edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Visitors — Socialist Republic of Viet Nam—Foreign Affairs Committee National Assembly 
Visitors — Socialist Republic of Viet Nam—Foreign Affairs Committee National Assembly 
[Volume:622;Page:17667] 
Tuesday 14 December 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam—Foreign Affairs Committee National Assembly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Mackey Janet: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Janet: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12188] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Anderton Jim: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5444] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Mr Peters accused me of lying. I ask that he withdraw and apologise.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Carbon Tax—Introduction 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Carbon Tax—Introduction 
[Volume:625;Page:20236] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from John Key seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 a Government announcement that the carbon tax will be set at $15 per tonne and will be introduced in April 2007. This announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but as Speaker’s ruling 154/7 makes clear not every ministerial announcement even an important one will give grounds for an urgent debate. In this case as the carbon tax does not take effect until April 2007 I do not believe that there are grounds for an urgent debate to be held on it today. I therefore decline the application.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — National Party Leadership 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — National Party Leadership 
[Volume:613;Page:9621] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to move on to questions. I do not want any more frivolous points of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is not a frivolous point of order. I therefore now seek leave for an urgent debate to take place on the issue of the National Party’s leadership after question time tomorrow—in which case he will be more permanent in his job. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that to occur. Is there any objection? There is.
Benson-Pope David: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4704] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and recommend that the House send it to theLaw and Order Committee forthwith where I know it will get rational consideration in contrast to the prejudice we have just heard expressed about this issue.
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16184] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The vote on those schedules is surely indicative is it not? If this country in say 12 months’ time was so foolish as to vote for Labour what we would actually get is a Labour-Green-Maori coalition Government. That is the kind of coalition we would get because that is exactly what those votes would represent. What is more interesting is that the Green Party and the Maori Party have tried to push Labour even more to the left—than Margaret Wilson has. So we just know as an absolute fact that a Labour-Green-Maori coalition would be fundamentally a more left-wing Government. That is the real prospect facing our country. 
In contrast all the parties running from the centre through to the right are voting for a sensible approach and growth. I have to note that United Future did actually give a common-sense vote today—it is a fairly rare event I might add. That is the big political contest that faces this country in relation to these crucial issues. Employment relations is one of those fundamental divides. One believes either in giving unions more and more preferences whenever and wherever possible or in equality and choice in the workplace so that everyone is treated equally in negotiations. 
It is interesting is it not? National has put a real stake in the ground around the point and principle of equality. That has appealed deeply to New Zealanders. Dr Brash is telling New Zealand to extend that principle across the totality of New Zealand life—not just in the area of race relations but across all aspects of our nation’s life. In the area of employment we want people to be treated equally. We want the 1.7 million workers—the 80 percent of New Zealander workers—who have chosen not to be in unions to be treated exactly the same as unionists. What could possibly be wrong with that principle of equality? What could possibly be wrong with that? Yet this Government aided by its Green Party and Maori Party lackeys is saying no to that basic proposition. That has to be a tremendously dangerous signal to New Zealand. 
In the last 3 weeks strikes either have been threatened or have happened in crucial transport sectors—Air New Zealand tomorrow and Ports of Auckland just 3 weeks ago. We just know for a fact that the unions will target the vulnerable sectors of our economy. We are uniquely dependent on exports. A greater percentage of our economy is devoted to primary exports than in any other developed country. The unions know that. For many many years they had feather-bedded cushioned provisions in those key industries. That held back New Zealand enormously and the Minister knows the truth of that. For three decades we had lower growth than any other OECD country. It was a fool’s paradise. The crunch came in the 1980s. All of that was stripped out over the next succeeding 15 years and this country has had the benefits. We have had higher growth. The Government itself has benefited from that growth.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 58 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) from subclause (3) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(c)seize any restricted substance document or record (of any kind) or other article relating to a restricted substance (for example any advertising or labelling material) and retain for not longer than 72 hours unless an information is laid in respect of a relevant serious offence.
Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11957] 
Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 3 March. 
Clauses 1 and 1A Parts 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 to 4 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 When we last discussed this bill 3 weeks ago I explained to members the purpose of the further Supplementary Order Papers in my name. I will recap ever so briefly. The passing of the Holidays Act which will come into effect on 1 April this year necessitates some minor amendments to the bill as reported back. So the opportunity has been taken to correct a minor typographical error and to divide the bill into two. Shortly I shall be moving accordingly to amend the Volunteers Employment Protection Act and the Defence Act respectively. Further the opportunity has also been taken to provide that the bill will come into effect at the same time as the Holidays Act and finally to amend clause 5 consequential to renaming the Higher Salaries Commission as the Remuneration Authority. 
