edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Winston: General Debates 
Peters Winston: General Debates 
[Volume:617;Page:13070] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That speaker got up to make a speech. We are still waiting for it and I seek leave for an extension of his time—another 5 minutes—so we can hear it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order.
Vote: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12863] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Clark Helen: Obituaries — Sir William Pickering 
Clark Helen: Obituaries — Sir William Pickering 
[Volume:616;Page:11701] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Government would certainly want to place on record its sorrow at the passing of Sir William Pickering an outstanding New Zealander who made his name in science—in particular in space science—in the United States. As the Leader of the Opposition has said it is a remarkable coincidence that Havelock Primary educated not only Lord Rutherford who went on to split the atom but also Sir William Pickering. He did his university study initially in New Zealand before going to the United States and what I had not appreciated until I met him at a function in Los Angeles at the end of 2002 was that after studying in the States he returned to New Zealand hoping to work in his homeland. He came back at a time of considerable depression and New Zealand could not find work for him. He returned to the United States and of course went on to build a glittering international career in space science. So I think it is important to record here today what an inspirational figure and what a great New Zealander he was and to communicate to his family our sorrow at his passing.
Perry Edwin: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Perry Edwin: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18382] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 While I was suntanning over the Christmas break National and United Future were pontificating on the virtues of their parties. The leader of the so-called “Clayton’s Family Party”—the United Future leader Peter Dunne—again pontificated on Radio Pacific and in the papers on how his party stopped the cannabis bill which I applaud. But he did not say that United Future could have stopped the despicable Civil Union Bill and the Prostitution Reform Bill from becoming law in this country. Yes his party could have done that. Shame on United Future! It rolled over again for the minority Labour Government in relation to those two bills. 
To the Labour Government I say quite frankly that in relation to the economy at the moment the surplus it has in the kitty did not come from this Government. In 1996 the Rt Hon Winston Peters—whose party was in coalition with the National Government—interfered with the dollar and that is how the rural sector has helped the Labour Government’s surplus. I say to the Government that I think the land access legislation will become a contentious issue for it and I urge the Minister of Agriculture to look at that bill very very carefully in the coming year. The Prostitution Reform Bill will come back to haunt the Government in this coming election. United Future also will be haunted for allowing the Prostitution Reform Bill and the Civil Union Bill to become law in this country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The next speech is a split speech.
Swain Paul: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Swain Paul: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13010] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 In Parliament now and again we get absolutely fabulous contributions. One of the great contributions we have had— 
Brian Connell 
: This is not one of those.
Yates Dianne: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Yates Dianne: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16378] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank the Veterinary Council of New Zealand for its long persistence since 1999 in bringing forward this legislation. I inform Sandra Goudie that it has been written by a vet who understands the terms involved. I also thank the local veterinarians in Hamilton Morrinsville and Matamata who contributed to the debate and to the bill; the SPCA both in Australia and in New Zealand; those involved particularly Hugh Worth from Australia who persisted in getting the law passed in Australia; and those kennel club members who have shown their support—and there are many thousands of kennel club members who support the bill. 
I also wish to point out given that I will move to have the bill referred to the Government Administration Committee that Mr Ardern Mr Tisch and I are on that committee and that we are all from rural or semi-rural areas. I would think that the people on that committee have as much expertise as anybody else in any other committee. Of course all New Zealanders are experts on dogs I am sure. 
I thank the House for the time. This was legislation that should have been passed with the original bill in 1999 but for one or two people who were concerned about one or two breeders and who did not look at the interests of dogs as a whole or New Zealanders as a whole.
