edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Adams Paul: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Adams Paul: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9661] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a quick call in the title debate because being an Aucklander and hearing some of the things that have been said I sometimes wonder whether the National Party’s Auckland MPs have actually looked out of their windows when travelling on our Auckland roads and seen the work that has already begun. Maybe we should have called it the “I Only Travel in Taxis Bill” because they have been asleep in the back seat not looking at the progress already starting on Auckland roads. Perhaps we could call it the “Auckland is Thankful for the United Future MPs Bill” because at least we have become involved and begun to start something that is beginning to make progress in Auckland. 
We are concerned with roads in Auckland so we are not going to be a party that will stand back solely to criticise because criticism never gets anything done. Maybe we should call it the “Don’t Criticise All the Time but Get Constructive Bill” for Auckland. Auckland is an important part of the country but we also understand that it is not the only part of the country. United Future is pleased to support this bill because progress is happening. 
How does one eat an elephant? One eats it one bite at a time. So we could perhaps call it the “One Bite at a Time Bill” because we have got together with parties that are prepared to take one bite at a time in order to get on with the roads in Auckland. The people listening to this debate will know that business communities in Auckland are very pleased to see this bill come about. They are rejoicing about it as is United Future because we like to move ahead. We could call it the “Everybody Likes it Done Today Bill” if members like because everybody would like the roads done today. Of course that is not possible because it does take one day at a time. But there are some parties in this House—United Future is one of them—that will stick up for and stand and move ahead with progress. I am glad I am not in a senseless party. United Future is making a difference in this great nation of ours. People out there can be thankful that some parties in this House are making progress so that our road problems will get fixed—and United Future is one of them.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
[Volume:608;Page:5680] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 In my own experience—and probably in that member’s experience as well—if a Minister had to make a ministerial statement every time the information that came from a department was not entirely complete I doubt we would be doing any other business during the week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member was entitled to raise that point but it is in the hands of the Prime Minister or any other Minister as to whether a statement is made. That is where the matter rests.
Vote: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12422] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand National 24; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Parts 2 to 13 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 2 to 13 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Building Societies Amendment Bill the Commerce Amendment Bill (No 2) the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Co-operative Companies Amendment Bill the Distress and Replevin Amendment Bill the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill the Life Insurance Amendment Bill the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill the Securities Amendment Bill (No 2) the Securities Markets Amendment Bill (No 2) the Superannuation Schemes Amendment Bill and the Unit Trusts Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 196. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Members’ Bills 
Members’ Bills 
[Volume:625;Page:20185] 
Members’ Bills 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee that had the support of all parties I seek leave for there to be a ballot to draw two members’ bills tomorrow. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I apologise to the Minister but I could not quite hear what he was saying. Did he say that everyone has agreed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes; Ken Shirley agreed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: God we’re getting soft! OK. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I take it from that there is no objection? Thank you very much. There will be a ballot to draw two members’ bills tomorrow.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8808] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to insert new definitions in clause 2(1) be agreed to.
Carter Chris: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16588] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Copeland Gordon: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17919] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 Eight opposed.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Stranger in the Lobbies—President of Council of Trade Unions  
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Stranger in the Lobbies—President of Council of Trade Unions  
[Volume:620;Page:16104] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned I regard this incident as a breach. But the breach has been acknowledged and I have accepted the member’s apology in that regard. I regard the incident as closed.
te Heuheu Georgina: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20956] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Before I get into any of the detail of Part 2 I want to make some general comments. This bill is an affront to New Zealanders. The Labour minority Government has brought it in under urgency—with the help of the Greens who are struggling to find some relevance because they have been totally irrelevant in the last few years. An election is nigh and the Greens are struggling to find relevance by supporting this bill. 
Debate interrupted.
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6211] 
11.  
