of responsibility. In replying the Minister may quote another person’s statement if it does relate to that area of responsibility. But the Minister may not comment on Opposition policy as the Minister has no responsibility for it—see Speaker’s ruling 139/6. 
On the other hand a Minister may be asked a question that quotes a statement relating to the Minister’s area of responsibility—even an Opposition statement—and seeks the Minister’s opinion of it. In this case the right to seek a Minister’s opinion on public affairs with which the Minister is connected allows the Minister when asked to do so to comment on a statement relating to such matters regardless of the origin of the statement. 
This ruling will of course be available for members to be able to look at. I hope it does provide some guidance on these matters when questions are asked and answered.
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
[Volume:630;Page:2257] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I undertook last week to reflect on answers made by Ministers quoting reports that they have seen—sometimes reports of remarks made by Opposition members. 
Questions often contain quotations and ask a Minister to respond to the quotation. This is a long-established practice; indeed Speaker’s ruling 147/4 records a Speaker as long ago as 1970 bemoaning the fact that quotations are permitted in questions. As long as the quotation relates to public affairs with which the Minister is connected or to a matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible it can be put to the Minister and it does not matter whose quotation it is. If quotations can be included in questions then they can be included in answers for the rules as to content are virtually identical—compare Standing Order 371(1) and Standing Order 377(2). 
There is thus nothing wrong in principle with a Minister in a reply quoting an Opposition member as long as the quotation relates to public affairs with which the Minister is connected or to a matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. Thus a Minister may be asked a question about what reports the Minister has received relating to the Minister’s area of responsibility. In replying the Minister may quote another person’s statement if it does relate to that area of responsibility. But the Minister may not comment on Opposition policy as the Minister has no responsibility for it—see Speaker’s ruling 139/6. 
On the other hand a Minister may be asked a question that quotes a statement relating to the Minister’s area of responsibility—even an Opposition statement—and seeks the Minister’s opinion of it. In this case the right to seek a Minister’s opinion on public affairs with which the Minister is connected allows the Minister when asked to do so to comment on a statement relating to such matters regardless of the origin of the statement. 
This ruling will of course be available for members to be able to look at. I hope it does provide some guidance on these matters when questions are asked and answered.
Cullen Michael: Members’ Bills 
Cullen Michael: Members’ Bills 
[Volume:630;Page:2257] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave that: 
(a)notwithstanding Standing Order 277(1) if 
(i)whenever the Clerk is to conduct a ballot under Standing Order 277(2) or 
(ii)on a Wednesday on which Government orders of the day take precedence 
it appears that there will not be four orders of the day for the first reading of members’ bills available for consideration at the next Wednesday’s sitting at which members’ orders of the day take precedence the Clerk may accept notices for the introduction of members’ bills so as to bring the number of orders available that day up to four and 
(b)this order expires on 31 March 2007. 
I will very briefly explain that so that other members who are not on the Business Committee understand it. There have been difficulties on occasions with not having four members’ bills available because some members’ bills have been postponed. The Business Committee thought it would be a good idea to try this for a year as a sessional order see how it goes and the House can return to that matter next year if it works as well as we expect it to work. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Members’ Bills 
Members’ Bills 
[Volume:630;Page:2257] 
Wednesday 29 March 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Members’ Bills 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave that: 
(a)notwithstanding Standing Order 277(1) if 
(i)whenever the Clerk is to conduct a ballot under Standing Order 277(2) or 
(ii)on a Wednesday on which Government orders of the day take precedence 
it appears that there will not be four orders of the day for the first reading of members’ bills available for consideration at the next Wednesday’s sitting at which members’ orders of the day take precedence the Clerk may accept notices for the introduction of members’ bills so as to bring the number of orders available that day up to four and 
(b)this order expires on 31 March 2007. 
I will very briefly explain that so that other members who are not on the Business Committee understand it. There have been difficulties on occasions with not having four members’ bills available because some members’ bills have been postponed. The Business Committee thought it would be a good idea to try this for a year as a sessional order see how it goes and the House can return to that matter next year if it works as well as we expect it to work. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:630;Page:2394] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) the Immigration Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the Privacy Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill and the Tax Administration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
Maori Party 2. 
Bills read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Third Readings 
Tisch Lindsay: Third Readings 
[Volume:630;Page:2393] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The genesis of this legislation goes back to May 2003 so it has had a very long gestation period. Here we are at the final stage of the third readings. National supports the legislation but as our previous speakers have said there are certainly not the strengths in the legislation that one would expect. There are no disincentives for those who decide not to pay their fines. Those who want to go overseas can still opt out. 