I now seek leave for the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in my name and the typescript amendment to be voted on as one question at the conclusion of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is not. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clauses 1A 3 13 19 and 23 and to schedules 2 and 3 and the following amendment to clause 5 in his name be agreed to. 
to omit from the definition of  
State employee 
 the words “Higher Salaries Commission” and substitute the words “Remunderation Authority”. 
Amendments agreed to and clauses 1 and 1A Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 to 4 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 186. 
divided into Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill and Defence Amendment Bill 
Bill reported with amendment.
Mapp Wayne: Privilege — Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee New Zealand Post Limited Disclosure of Select Committee Proceedings 
Mapp Wayne: Privilege — Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee New Zealand Post Limited Disclosure of Select Committee Proceedings 
[Volume:608;Page:5725] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I just wish to endorse the point that has been made by the chairman of the Privileges Committee and in particular these statements on page 5 of the report: “We prompt the Standing Orders Committee to meet soon to progress its review of Standing Orders.” The reason we have specifically said this and put a degree of urgency on it is that it is perfectly foreseeable that this kind of breach of privilege will occur in the future. 
I think that everyone in this Parliament knows that members of select committees talk to the press. They like to have a dialogue about what is occurring in the committees they are members of and often the line between what is confidential and still under consideration by the committee and what is public knowledge is difficult to draw. 
I pick up on the reference in the  
Independent 
to “Duynhoven’s law”. It was not some sort of exposé article; it was simply a report to the readers of the  
Independent 
 of the kinds of issues that the select committee was considering. As I said it was not an exposé article that some might think could raise a question of privilege. One has to ask oneself why it would not be reasonable for the public to have some sense of what a committee is considering. Those are matters of legitimate public interest. Particularly in that situation it would not lead to the curtailment of the dialogue between the executive and members of Parliament. It would be part of the process of developing public policy. 
I want to stress to the House and to the Standing Orders Committee in particular that unless they deal with this issue with a reasonable degree of expedition we can expect further issues of privilege to arise. Of course the Speaker really has no choice but to apply the existing Standing Orders. If someone is clearly in breach even if well intentioned then clearly the matter has to be referred to the Privileges Committee. But the kind of report that will come out of the Privileges Committee is precisely the sort we are presenting today which is to say yes a breach has occurred but in fact our Standing Orders are wrong and we urge the Standing Orders to be changed to enable the progress of our democracy. 
It does perturb me that we have endorsed the views of the Privileges Committee from the 46th Parliament. I would like to think we are not going to have to issue another report like this urging further progress. So I make this submission to you Mr Speaker in your role as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee and ask you to deal with the issue with expedition because in doing so you will be enhancing the quality of our democracy.
Gudgeon Bill: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gudgeon Bill: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17277] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support the bill with the recommended changes by the Social Services Committee. This bill amends the income and asset testing regime that applies to residents of long-term residential care regardless of what National has said. Along with that the resident can if he or she wishes access financial support for care costs administered by the Ministry of Social Development. The purposes of the bill are to progressively increase the value of assets that people may retain before being required to use those assets to pay for care. At one stage this was never ever deliberated on or taken care of but for New Zealand First this is a step in the direction that will help people retain more of their assets. 
The bill will remove asset testing for those aged 50 to 64 who are at present being required to use their assets to pay for their care. It will exclude from the income test the earnings of the spouse of a person in care and it will specify that $636 per week is the maximum contribution adjusted annually. New Zealand First has always been concerned about the care of our elderly in rest homes. Whether or not they have been taken care of privately we have always been concerned. 
I refer to the main changes that will take place. One change is the maximum contribution and setting mechanism. The next is the meaning of “region” and those things that are concerned with the region. There is also the matter of gifts and means assessment and the mechanism for adjustment of excluded income. 
My comments on this bill will be very brief. We have committed ourselves to accepting this bill and the changes that will take place. New Zealand First recognises that there is a need to support residents who are in long-term residential care as a token of respect for and recognition of their contribution to the nation and to our society and community. New Zealand First will support this bill and hopefully in the future as time goes by adjustments will be made as we look at the economy the contribution of our nation and as we look at and respect the dedication and support that our elderly folk have contributed to our nation. So without further ado we support this bill and we will ensure that we hold the Government to account for any changes that will take place in the future. Those changes if recommended should contribute to a more enjoyably lifestyle for our elderly folk.
Ririnui Mita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18907] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill that it take the bill part by part.  