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: When was Child Youth and Family Services notified that an 11-year-old boy was not attending school because successive State-funded carers refused to look after his tetraplegic grandfather and what action was taken at the time to ensure he could attend school? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I am advised that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services was notified of the case on 1 May. It then contacted the Accident Compensation Corporation which had already been in contact with the family’s general practitioner. The Department of Child Youth and Family Services then contacted the school which contacted the boy’s father who advised he was not available to discuss the issue for a further fortnight. In the meantime the school initiated a truancy prosecution. The department also contacted the Care and Protection Resource Panel visited the boy at home and today attended a further meeting with other Government agencies to determine continuing action to resolve the issues. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is it not a damning comment on the service when a case of an 11-year-old boy who is not attending school because he is caring for a severely disabled grandparent is not seen as critical but as the third-lowest level of urgency to be dealt with in 7 days and that after 6 weeks the child is still not in an environment where school attendance is ensured? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: What I would say is a damning indictment not on the department but on our society is the fact that we have many more children who are more critically in need of support than that boy. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What are Government agencies doing now to ensure the boy’s well-being? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A number of Government agencies are actively involved in this case. They are continuing to work together to provide a coordinated response to ensure that the boy does attend school and that the boy’s and the grandfather’s needs are met.
Yates Dianne: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Yates Dianne: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13016] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Malaysia—House of Representatives Special Select Committee to  Amend the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code Australia—Members of Australian Political Exchange 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Malaysia—House of Representatives Special Select Committee to  Amend the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code Australia—Members of Australian Political Exchange 
[Volume:623;Page:18789] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Special Select Committee to Amend the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code from the House of Representatives Malaysia are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8221] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a call on Part 9 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill partly because I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that I want to take the opportunity to speak to but also in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper submitted by Mr Hide. I signal that New Zealand First will not be supporting it. We believe that any suggestion of deregulation at this time is not at the right time. That is number one. 
Number two is that the bill is subject to review in 3 years’ time. We should look at it then. If the truth be known some members on this side of the Chamber support the Supplementary Order Paper without really wanting to do so—because of previous circumstances they are obliged to do so. I reiterate that New Zealand First will not be supporting the ACT member’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
I want to talk to my amendments to clause 240 on my Supplementary Order Paper. I want to add to the definition of “authorised prescriber”. My Supplementary Order Paper amends the definition by including a little bit more detail as to what the term “authorised prescriber” should mean or should include. It should include “authorised ophthalmic prescriber” and again I am referring to the optometrists—following the approaches that members of their association made to me I was convinced that I should support their call for that. 
In addition I propose another amendment to clause 240(3) after the words “medical practitioner” to include the word “optometrist” with the definition meaning that it is a health practitioner who is or is deemed to be registered as an optometrist with the Optometrists and Dispensing Opticians Board continued by this legislation. 
Similarly that definition should be included within the meanings of “medicine” “new medicine” “prescription medicine” “restricted medicine” and “prescription optical appliances”. Again that is in keeping with the approaches made to me by the members of the Optometrists Association. I would like to see a new clause 243A included referring to the sale of prescription optical appliances by retail. I seek support for that Supplementary Order Paper.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:626;Page:21301] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Woolerton R Doug: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17726] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 2 of the bill as previous speakers have said is all about the tensions that exist for competing space— 
Simon Power 
: Tensions is a big word. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Tensions is the word—in public land. We are talking about the water column and the sea bed. We are talking about what people can do in it what its most profitable use is and also to a degree what is fair and how one goes about that. If it were perpetual lease as proposed by the ACT party one could just tell other people to go away. If it were fee simple one could tell them to go away: “This is mine and we don’t want to have anything to do with you.” But because it is not a mechanism needed to be worked out and I think that those of us on the Primary Production Committee at least have agreed that we have come up with the best we possibly can. We think it is fair we think it serves the commercial imperatives that are inherent in this business and we think that it is as good as we can get for the environment. Those are the things we have to worry about and those are the things that make it such a difficult business. When we are talking about other marine life and fish—scallops oysters flounder and other fish that hang around in the shallows— 
Shane Ardern 
: Making my mouth water. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Exactly. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I’d rather be fishing. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I cannot speak because my mouth is watering so much. All those things must be taken care of. I will go back to the fact that one of the reasons New Zealand First supports this bill is that it is balanced and it does all those competing things and takes all those interests into account. We believe that it does a very difficult job well. That is why we support it.