McCully Murray: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
McCully Murray: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7678] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I suggest that you do not waste your time by doing any of the things that have been suggested to you by the members who have contributed to this discussion. This seems to me to be a very simple matter. The Standing Order is the Standing Order. Your role Madam Speaker along with the other presiding officers is to apply the Standing Order and I suggest you do that on this occasion. What the Business Committee does is its business but it is a relatively informal arrangement. I am frequently surprised by some of the outcomes that come from that committee but the Standing Orders are there for presiding officers to interpret and apply. It seems to me that the requests that are being made by some of those who have spoken to this point of order are quite superfluous and you should ignore them.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8963] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am now greatly concerned at the way in which private medical information has been presented to the House. Quite frankly I do not care what party it came from. The Prime Minister is a former Minister of Health and she ought to know that she has privileged access to information; that is the first question—how she got hold of the information in the first place. But secondly to publish that information she needs a waiver from the person concerned. I ask her to table that waiver.
Cosgrove Clayton: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Cosgrove Clayton: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13513] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(11A)For the purposes of this Act a family is defined as one— 
(a)in which there is at least one adult member; and 
(b)in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11699] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 At this stage nobody has spent much time on the schedules so I thought I would take the opportunity to discuss the detail in them. If Mr Ewen-Street the Green member listens to the contribution I am about to make and takes the opportunity to look at the detail associated with the schedules then he too will understand the point—which has been made by many many speakers—that the credit of these levies is very much species-specific. 
I start by asking the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope to assure us that he is familiar with the calculation of the schedules. I am sure he has had a look at them and has noted the extreme detail that they go into. For example the highest amount received by a species—for snapper in area one— 
Phil Heatley 
: To the nearest dollar. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Yes. Snapper in area one gets $1717023 yet another species yellow-eyed mullet in area eight gets $1. The Minister will see that the officials and indeed the members of the select committee have done an extreme amount of work to get to that amount of detail. 
The first question I want to ask the Minister—which I forgot to ask at the select committee hearings—is: if I were to add up all the amounts listed in the schedules—some species get $2 some get $13 and some as I said get well over $1.7 million—do those figures total $24.1 million or do they total $24593543? I ask that because the settlement is for $24.1 million. There was a negotiated settlement at the time for interest because of the time it would take to pass the legislation. I am now confused as to whether the total amount in the schedules is for the negotiated settlement of $24.1 million or whether those amounts total the global amount of the negotiated settlement of $24.1 million plus the additional amount for interest due to the time taken. I look forward to the Minister making that contribution because it will assist us in deciding whether to vote for this legislation. 
Secondly I want to ask whether the Minister has any advice as to what a fisher of yellow-eyed mullet in area eight should do with the $1 he or she will receive from this credit. Does the Minister in his generosity really expect that that $1 will make that much difference? I see the Minister is itching to take a call to answer those two questions. If he is prepared to do so I think at that stage we could move the debate forward.
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17027] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution nearly all of which I agree with absolutely except for the last point. Members make their own decisions on what they do and they have to live by the results of them. I was listening to the incident and I thought that the Chairperson was incredibly generous in allowing the member to continue four or five times when he would not sit down when she was on her feet.  
Members cannot challenge the Chair. It is a frivolous use of the right to move to recall the Speaker unless there is a genuine matter of order on which the Speaker can rule. Members cannot criticise the Chair. They can ask the Speaker to review an interpretation of the Standing Orders—that is what this procedure is all about. The Chair is the sole judge on matters of keeping order and the Speaker will not review such a decision. As far I am concerned I abhor the thought that when a presiding officer is ruling anybody else is interjecting. I heard it quite clearly. It was for that reason that the member was asked to leave and it was a decision that I absolutely uphold. I declare the House in Committee.
Cunliffe David: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21006] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Collins Judith: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9896] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on this part. I question clause 7 in particular as it relates to individuals who may not be appointed as commissioner. Subclause (3)(d) talks about an individual who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more or who has been sentenced to imprisonment for any other offence unless that individual has obtained a pardon. The thing that worries me a little is that it goes on to state “or served the sentence or otherwise suffered the penalty imposed on the individual”. On my reading of that subclause it means that someone who is a convicted criminal and has served a sentence can be appointed to be the Children’s Commissioner. I think that takes the clean slate rubbish slightly too far. I would like to hear from the Minister. If I am misreading that provision I would like him to have the opportunity to put me right. On a plain reading of that subclause it states to me that a convicted criminal as long as he or she has served his or her sentence can become the Children’s Commissioner. 