Motion agreed to.
Turner Judy: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Turner Judy: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14236] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call on the second reading of the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill. This bill according to its commentary contains provisions required to be implemented in New Zealand law to enable us to comply with the International Convention against the Recruitment Use Financing and Training of Mercenaries. 
There was some concern about the small number of parties that have so far ratified that treaty and questions were raised as to whether New Zealand should for that reason tarry in terms of signing it. I think the point made at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which is reflected in the commentary is that New Zealand should make up its own mind and not necessarily always wait for the actions of other countries. We should be autonomous in our decision making in that regard. 
So the key issue is whether New Zealand is willing to subscribe to the particular obligations the treaty imposes. United Future believes that that is an appropriate action—mainly because we think this bill needs to act as a deterrent so that New Zealanders who may be contemplating becoming mercenaries would give it a second thought. We would never want New Zealand to be considered a safe haven for those kinds of activities. 
It is kind of interesting too that over the years we have heard reports which we often put down to urban myths of private armies training in obscure parts of New Zealand. I have always had huge amounts of doubt but in the new climate in which we now find ourselves with the rise of terrorism I think we would be foolish to neglect this issue and to think that somehow because of our distance from other countries we are somehow excluded from the possibility of New Zealand being a place where mercenaries may want to set up and conscript people to work for their cause. 
There are also some interesting facts listed in the commentary about the definition of a mercenary. It is interesting that the scope of this legislation has been very specifically targeted to definitions that are based on provisions in the Geneva convention. There has also been an attempt to look at definitions that define the difference between people who take part in coups and terrorists attacks and those who take part in other events that may fail to reach the definition of being full-blown wars but nonetheless are aggressive acts the forces for which are supplied by mercenary armies. I finish by saying that United Future is very pleased to support this bill for the safeguards it will provide.
Ririnui Mita: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19009] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 I stand very briefly to support the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill and I thank the previous speaker for his supportive comments. I also congratulate all members of the Primary Production Committee on the important work they undertook in relation to this bill by ensuring that it went through a thorough consideration and had an unimpeded return to the House. 
I feel it necessary though to reiterate many of the points outlined in the bill. As the previous speaker has already detailed the bill provides for the regulation of the dairy industry under the Animal Products Act of 1999 and it repeals the Dairy Industry Act of 1952. 
The bill has two very important public policy objectives. The first is to manage risks to human and animal health from the consumption and use of dairy products and the second is to facilitate the entry of dairy products to overseas markets. This bill is very important to this country and to the industry and coming from a dairy farming background I for one can quite clearly state the excitement of the industry out there. 
As stated by the previous speaker the bill is required because of the limitations of the Dairy Industry Act. That Act has increasingly presented difficulties for both the Government and the industry. The bill will also provide a flexible means of managing current and potential risks posed by dairy material and dairy products. 
Finally another important matter to keep in mind is that the dairy industry is New Zealand’s largest industry worth $5.81 billion to this economy annually. I do not have too much more to say to the bill but once again I congratulate the Minister the select committee and the parties on both sides of the House.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9000] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7137] 
4.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What steps is he taking to develop high-calibre public service leaders? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Recently I launched an executive leadership programme and a new leadership development centre designed to foster the talents and potential of potential leaders. Individual professional development plans will be designed for each one of them including specific skills and management development courses or even academic study. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister describe some of the desirable characteristics of future leaders that the programme seeks to foster? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Very briefly. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The characteristics of our leaders include the ability to develop interesting and innovative policy that moves New Zealand forward; to unite and manage a strong team including management of disaffected members of that team; to develop hope not despair; and to reject knee-jerk reactions. [ 
Interruption 
] It is too late for him but John Key could do it now. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Given that the Minister is so keen to develop high-calibre public service leaders what signal does he think finding a sweetheart deal for the poorly performing Te Mangai Paho chief executive officer Trevor Moeke sends to all those public servants who daily cop blame from this Government for their failings? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Not nearly the same message as the National Party gives by having an incompetent as its leader. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does this leadership development programme include any lessons on the question of leadership where one is spineless and gutless and will not answer questions that are directly put to one? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If it did it would apply to the transcripts of Bill English that I have seen today because that does apply to that.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:608;Page:5132] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to take Government notices of motion Nos. 2 to 4 as one question pursuant to discussion in the Business Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. Please move accordingly. Could I point out to the Leader of the House that if he cares to read them out I will put the question separately at the end of the debate.
