edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:622;Page:17436] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the Committee stage of the Civil Union Bill.  
The motion has been moved in order to enable extra sitting hours to be available to debate the bill so that it can be dealt with before the summer adjournment.
Hide Rodney: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9481] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Whose word is accepted—Mr Benson-Pope’s or mine? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows very well that when members are asked their words are accepted. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well we know what sort of man David Benson-Pope is now. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide that is completely out of order and I warn you that when I have made a ruling on a point of order it is not for you to comment on it—it is final.
Mackey Moana: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Moana: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7581] 
MOANA MACKEY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am going to break with the precedent set by the previous speaker and actually talk about the bill before the House. In case that member wants to know it is called the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. I admit to being a bit confused about the National Party’s position on this bill because the speech we have just heard from the Hon Tony Ryall was quite different from that of his colleague Mr Wayne Mapp. Although I understand that there are issues in their caucus at the moment I suggest that communication is still important and they should engage in it. 
What Mr Ryall did not say of course was whether the National Party supported the deployment to the Solomons. I also profess to be a bit confused that whereas the National Party constantly bleats to this Government about the importance of being a responsible member of the international community it does not seem to want to support operations in our own backyard. New Zealand has always played an important role as a peacekeeper and protector of democracy in its backyard—the Pacific region—and I am proud of that. 
This bill will minimise the exposure of the New Zealand Police and civilians to prosecution in the Solomon Islands but obviously it will also apply to any similar non-UN type of operation in the future. Although we hope we will not have to enact the protections this bill provides beyond the deployment to the Solomons unfortunately there may be occasions when a similar non-UN operation is called for and these protections will guide that mission as well. I commend this bill to the House.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:612;Page:9265] 
1.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith (Member in charge of Local Bill) 
: Has he relayed the recommendations of the report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill to the people of Rodney? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I have discussed the matter with the mayor and a limited number of Rodney people who are very angry that legislation introduced more than 2 years ago has been blocked by Labour Party and Green Party members. The Government’s Land Transport Management Bill is so bureaucratically prescriptive that Rodney people feel they are even further away from the Penlink toll road being built than they were 2 years ago. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Have the council and others in response to the information he has relayed to them indicated to him whether there are provisions in existing or proposed legislation that may meet their needs or whether further local legislation of the type he originally proposed will be required? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I think it would be fair to say to the member that the Rodney District Council is somewhat uncertain at the moment as to what the provisions in the Land Transport Management Bill will actually do in terms of trying to achieve the Penlink toll road because the prescriptive nature of some of the requirements leaves it very up in the air as to what time delays there will now be in progressing this project when all the land has been purchased for it all the consents are in place and it is all ready to proceed. The one thing that is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is probably about long enough for an ordinary answer. 
John Key 
: Who approached him to propose the Penlink bill? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The Rodney District Council did after spending millions of dollars in preparation for that legislation—including something like $12 million in purchasing the land—to try to solve the traffic crisis in one of the fastest-growing parts of New Zealand the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. I might say that the people of Rodney are the very same people who are also very angry because there is no progress on ALPURT (Albany to Puhoi realignment) B2 the extension of the motorway beyond Orewa. It has been just a hopeless performance from this Labour Government.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:611;Page:8103] 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee must finally report the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill to be extended to 30 September 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 Courts and Criminal Matters Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4288] 
12.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What is the Government doing about the importation of objectionable materials such as child pornography into New Zealand? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 The Government is committed to wiping out any trade in material depicting the abuse and degradation of children including its importation. I am heartened to report that the first sentence of imprisonment under section 209 of the Customs and Excise Act was recently handed down in the Tokoroa District Court to John William Noble. This man got 8 months for importing via his laptop computer 3698 images and 43 movie files of children involved in sexual acts. This included the abuse of toddlers and children under 5. Additionally the New Zealand Customs Service has a number of other prosecutions awaiting trial with imprisonment again being a potential outcome. 