If we look at what happened in the select committee we see that the original threshold which was set at $10000 was going to catch only 35 people at the airport. Under National’s pressure—as Tony Ryall articulated in his address—the threshold was dropped to $5000 but that is going to catch only 117. Yet there are thousands of people who owe money. 
The figures that have been talked about tonight are quite staggering. An interesting statistic that has not come out of this debate which I want to mention briefly is that in the year ended 31 December 2005 $41.5 million in fines were remitted. The initiative to catch the defaulters to try to recoup that money will cost $750000 annually plus a set-up cost of $938000. That is a total of $1.69 million. How much will come back? Members should listen to this: these measures will recoup only $1.5 million. A set-up cost of $1.69 million will recoup $1.5 million. It does not take much to work out that that is not good economics. 
This legislation is not tough enough. There was an opportunity for the Government to be hard on people who get away with not paying the fines that the courts have laid down. Although National is supporting the legislation when we are back in Government we will toughen up these provisions because it is New Zealanders who miss out and the fines defaulters are having a free ride. With that in mind we are supporting the legislation but we do have reservations.
Gallagher Martin: Third Readings 
Gallagher Martin: Third Readings 
[Volume:630;Page:2393] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It gives me great delight to speak as the chair of the Law and Order Committee and to acknowledge a previous speaker Ron Mark who is currently the deputy chair. I want to take an opportunity in this third reading speech to acknowledge all the members of the select committee that considered the original bill. 
I want to sound a positive note tonight because I think this legislation is a very very good step in the right direction. Negativity is easy but I acknowledge that my good colleague Ron Mark has issued a very clear challenge to the House and I believe that as a committee in terms of our scrutinising function over the courts we will be monitoring the success of this legislation. We are certainly hoping to see some significant gains. 
I want to be generous of spirit. I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker the Hon Tony Ryall. I acknowledge the very good contribution of that outspoken member from Canterbury Brian Connell. He is a good outspoken member and a real National Party MP because he says it as he sees it and that is good. If Brian Connell sometimes gives Don Brash a hard time that is too bad because Brian Connell is outspoken and that is nice to see. He made a good contribution and we miss him from the committee. 
I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the former deputy chair Marc Alexander in terms of his contribution. Of course he is no longer with us but he made a very good constructive contribution. Georgina Beyer Ann Hartley and Mahara Okeroa were the Government members and they made a very very good contribution as well. 
For those who are listening tonight I want to stress what this legislation is about because after listening to the previous speaker they could be confused. For the benefit of those who are not fully familiar with this wonderful and constructive legislation let us cut to the chase here. Basically what was the original Courts and Criminal Matters Bill about? It was an omnibus bill designed to improve the effectiveness of the fines and civil enforcement activities of the Ministry of Justice through interrelated amendments to a number of Acts. The passing of these bills will mean that the courts will be able to access information-matching programmes and send requests for information. This will improve inter-agency partnerships and strengthen our public services and will ensure that the public are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities and so increase fairness in the fines system. 
I spoke at the Committee stage around the issue of people leaving our airports and the need for greater cooperation between us and State and federal jurisdictions in Australia and I do not intend to go into that further. I think the Minister for Courts very adequately summarised some of the very positive aspects of this bill. 
As the chair of the select committee I thank all the departmental advisers and the submitters who helped us come up with some very constructive and positive legislation.
Tisch Lindsay: Third Readings 
Tisch Lindsay: Third Readings 
[Volume:630;Page:2389] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 As my colleague Brian Connell has just said that is a debating point. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You are quite correct. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: If you look at Standing Order 106(1) you will see that it is the member who has spoken to a question who may speak again. So the Minister is actually inviting Brian Connell to speak again—because that is what Standing Order 106(1) states. 
Brian Connell 
: Am I invited to speak Mr Deputy Speaker? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. I think we will end it there. I needed to hear Mr Barker out before I knew what he was talking about.
Barker Rick: Third Readings 
Barker Rick: Third Readings 
[Volume:630;Page:2389] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Order 106(1) states: “A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of a member’s speech which has been misquoted misunderstood or misrepresented in the same debate.” The previous speaker said that this Government had done nothing about the Ministry of Justice giving the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development access to its information. In my speech I made it clear that the Ministry of Justice does exactly that. [ 
Interruption 
]
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Vote: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2386] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time..