Hughes Darren: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5562] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Field Taito Phillip: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20264] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I just want to take a brief call in relation to a point raised by the honourable member Katherine Rich which I think is quite important to be clarified. It relates to the amendment to clause 3. The reason for that amendment is that it is to allow movement of definitions alone or in groups because whereas some groups are statutorily recognised others are not. So this amendment provides for administration efficiency in the movement of definitions to regulations and I hope that clarifies what I think is a very good point raised by that member.
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.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7637] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The House heard you very emphatically state that Mr Duynhoven has not broken the law. The question that arises immediately is why then the matter he brought to you was referred to the Privileges Committee if in fact you are telling us that you are not at the moment moved by its decision and yet you are so emphatic that he has not broken the law. It seems incongruous that you would think he had not broken the law but would still send the matter to the Privileges Committee. Secondly do we take it from that that you have determined that Dr Nick Smith has broken the law and is therefore not allowed to have his case heard by the Privileges Committee?
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:625;Page:20303] 
Thursday 5 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) the second readings of the Land Transport Amendment Bill the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill and the first readings of the Evidence Bill and the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could tell us of his proposals for the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill which was on the Order Paper a wee while ago but appears to have slipped off it or to have gone so far away that we cannot see it. That bill deals with police superannuation in particular and it has relevance to some 2000 police at the moment who would like to plan their future and to have that bill dealt with by the House by 1 July. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am not aware that there is a Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. The next one up that I am aware of is in relation to widows and 90 percent indexation. I look forward to the member’s support. I wonder whether the member is referring to the Police Amendment Bill (No 2); I was not aware that it dealt with that matter.
Mallard Trevor: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12123] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is one that has been sitting around for a period of time. It is one around which there is very little controversy. The Early Childhood Development agency had around 85 staff and had operated as a Crown entity since 1990. I think it is fair to say there is general agreement that it did not help with the coordination and the quality of work in the early childhood area to have it at a distance. That is not to say there was not a lot of very good work done by the board. A lot of good work was done but it was complicated by the fact that it was quite a long way removed from the policy area. 
The decision flowed from the Review of the Centre and it became clear there were a number of anomalies. The classic one was in the delivery of Parents as First Teachers services where the Ministry of Education would contract Early Childhood Development to deliver the services. We discovered that the board would then subcontract the delivery of services—in some cases for a big chunk of it to Specialist Education Services which was another Crown entity. However that agency did not deliver those services. They were further subcontracted to community groups. That was something I did inherit. I looked at the transaction costs because at each stage it went down the chain there was less money available for the delivery of Parents as First Teachers services and that was a real complication. 
I want to report to the House because the actual integration took place some time ago. It is working well. It is clear that the Early Childhood Development staff who have come into the Ministry of Education have added a lot of value to the ministry. It is also fair to say there has been some real progress in the regularisation of some of the arrangements that were made. 
Early childhood education is a major priority for this Government. We have made real progress in participation in early childhood education with a significantly higher proportion of children now having experience in the education system before they go to school. Early Childhood Development was a big part of that; the workers are an even bigger part of it now.
Hunt Jonathan: General Debate 
Hunt Jonathan: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16335] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course that is in the hands of the member. The member did not ask for that. The member asked for leave to make a 5-minute speech. If that was what he was wanting to do I took the leave and leave was objected to. 
Opposition Member 
: Put it again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All right. Leave is requested by the member and I take him at his word—no one else’s. Leave is taken by Mr Cosgrove to have another 5-minute speech. That is what his request is. Is there any objection?
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13028] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 78 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1).
Robertson H V Ross: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17596] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member knows that that is not a point of order and that it can actually lead to disorder. I ask the member to desist.
Mackey Moana: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11247] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17124] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party; 1 Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 5 be agreed to.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19201] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Marriage Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland  (P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown   
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17560] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander (P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie (P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Land Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9331] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of the Land Transport Management Bill and to support the effort made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and by my ministerial colleagues. I think New Zealanders welcome the provisions in the bill which produces for the first time a long-term integrated and coordinated approach to land transport funding and management. The key thing which some speakers have already dwelt on is that this bill is not solely about roads; it is about rail it is about alternatives—such as public transport—and it is about the promotion of cycling and walking. The bill is long overdue and it will go a long way to addressing the inactivity and inaction that so many parts of our country—in particular the north—have suffered from. 