We may be a small country but I am sure that amongst our 4 million people we should be able to find someone who is not a convicted criminal and who is able to be the Children’s Commissioner. I certainly think we have not had difficulty with regard to that until this bill came in so I am sure the Minister could do a little better than that. We would obviously be very happy to support an amendment to this bill to make it perfectly plain that a criminal conviction and sentence whether served or not would render a person invalid in terms of being an appointee. 
I would like to hear from the Minister. I see the Minister is smiling. Hopefully he wants to talk to us on this point. To me he looks very keen to do so.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
[Volume:611;Page:8315] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members there was trouble with the bells earlier today. It is hoped that this antiquated system will soon be replaced. It is about 50 years old but I am assured it will be all right for the next day or two.
Cullen Michael: Budget Statement — Budget Debate Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Budget Statement — Budget Debate Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13398] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Budget 2004 Speech the Fiscal Strategy Report and Economic and Fiscal Update the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2005 and the Departmental Forecast Reports and Statements of Intent 2004. I move  
That these papers be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Sowry Roger: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5420] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It concerns an issue that was raised with Madam Chairperson during the debate on Part 1. This bill has not been to a select committee and therefore we sought guidance that the debate would be wide ranging—which is a custom in the Committee stage and I appreciate that you have followed that custom—and also long enough to allow for the fact that the bill has not been to a select committee. It has become a practice that bills that have been to a select committee are debated for about an hour in the Committee stage. That is the rough rule of thumb; give or take 5 or 10 minutes. Part 1 was debated for 1 hour and 5 minutes. I know because I wrote it down. I asked your predecessor on two or three occasions before we got to Part 1 whether the range and length of debate would reflect the fact that the bill had not been to a select committee. 
My concern is that the practice of about 1 hour and 5 minutes or 1 hour and 10 minutes which applies to a bill that has been to a select committee will become acceptable for the remainder of this debate. It has always been the precedent that when a Government puts a bill through the House without sending it to a select committee the Chair allows a wide-ranging and slightly longer debate. Given that so many people are seeking the call I want your guidance as to whether you will stand by that ruling rather than the traditional 1-hour debate for a bill that has gone to a select committee.
Dunne Peter: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
Dunne Peter: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
[Volume:620;Page:15362] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 How the world has changed in just the 3 short years since we saw the unthinkable of aircraft flying into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon. We thought then around the world that terrorism had reached a level that it could descend no further below and that this was the most despicable outrageous and callous of acts. In fact 3 short years later what we are sadly realising is that it was perhaps but the beginning. In those 3 years we have had as has been mentioned the bombings at Bali the Madrid rail attack earlier this year and now by any standards the most despicable action of all the events at Beslan over the weekend just past. 
This is not the time to dwell on the events that lie behind those activities but to reflect the looks of pain anguish sadness and extreme fear in the faces of the parents the friends and the associates of those children who were trapped in that school. Anyone who watched the television newsreel on Friday evening as the events unfolded cannot help but be caught up in that same feeling of unreality and sheer horror. And maybe just maybe if enough people are exposed to that type of horror it will lead to a new resolution that terrorism cannot just be not tolerated but has to be stamped out. These people know no limits. We could not believe that terrorists would fly aircraft into buildings like human bombs. Now that they terrorise murder and frankly slaughter innocent children we are at the most depraved end of the spectrum of all. 
My party’s sympathies go with those of others to the people of Beslan and Russia. We cannot begin to comprehend their sadness their frustration and their anger but we can give them the consolation of our support in these difficult times. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8223] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 97 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to amend the definition of “registered health professional” in clause 240(3) be agreed to.
Parker David: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11052] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of the comments Mr Eckhoff made. Listening to him we would think this bill banned the burning of coal for power generation. It does not do that. Listening to Mr Eckhoff we would think it banned the building of nuclear energy plants. It does not do that. What it does do is make it easier to get consents for renewable energy projects. 