Darren Hughes 
: What power does the New Zealand Customs Service have to stop the trade of such material in and out of New Zealand especially with the wide and relatively unrestrained use of the Internet? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: In the case of John Noble his successful prosecution under New Zealand legislation was a result of a contract with US Customs where he was identified as part of the US Customs sting to capture traders in such objectionable material via the Internet. This Government moved swiftly last year to amend the Customs and Excise Act to give such material imported by electronic transmission such as over the Internet the same status as objectionable material in hard copy form. 
Shane Ardern 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer and the Minister of Justice stating on 5 March that most of the trade in this material is via the Internet when will the Customs Service implement the measures that the Minister just spoke of? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am glad to assure the member that the Customs Service has a high level of expertise in this area. We are developing and expanding our ability for encryption forensic investigation and our contacts with the US and other customs agencies and I am very confident that we will see a huge improvement in our success rate in this area. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister consider legislation clarifying the rules in interpreting objectionable material such as the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Meaning of Objectionable) Amendment Bill would be useful in the prohibition of such material? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Government will be supporting that bill to the select committee but I need to advise the House and the member that the Government is planning a wider range of changes particularly in the area of penalties.
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14563] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I normally agree with your rulings Mr Chairman but on this occasion I am not so sure. I was not going to take a call on clause 66 “Interpretation” but having listened to the very learned contribution of my colleague Lindsay Tisch I felt I would rise to state that without any question at all I support this interpretation clause. 
Having listened to Lindsay Tisch’s superb dissertation on scampi its various descriptions and its definitions in his well-worn  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 I think it is absolutely vital that we have a clear concise definition. I was struck by Lindsay Tisch’s explanation that at some stage scampi is called Norwegian lobster. That raises a concern that I think has not been addressed in the debate so far. We have been talking about the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) and we know that before the Primary Production Committee was a Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That bill was about Maori obtaining 20 percent of the quota of tuna caught anywhere around the world it seems. I wonder then whether the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope needs to clarify for us whether there is any claim by Maori on scampi caught in Norway. 
Brian Connell 
: Was that in their quota management system? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I say to my learned colleague Mr Connell that I am not sure whether the Norwegians have a quota management system. Maybe the Minister could answer that for us as well. I do not think it matters whether they have a quota management system because the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries has decided that we will impose our quota system on fish caught just about anywhere around the world. 
Shane Ardern 
: Chocolate fish. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: There was a suggestion of chocolate fish but I think the Labour Party was just showing a zealous enthusiasm when it was thinking of putting even chocolate fish into the quota management system. I think it would be helpful for the Minister to take a call to allay our fears that there is any claim at all in the interpretation as to whether the scampi claim for 20 percent will extend well beyond New Zealand waters maybe as far as Norway. 
Clause 66 agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: 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.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I repeat what I said before. As we are going into debate on Part 2 which is a large chunk of the bill of course there should be full debate on that particular part. After there has been a full debate it will be up to the Committee to decide whether that debate will carry on. However I did make that comment and I expect the Chairs to take note of what I said.
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:21493] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand National 26. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 5(2) be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (1AA) from section 4.
Points of Order — Question Time 
Points of Order — Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7819] 
Points of Order 
Question Time 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In response to oral questions last week Mr Rick Barker promised information that he was not able to provide last Wednesday in respect of the 35 claims before the Maori Land Court for foreshore and seabed. I have still not received that information 5 days later and I ask for your intervention to ensure that it is promptly provided. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter between the member and the Minister but he has brought it to the attention of the House and I will advise the Minister accordingly.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5474] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an article dated 5 May 2003 from the South African  
Business Day 
 which has the South African Government stating there is no truth in the statement made by Minister Mark Burton in this House last week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15937] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 8 
New Zealand National 5; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clause 61A as amended and new clause 61B be agreed to.
Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17934] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Good morning to you too Mr Chairman. We always appreciate you in the Chair because you are very generous in ensuring that there is a thorough discussion during the Committee stage which is very very important. Even though Part 8 as my colleagues have said may have only two pages it refers to schedules and has huge significance in terms of the future financial well-being of State enterprises. 