Speaker’s Statements — Anniversary—John Armstrong’s Arrival in the Press Gallery 
Speaker’s Statements — Anniversary—John Armstrong’s Arrival in the Press Gallery 
[Volume:623;Page:18151] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Anniversary—John Armstrong’s Arrival in the Press Gallery 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Mark Sainsbury the chairman of the parliamentary press gallery has advised me that today marks the 20th anniversary of Mr John Armstrong’s arrival in the gallery. I am sure all of us would wish him well.
Vote: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7122] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 20 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7. 
Noes 86 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 20; ACT New Zealand 6 United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 2 agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9210. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to keep doing this but I think it is better that we have the advantage of your wisdom now because I can see this matter occurring probably in the first speech. It is an interesting problem and I am sure you know what I am going to say. What has happened now is matters that would have most certainly been canvassed in the second reading—had we known—have become known. So we now know that the Government paid $2.1 million—corruptly in my view—to get members of Parliament to swing their votes. I am sure I would have been allowed to raise that matter on the second reading. Now we will have a situation that because the Government has managed to keep it secret and did not tell us about it when we raised it at the Committee stage the Chair will then say: “Well of course you could have raised that at the second reading but the Government kept it secret and did not tell you about it and now you are not allowed to ask whether this is why Maori members in particular are voting in favour of this bill”.
Turner Judy: Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Turner Judy: Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19217] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of this legislation. As a dairy farmer’s daughter I think my dear dad would not be turning in his grave but would be rather chuffed that this industry is getting the makeover that it so richly deserves. 
The objectives are quite clearly defined. The legislation sets in place a system that is less coercive and more outcome focused. The move to manage the risks to humans and to animal health from the consumption and use of dairy products and to further facilitate the entry of New Zealand dairy products into the overseas markets through improved quality assurances cannot in all reality be rationally opposed. It is very pleasing to hear the support in the House this evening for the third readings. These objectives will serve the industry and the country well both now and into the future. 
It was also pleasing to note that there were efforts to consult the industry members about the underlying issues that the legislation seeks to address. As with any proposed legislation that affects the livelihood of stakeholders both large and small participation in the process and hopefully buy-in brings integrity to legislation and adds value to its intentions. 
Consultation on this proposal has included discussion papers and stakeholder submissions and it has been broad and extremely useful. The regulatory model used for the legislation will afford the industry more responsibility for producing safe food and the necessary flexibility to achieve desired outcomes. The functionality of the model is commendable and will add value to industry practice and procedure and will help to ensure future-proofing of the industry allowing for its ongoing development for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Once again United Future supports the third readings of the bills.
Smith Nick: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Smith Nick: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3458] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a set of background notes on the Christchurch Polytechnic early learning centre including a plan of its layout. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Sowry Roger: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Sowry Roger: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8653] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank you for that because I certainly was going to ask whether that meeting had taken place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wanted to tell Parliament first. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I have had the opportunity to read the ruling you made on Thursday and I thank you for circulating it. It does open up two areas I want to ask you about. The first one relates to when the police indicated to your office that they intended to interview Mr Ardern. The issue I have is: why would the police indicate that to your office if in fact they knew they were not meant to be on the premises; or did they indicate that to your office because of your own public comments on the issue? The second issue is: were the police advised by you or by your office that they could not interview Mr Ardern within the precincts of Parliament; if not why not? On that issue you will appreciate that parliamentarians do have a right to the protection of the Chair and of your office. They also have a reasonable right to have confidence in your staff and to know that you will be advising the police of the appropriate rules regarding the precincts.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3350] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House for this question to be held over until a day when the Minister of Energy can answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5512] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 45 
Amendment agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Date 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Date 
[Volume:613;Page:10137] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
I seek leave for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to be extended to 8 April 2004.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.