But what it does not do in terms of renewable energy projects is apply to Project Aqua. So I am afraid that Mr Eckhoff has three out of three incorrect—he is completely wrong on each one of them. The transitional provisions of this bill make it absolutely explicit that this bill does not apply where resource consent applications have already been filed. The Project Aqua consent applications have been filed and the legislation does not apply to them. We checked on that at the Local Government and Environment Committee and it was confirmed. 
The select committee did some other things to the legislation that I think improve it. We simplified the definition of “renewable energy” and we simplified a couple of other provisions. But I reinforce that this bill does not ban the burning of coal for power generation or for other purposes and neither does it ban nuclear power—not that I favour that form of energy. The bill does encourage renewables and it does not apply to Project Aqua.
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21714] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 25 
New Zealand National 20; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; United Future 7; Green Party 7; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to an amendment to clause 15 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker be agreed to: 
to insert in proposed new section 141AG of the Immigration Act the following new subsection: 
(3A)No person concerned with the movement of persons out of New Zealand may supply to any other person or entity any information supplied to that person under this section.
Duncan Helen: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Duncan Helen: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4670] 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to support the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill which puts into effect the few minor amendments that have arisen from the review of the Radio New Zealand charter. It is a pity that a more expeditious legislative process that of incorporating them into a Statutes Amendment Bill could not have been followed but unfortunately the Opposition voted against that. I commend this bill to the House.
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4246] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 4 of the Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I thought I would follow on from Deborah Coddington and repeat the title of the bill in its entirety. 
Rodney Hide 
: What was in it again? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I will let the members read it for themselves. 
I want to talk quickly about the PAYE intermediary part of this legislation and also about the whole issue of compliance costs which we are all getting down to once again. Compliance costs are obviously a real concern to New Zealand First. We need to do many things to promote growth within New Zealand and to do that we need to reduce compliance costs. New Zealand First believes that we need a Government that will provide the right conditions for activities such as exporting for example and an environment that innovators can flourish in. 
But I wish to talk about Part 4. It is my understanding that this bill contains rules in relation to the accreditation of PAYE intermediaries by the Inland Revenue Department; requirements on employers who want to transfer their PAYE obligations to intermediaries; requirements also on PAYE intermediaries; and regulations about the trust account in which wages and deductions are held by intermediaries before being paid to employees and the Inland Revenue Department respectively. There are also rules for the termination of the arrangement between employers and intermediaries. 
It is really good that the Minister of Revenue is in the chair. I seek clarification from him about how the Inland Revenue Department intends to administer access rights to PAYE information for intermediaries. I also feel that a question needs to be asked about the equivalent of tax agents’ linking rights for the PAYE accounts they manage. I am sure the Minister is very knowledgable on that subject. 
Getting back to the whole issue of compliance I also want to bring out the point about organisations that are not Maori organisations and therefore do not enjoy the benefit of a preferred tax rate. New Zealand First has said that it is very concerned about that provision. Part 4 of the Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations and Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill includes compliance costs and that is what we are talking about. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh! Aagh! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The Minister knows what I am talking about. When businesses or authorities have a slightly competitive advantage over others that will obviously cause a bit of havoc. As we were going through the select committee process in the Finance and Expenditure Committee which I am on we asked the submitters questions about a whole range of issues. I want to talk specifically about issues that pertain to Part 4—such as asking the submitters whether their clients were worried about any of the elements of that part.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:10953] 
8.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What changes if any is the Government making to search and rescue operations in New Zealand following the boating tragedy off the Oamaru coast last year? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Following the Oamaru tragedy the Government commissioned an independent inquiry into the incident. As a result of the inquiry procedures have been tightened. Any beacon going off now is treated as an emergency. The National Rescue Coordination Centre is opened in all cases regardless of the time of the emergency and is staffed with the relevant expertise. Since December 2003 there have been 156 emergency beacon incidents under the new procedures. In addition steps are well under way to staff the centre 24 hours a day 7 days a week and co-locate it with the existing full-time maritime operations centre. Extra funding of around $1.25 million per year is being provided by the Government and 16 additional staff are being recruited including 12 dedicated search and rescue officers. It is expected that this centre will be staffed 24/7 by 1 July 2004 at the latest. 