When we consider that this bill is not just about road transport it is easier to understand the opposition that has already been articulated by the ACT party. Members may not know that the ACT party has considerable expertise in the road transport trucking area as evidenced by its leader’s membership of the board of Mainfreight. So I am rather disappointed that Mr Prebble has chosen not to come down to the Chamber to use that expertise to talk about that issue. Because of that focus on road transport we can understand what sits behind the ACT policy to oppose wider alternatives in this area but I would welcome a contribution from Mr Prebble in that regard. I am also pleased that he takes advantage of that directorship of Mainfreight to top up his meagre parliamentary salary and I am sure he makes good use of that $35000 per annum. 
Darren Hughes 
: What! How much? 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: He receives $35000 per annum for being a director of Mainfreight. The real reason that Mr Prebble is unable to share his wisdom and experience with us is that he is at this time rather than being in the House— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order!
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:607;Page:4953] 
Wednesday 9 April 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the Resource Management (Costs) Amendment Bill to be extended to 30 October 2003 and for the time by which the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee must finally report the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill to be extended to 29 August 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Membership 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Nandor Tanczos to be a member of the Law and Order Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Corrections Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
King Annette: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
King Annette: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11242] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Cunliffe David: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4514] 
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in this debate in support of this bill. This is a useful bill; it is definitely a post-September 11 bill. It does recognise the fact that the world is a difficult and dangerous place and I recognise the support that members of the Opposition are giving to the passage of this bill. As Mr Shirley has said the security of the realm should transcend party politics. It is a matter on which I think most parties in this House are agreed that we need to have modern systems that give us the intelligence cover that we need in a world that is demonstrably insecure. 
I do think that the Intelligence and Security Committee deserves some commendation for this bill because it has sought to balance the need to update and modernise our communications security infrastructure legislation with the need to protect third parties from accidental eavesdropping or interception. The bill does provide a legislative basis for non-warranted non-authorised interceptions under specific certain circumstances that are set out in the bill. It also provides a number of protections for third parties and members of the public particularly domestic sources to avoid unintended interception. I commend this bill to the House and seek its speedy passage.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16150] 
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 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 161(1) in clause 53 be agreed to.
Donald Rod: Points of Order — Members' Bills—Leave to Introduce 
Donald Rod: Points of Order — Members' Bills—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:627;Page:21953] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to introduce the Zimbabwe Sporting Sanction Bill and have it set down for its first reading forthwith.
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5162] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 82 
Noes 32 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6.
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14685] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the Lanauze and Tuck submission made to the States Services Commission inquiry well over a full year after the select committee had conducted its inquiry. The second document is my submission to the committee on what was defined as the “X Case” which Mr Carter promptly refused to investigate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Documents not tabled.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9882] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are some typescript amendments in the name of the Minister to his amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 167.
Hartley Ann: Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13900] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just before I call the member I make the point that there should be nobody standing around talking in the Chamber. Two or three members have done that in the last half-hour and it is disconcerting to the speaker. I remind members that the speeches are 5-minute speeches now.
Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives Japan 
Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives Japan 
[Volume:610;Page:7553] 
Tuesday 5 August 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives Japan 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the House of Representatives Japan led by Mr Kozo Watanabe Vice-Speaker is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that the Vice-Speaker be accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that he and his colleagues in the gallery be welcomed to the House. 
Mr Kozo Watanabe accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: 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:9979] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Sue Kedgley to omit new sections 17B to 17D in clause 7 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14018] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like it to be made known that on this side of the Chamber there are Auckland members who are concerned about this bill. In particular members who were on the select committee would like to be given a call on such an important bill for Auckland which is why Auckland members and not other members are speaking. I ask that when we move to Parts 2 and 3 and then back to the title fair consideration be given to them when they seek the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I understand that and I will take into account what the member has said.
Mark Ron: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6744] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask that you pause and reflect on what you just said. It is my understanding that any member can seek leave for anything. The decision is then placed in the hands of the House. The Rt Hon Winston Peters sought the leave of the House to move for an extension of time. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that you are required to put that leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 1/5 and Speaker’s ruling 1/1 (Supplement). A member cannot actually seek leave for someone else.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17937] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 4 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to Part 1 of schedule 5 be agreed to: 
to insert “Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation” in the list of Crown agents.
Goff Phil: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Goff Phil: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9347] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Very briefly the vast majority of this bill will come into effect as soon as the royal assent is achieved for the Act. However there are two areas that will come into effect when there is an Order in Council—those are clauses 3 to 7 and clauses 10 to 23. The common-sense reason is that structures need to be put in place and regulations need to be drawn up before we can practically implement them but they will be implemented as soon as possible. There is no question of those provisions being delayed unnecessarily and certainly not for 5 years. These are measures needed to counter terrorism and other forms of serious crime.