Pettis Jill: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11902] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 The Business Law Reform Bill seeks to make the law affecting the operation of businesses clear efficient and effective. The bill will clarify and update various provisions within existing legislation. It will remove unnecessary compliance costs and remove the conflicts within and between pieces of legislation. In effect it is an omnibus bill because it effects changes to a number of pieces of legislation. 
It is a good bill because it is business-friendly and it reduces unnecessary compliance costs and other impediments to business. I am very pleased to see this bill before the House because it recognises the fact that New Zealand is a good place in which to do business and because it will help businesses to operate efficiently and effectively. I am very pleased to see the bill progressing through the House and wish it a speedy passage.
Simich Clem: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Simich Clem: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5116] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. The procedure we run through is: first the Minister is called; we go to National as it is slightly bigger than New Zealand First; we then go back to Labour or United Future. It is normally a Labour call but it is either/or and that is why we are there. Next we will come to New Zealand First because it is well recognised that New Zealand First is the second-biggest Opposition party. We have always done that—certainly all this year. That is why the call is not going to United Future in its own right; that party is combined with Labour for this purpose. The next call was really Labour after National.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:626;Page:21300] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises and the passing through their remaining stages of the Land Transport Amendment Bill the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) the Overseas Investment Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
This motion is moved to allow for additional sitting hours this week to consider legislation the Government wishes to see passed before the end of June.
Jones Dail: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9972] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are still taking the vote on a split vote basis are we not? For example it could be 12 against and one in favour. I am just making sure. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes but on the closure motion they are all cast one way. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to clause 6(2) be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22213] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Police be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 31 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Vote Police agreed to.
Donnelly Brian: Points of Order — Official Information Act Requests 
Donnelly Brian: Points of Order — Official Information Act Requests 
[Volume:608;Page:5543] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you are aware the Opposition is dependent upon accurate information to be able to carry out its role of scrutinising the executive. I want to bring to your attention the fact that on 14 March of this year the office of the Hon Trevor Mallard the Minister of Education received an application under the Official Information Act from one of our staff seeking a range of material pertaining to a specific issue existing at that time to do with private school funding. It was acknowledged— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I am not responsible for the Official Information Act. That is the Minister’s office; no responsibility for this Parliament. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: 
 Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not really involved in this. I cannot see how it is a point of order. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I was going to ask whether there was any way you could assist us here but I guess the question is in terms of the processes in this House what courses of action are available other than going to the Ombudsman which uses time. So I am seeking advice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are no processes in this House. This is a statutory requirement.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:616;Page:11775] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Income Tax Bill to be set down for 30 March to be up to a maximum of 3 hours and for the House to proceed directly after the Committee stage to a motion from the Minister in charge for the third reading of the bill after which the debate is to be adjourned until 8 April without the bill being reprinted under Standing Order 266(2). I am referring to the bill on the Table. Members will understand why in a bill of this sort which does not introduce any new policy it is desirable to avoid reprinting it between the two stages. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17450] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I suggest that in this particular debate the word “homophobe” is a useful term and it would be unfortunate for us to end up interrupting the debate all the way through when it is a word that people are dying to use. I think that it says more about the poverty of intellect and argument of those who throw it as an allegation than it says about the recipient. But putting that aside I think that when a word is ruled out that fits what they want to say so well it ends up making the debate less rich and with people simply searching for euphemisms. I would suggest that those of us who get accused of being homophobic know whether we are and that we just thicken our skins and allow the debate to continue.
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17263] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 310 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to insert new clauses 7A and 7B be agreed to.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13496] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 29 
New Zealand National 22; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Robertson H V Ross: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:5006] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Madam Deputy Speaker you have been recalled at the request of the Hon Ken Shirley. The issue relates to the exclusion from the Chamber of the honourable member Rodney Hide prior to the dinner break. My understanding because I was not in the Chair prior to 6 o’clock was that Mr Hide was asked to leave the Chamber and was instructed to do so until the rising of the House this evening. The matter of the interpretation of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu’s Maori amendment has been taken care of and that is sitting on the Table for members to look at. As to the exclusion I upheld the decision of the previous Chairperson. As a result of that there has been a request that the Speaker be recalled to rule on the matter.