David Parker 
: What benefits are expected from these changes? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The benefits are significant. Whilst no amount of improvements will ever eliminate all risks associated with search and rescue operations a risk analysis identified that co-location and a change to a 24/7 facility could reduce the operational strategic risk to such operations by 70 percent. This is why the Government has taken action following the inquiry. 
Larry Baldock 
: What support if any has the Government received for the changes it is proposing to the search and rescue operations? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Government has received considerable support for the changes including from the families involved. As I noted the change to the centre’s hours of operations and the recommended co-location are well under way. However the Search and Rescue Council also recommended that the co-located National Rescue Coordination Centre and the Maritime Operations Centre should be managed by a single entity. To effect this change as soon as possible the Government has proposed a simple amendment to the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill. I would like thank United Future the Greens New Zealand First ACT and Donna Awatere Huata for supporting the proposal and I take this opportunity to urge the National Party to reconsider its opposition to the proposal in the interests of the safety of all New Zealanders.
Visitors — Delegation from Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature South Africa 
Visitors — Delegation from Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature South Africa 
[Volume:610;Page:7211] 
Wednesday 23 July 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Delegation from Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature South Africa 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Standing Committee on Traditional Affairs from the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature Republic of South Africa led by the chairman are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that they be welcomed.
Franks Stephen: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16854] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is quite happy to indicate whose vote went which way but we do understand those who do not wish to see any form of precedent whereby one party can in effect oblige disclosure by others without themselves seeking leave for that purpose. So I can understand those who said no. I wonder whether it might be better put not as a leave matter but simply as an invitation for each party to table its list.
Brash Don: Obituaries — Ronald Reagan—Former United States President  
Brash Don: Obituaries — Ronald Reagan—Former United States President  
[Volume:618;Page:13541] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The National Party certainly supports that resolution. In retrospect President Reagan was one of the great Presidents of the United States. He was not at the time always recognised as such by all of the people—indeed even in this House—but he made a tremendous contribution to the American economy and to the world. He effectively brought the cold war to an end and for that we all owe him a great debt of gratitude. As the Prime Minister has said he courageously acknowledged his own serious illness towards the end and he was by any count a great American.
Cunliffe David: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5417] 
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20989] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Locke Keith: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19083] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the amendments in the name of Nandor Tanczos. They are quite common-sense amendments. I think there was an argument from the Minister that because the Adoption Act and the Citizenship Act are not otherwise dealt with in the bill they should not be included in it and the amendments should not be put. But I think it is incumbent on us to be consistent in advancing to those in civil unions the same rights that exist for married couples in relation to adoption and to the special provisions for spouses to gain citizenship. 
I know the Minister’s viewpoint is that there will be reviews of those Acts and that is fair enough. There are reviews and changes in Acts all the time and it is good that those reviews are coming up. However for something as straightforward as this where all that we are doing is extending to civil union partners the same rights to adopt children that married couples have then why should we not put that in the bill? There may be objection to that and perhaps it is the objection I hear coming from my left from the United Future members that this means same-sex partners in a civil union will be able to adopt children. It may be they have some objection to that. If they wish to they can object to that but it is not a view shared by the Green Party or I think by most people in our society who want more equality and want adoptive children to be brought up in loving and caring partnerships which civil union partnerships will be. 
In terms of citizenship rights if the Minister has discretion under the Citizenship Act to treat the spouse of a New Zealand citizen with some preference in terms of gaining citizenship then that should apply not only to married couples and the married spouse of a New Zealander but also to the civil union spouse of a New Zealander. That is straightforward. 