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10006] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 What Dr Cullen has not bothered to answer is the primary question that I put which was to assert that the main question was whether Part 3 should stand part. He has not answered that. He has been glib in his response—and abusive.
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6979] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: I want to briefly answer the questions that have been raised about the possibility that the Stockholm convention could be amended after an internal process with all the international experts involved by adding a new persistent organic pollutant to the list. Under clause 13 of the bill—and not under Part 1 which we are debating now—it actually states that we would add that pollutant to the list of persistent organic pollutants as specified in the Stockholm convention and add it into the text of the Stockholm convention set out in the schedule of the bill by Order in Council. I tell members that whenever we are doing anything as serious as an Order in Council—and I make this absolute commitment—we will be out there consulting with the chemical industry which up to this time absolutely supports both internationally and inside New Zealand the number of pollutants that are listed here. We will work with that industry internationally and in New Zealand if we were ever to consider ourselves in line with an amended Stockholm convention should that happen.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:609;Page:6946] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15422] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will speak extremely briefly. Speaking sotto voce and making a comment to oneself is I believe quite usual in this Chamber. But if I offended the member I am happy to withdraw and see an end to the matter.
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Speaker—No Confidence 
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Speaker—No Confidence 
[Volume:620;Page:15736] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member needs leave from the House. The member has sought that and it has been declined.
Bradford Sue: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4038] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party would like to congratulate Mark Peck on having this bill drawn out of the ballot as it deals with a long-neglected aspect of company law that we believe should have been addressed well before now. Like Mr Peck we believe that there should be more protection for employees’ redundancy entitlements when companies go under. When redundancy agreements are negotiated surely the whole point of them is to compensate workers for the situation they find themselves in when they lose their job through no fault of their own. 
Company liquidation or receivership has become all too common a phenomenon over the last 20 years and there have been many examples of workers losing everything they were owed in redundancy even when their former bosses would themselves have wished for a far better fate for their employees. I am sure many employers have themselves felt grief as they have seen the Inland Revenue Department paid out while people supporting families have gone on the dole unprotected by any cushion of redundancy pay no matter how long they have served the company or how loyal and productive a worker they have been. At the moment when an organisation goes under staff who become suddenly unemployed find themselves having to line up with what is usually a huge queue of unsecured creditors to take their chances on whether they will eventually get even a minor percentage of what they are owed in redundancy. This bill if passed will change all that by ensuring that redundancy payments will become a preferential claim in the event of liquidation or receivership. 
A second welcome feature of this bill is the removal of the $6000 limit on all amounts owed to employees and the elimination of the current $1500 limit on what a worker can recover in the event of an employer’s bankruptcy. 
While this is a member’s bill I do hope that Mr Peck’s own party will see its way clear to supporting the bill not only to the select committee but also through all stages in the House to become law before the end of this year. The Government along with individual workers and unions can be assured of the Green Party’s support for this bill. I look forward to the day that workers’ entitlements are given the same protection as those of other preferential creditors when the worst happens and an employer goes under.
Robertson H V Ross: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22280] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to Dr Smith that the Standing Order does not apply to a Supplementary Order Paper and there is nothing to prevent a Supplementary Order Paper from being circulated during the second reading debate.
Goff Phil: Appointments — Police Complaints Authority—Ian Albert Borrin 
Goff Phil: Appointments — Police Complaints Authority—Ian Albert Borrin 
[Volume:616;Page:11892] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to sections 4 and 5 of the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988 this House recommends Her Excellency the Governor-General reappoint Ian Albert Borrin District Court Judge of Wellington as Police Complaints Authority for a term of 2 years. 
 Judge Borrin has been on the District Court bench since 1983. He became the then Deputy Police Complaints Authority in September 1997 subsequently the acting authority in 2000 and then the authority from 2001. When his name was put forward for appointment in 2001 every party in this House supported that appointment and the indication I have is that he will be supported again by all but one party in the House. I think that that is appropriate; he has done a competent job. 