Murray Smith 
: Civil union spouse? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: A civil union spouse or partner; whichever term the member wishes to use. 
I agree with the idea of holding off the extension of the provisions in this bill to de facto relationships in large part. I am in a de facto relationship myself and although my own relationship may be well established—it is 25 years old—there are people in de facto relationships who have relationships of a shorter time and who do not necessarily want to be treated entirely as married couples or civil union couples. So I support the tenor of the bill to tread a bit carefully in extending all the legal provisions to de facto couples or we could end up with a situation where people are scared of going into any de facto relationship for fear of consequences that they do not know about.
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3494] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That  
this House expresses no confidence in the Labour - United Future minority Government because it has done what it came to do and now lacks vision and purpose because it has outlined a legislative programme which undermines New Zealand’s ability to grow an economy that supports business and high-quality health and education and because the Prime Minister refuses to explain her Government’s policies on the Treaty of Waitangi and the future role it will play in our nation 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Speaker’s Ruling—Political Parties: Offensive Term 
[Volume:624;Page:19510] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have had time yet to give us a ruling on the question of whether a description of a political party necessarily includes members in the House. You did say at the time despite Mr Prebble’s protestations that you would consider it. I am asking you to look at the precedent set by Speaker Hunt when the Alliance had a significant dispute which was effected in this House by Mr Anderton claiming to lead the parliamentary party and being separate from the party as a whole. It is pretty important because the rule that you relied upon was set in 1914 and I think that Mr Hunt’s ruling overrides it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to look at that for the member and report back.
Points of Order — Business of the House Allocation of Questions 
Points of Order — Business of the House Allocation of Questions 
[Volume:606;Page:3901] 
Points of Order 
Business of the House 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a question with the Leader of the House. Having approached the Clerk’s Office about the format for tomorrow in respect of member’s day and the Budget Policy Statement debate we were told that the ordinary debate for members will go on. However having read Chen Palmer and Partners’ latest epistle of 28 February I find on page 2 that on Wednesday a 2-hour debate will be held on the Budget Policy Statement. We would like to know what is going on and how it is that that firm knows before the rest of us. Perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us what will happen tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is automatic under the Standing Orders if the member would care to consult them. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I can assure the House that I did not pay Chen Palmer and Partners its usual fees for any such statement. 
Allocation of Questions 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise an issue understanding—as all parties do—that the allocation of questions is done according to a formula. I want to point out that today we have to go to question No. 6 before the major Opposition party has a question. Prior to that we have three questions asked of the Government by the Government. I make it clear that question time is for the Opposition parties to question Government Ministers and if we have a formula being applied in this case that will mean the major Opposition party does not come into play until halfway through the day then clearly we need to have a new formula. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have in front of me the schedule given to me by the Clerk. I will have a look at it. The allocation of questions is done to an agreed formula and I understand that it is done very carefully. It has been rolled over for months. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I can help the honourable member. If he actually goes and looks at the questions for oral answer for today he will see that in question No. 2 the effective Opposition does ask a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is being silly.
Tisch Lindsay: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13495] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I note that Standing Order 301(2)(a) states: “An amendment proposed by the member in charge of the bill is taken ahead of an amendment proposed by another member …” occurring at the same place in the bill. I would have thought that in this case the Minister’s amendment would be put first. That would then rule out New Zealand First’s amendment because the amendments say exactly the same thing and then there would have been no need to put New Zealand First’s amendment. 
What I have difficulty with—as I have stated before and as my colleague Gerry Brownlee has also indicated—is that if you are using the reasoning of Standing Order 313 because it is a financial veto I cannot see how you can say New Zealand First’s amendments are ruled out because of the financial veto but then accept the Minister’s amendment which says exactly the same thing. It is a contradiction. I believe you should have looked at Standing Order 301 first and used that as the reason for not accepting New Zealand First’s amendments and in particular the amendment to clause 4(3). 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Tisch for the very considered summation he has made and I appreciate that. I think a valid point was made. However the Government veto applies to Mr Brown’s amendments as a whole and as a result the certificates are taken as a whole.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:611;Page:8691] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5556] 
8.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is the Government taking to actively encourage innovation in early childhood education services and schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Just over $2 million is available every 3 years for six early childhood education centres of innovation. This is pursuant to last year’s Budget. We have also established a $1 million annual Collaborative Innovations Fund in the school sector. Ultralab South the New Zealand branch of the wonderful UK research and development institute will assist in identifying new and innovative technologies to improve educational programmes. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister tell the House when these initiatives will improve teaching and learning? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Early childhood services working alongside researchers and schools working together will identify and share innovative teaching and learning practices building professional knowledge and expertise. In my opinion we are not good enough at identifying and developing good practice then sharing it. 
Heather Roy 
: Who does he imagine will implement this innovation when this Government is actively introducing a registration system that will sideline thousands of experienced and capable teachers who will not be grandparented resulting in staffing shortages in early childhood centres around the country? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there were three wrong assumptions in that question.
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:612;Page:9257] 
5.  
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: In light of her statement yesterday regarding judicial appointments to the Supreme Court that she would not reject the advice of the independent panel if it differed from her own views does that mean that she will take no substantive part in the process of appointments other than passing the recommendations of the panel to the Governor- General; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Attorney-General 
: Yes the Minister will be passing on to the Governor-General the recommendations made by the panel. 
Richard Worth 
: What is her response to the letter in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning an open letter exchanged between herself and Gavin Ellis in which Gavin Ellis the Editor-in-Chief of the  
New Zealand Herald  
says in part under the heading “Judicial proposal falls down on selection process”: “No selection panel can be seen to be apolitical when it has been chosen by the party in power. No superior court will be free of criticism while its members owe their appointment to the Executive and not Parliament.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If that claim were true it would apply to every one of the present members of the Court of Appeal and the judges of the High Court the great majority of whom were appointed before this Government came into office. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can we have confidence in her assurances of non-interference in judicial appointments when I am advised that she has destroyed the institutional memory of the Environment Court by removing 100 percent of the environment commissioners over the last 2 years and replacing them with her acolytes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The last part of the question is utterly offensive in describing these people as acolytes. As I have pointed out to a number of colleagues on many occasions no Government actually welcomes the prospect of activist judges for very obvious reasons. 
Richard Worth 
: What instructions if any has she given to this advisory panel that when making judicial appointments a primary consideration should be a knowledge of cultural and gender issues and how is it planned to test that knowledge of cultural and gender issues? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not aware that was an instruction from the Attorney-General. That was in the Solicitor-General’s advertisement as I understand it for people to make application. But I think it would be desirable in the modern world that these people have some understanding of these matters. That does not reflect the fact that I suspect most of them will still turn out to be middle-aged gentlemen.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:618;Page:14432] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Vote ACC stand part of the schedules. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hate to do this because it is not a thing I would like to think is happening in this Committee but I clearly saw you being guided by the junior Government whip. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You need your glasses. 
John Carter 
: I do not need glasses and the member should not interrupt while there is a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is to be silence during points of order. 
John Carter 
: As much as it may be denied it was pretty obvious to me what was happening and it should not happen. If the junior Government whip wishes to make an instruction to the Minister then he should do so before the Minister gets on her feet and similarly you should stop looking into her eyes to take guidance as well. So can I suggest that we now carry on but I just wanted to make the point. [ 
Interruption 
] I was going to say “longingly”! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand where the member is coming from and I can accept what he is saying. I will just let the member know that I was not looking into the Minister’s eyes and it was up to the Minister whether or not she spoke. 
Vote agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9026] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well let me just say again—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask members to listen for a moment. I say again that technically the Minister’s amendments to clauses 2 and 3 should have been taken first. Right? But the votes have been taken. The Committee can now go back only by leave—I make that point. If leave is not forthcoming votes would be taken on the Minister’s clause 2 amendments her clause 3 amendments then the remaining amendments all together.