Finally I would like to foreshadow that upon the passage of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill which is before the House membership of the authority will be supplemented by an additional two appointments in line with recommendations of the Gallen review in 2000.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21990] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Finance be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Vote Finance agreed to.
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6791] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am concerned in regard to any ruling on this type of bill where there is a proposal that a court’s decision be overturned—in this case a High Court decision only—that the standard accepted in this type of case might be the standard that is accepted say in a case in which the House might be faced with a Court of Appeal decision that it wishes to overturn. I would not like it to be accepted in any way that New Zealand First would accept that type of situation because we do not want this Parliament to be able to say at some later stage in Committee that when we overturned that High Court decision we had five speeches only and New Zealand First got only one call and now that we are overturning a Court of Appeal decision the same rules apply. When we are overturning a court decision I would expect that—in or out of urgency—we should get more calls than would normally be the case because we are overturning a very considered decision to which the Government has been part and on which the Government has made detailed and lengthy submissions being a party to that court case and perhaps in any other case that might be before the Court of Appeal. You have made your decision on the first part but I would respectfully ask that more time be given on Part 2 to avoid precedents being set for future cases. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not need any help Mr Shirley. I accept and I acknowledge the contributions that have been made both by the Hon Murray McCully and by the honourable member Dail Jones and I will certainly take those matters into consideration on the second part because the second part deals with the validation and processing of applications. I also refer members to Speakers’ rulings 54/2 and 63/2 which detail that I am the sole judge of relevancy. I adjudged that speeches were becoming very similar. The point was made that the debate was wide-ranging only on the title debate. I refer members to that. I acknowledge that I have listened to their representations and I will certainly take note of them during the debate on Part 2.
Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
[Volume:621;Page:16381] 
Points of Order 
Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I stand to raise it on an issue that I have raised with you twice in this House and twice again in writing. This time it has come to my attention that the Minister of Education has once again not answered a written question within the stipulated time frame according to the Standing Orders— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I actually replied to the member this morning. Perhaps he would care to get hold of that letter and then contemplate whether he wants to take the matter any further—after he has seen the reply. 
RON MARK 
: This concerns a different Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. I can assure the member that I have replied to the letter the member wrote me. I wrote to him this morning. 
RON MARK 
: Yes Mr Speaker but this concerns another case that has just been brought to my attention. As you have just pointed out you have responded to me in a letter which I have yet to receive but now we have the Minister of Education failing to respond to question for written answer No. 14929. Staff from New Zealand First rang the Minister’s office today expressing concern and got a very blunt and terse response as to what they should do with themselves. This has now got to a stage where I believe that Ministers are trifling with you Mr Speaker and with the Standing Orders. You have made it very clear that Ministers must abide by those Standing Orders. I will read your letter but I ask what we are to do. Where does the protection for the Opposition lie? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The protection lies with me. The member can be sure that I have taken up matters on behalf of him and other members used pretty strong words and had pretty well immediate action. If the member writes to me about this he will get action.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:624;Page:19679] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Last night of course the business we would have got on to was reports of select committees which is not Government business and we are not taking urgency for that business.
Cullen Michael: Motions — Reserve Bank Funding Agreement—Ratification 
Cullen Michael: Motions — Reserve Bank Funding Agreement—Ratification 
[Volume:616;Page:12398] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
T 
hat pursuant to section 161(2) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 this House ratify the funding agreement entered into by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand pursuant to section 159(3)(a) of that Act to apply for the period through to 30 June 2004 and for the financial year ending 30 June 2005 as presented to the House on 30 March 2004.
Parker David: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21550] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Clause 4(1)(b)(i) speaks of imposing “statutory marginal strip condition for certain overseas investments in sensitive land:”. 
Simon Power 
: The Supplementary Order Paper refers to it as well. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The Supplementary Order Paper removes that provision. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is where I did get confused before.