There are very delicate issues around collective employment agreements. Clause 238 introduces an additional party in the form of the State Services Commissioner between the State enterprise and the union in negotiating a collective agreement. I am pleased to see that the Minister in the chair is the Hon Margaret Wilson who is the architect of the Employment Relations Act and who also has a law background to her credit. I want her to explain to the Committee what section 8(2) inserted by clause 238 really means when it states that a State enterprise before it enters into any collective agreement has to consult the State Services Commissioner. What is the extent of that consultation? Will it simply be someone at say Transpower picking up the phone and telling the State Services Commissioner that he or she might want to introduce a new offer or incentive to a group of staff in Transpower that might not be extended to another? If the State Services Commissioner said that was not acceptable would that be the extent of the consultation? Or would the State Services Commissioner have the authority to turn down say the offer the State enterprise intended to make? What is the obligation for the State enterprise to reject or accept that particular advice? 
I am quite concerned about how much intrusion and authority the bill intends to give to the State Services Commissioner given that section 8(3) in clause 238 states: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council apply subsection (2) to any State enterprise named in the Second Schedule.” That is actually quite serious. Any organisation listed in schedule 2 may also be affected by that requirement. The fact that the Governor-General may extend the authority of the State Services Commissioner through Order in Council might actually mean that the Government today wants to give the State Services Commissioner a lot more authority in association with that word “consultation”. 
I hope the Minister will take a call and tell us what the significance of the word “consult” is when it is preceded by the word “must”. What is the extent of the consultation? Is it just a chat a written statement a rejection or a “take it or leave it” statement? Also in what stages would the State Services Commissioner be involved in the actual negotiation of the collective agreement?
Vote: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3973] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 42 be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “on” the words “Easter Sunday”. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13381] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to take a very short call. I am sure that if the bell had not rung and the member who has just resumed her seat had not been required to sit down we would have heard a phrase like: “You get out there and pick that cotton and enjoy it!”. I feel it was a very patronising speech and it is not typical of that member to give patronising speeches like that. I was surprised to hear it. 
This bill is about assisting disabled persons who work in what are commonly known as sheltered workshops. I say to members opposite who have spoken that there is a lead-in time in this bill to assist those who manage sheltered workshops in the transition until this legislation is fully implemented. We want to work with the employers in this industry so that they can continue to provide the very good service they do and continue to be good employers. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12995] 
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 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d) of subclause (1). 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (g) of subclause (1).
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17568] 
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) 
Baldock(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Connell  
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.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliamentary Accountability—Ministerial Statements 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Parliamentary Accountability—Ministerial Statements 
[Volume:627;Page:21917] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that and draw his attention to Speaker’s ruling 115/4: “While it is eminently good practice for Ministers to make important policy statements in the House it is not by any means a convention in New Zealand.” I also understand from recent reading that that convention has been weakened in the United Kingdom as well. So I follow that Speaker’s ruling.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14945] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15454] 
5.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on outcomes of Work and Income programmes assisting clients seeking employment in the creative industries? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have received a report on the Work and Income Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme or “PACE” as it is known—an employment initiative designed to help job seekers who have skills for employment in creative industries. The programme has now achieved over 2500 placements into employment. Over 1000 of these placements occurred in the last 12 months—confirming the ongoing strength and vitality of New Zealand’s creative industries and our healthy general labour market. It also confirms how wrong Opposition members have been when they have consistently condemned this innovative and successful policy. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What employment opportunities exist in the creative sector and how is the Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment scheme assisting job seekers to take up these opportunities? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In 2002 the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report estimated the economic contribution of the creative industries at 3.1 percent of total GDP and 3.6 percent of total employment and estimated the jobs growth in the sector at 3.5 percent year on year. The Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme ensures that job seekers are able to take up employment opportunities in the growing creative sector or in general employment. The programme has had significant successes on both measures. It is the kind of programme that the Opposition consistently denies is useful but the rest of the country thinks otherwise.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19741] 
7.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 on behalf of  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to improve the use of information communications technology in early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This morning I launched  
Foundations for Discovery 
 a new framework to promote the use of information and communications technology in early childhood education. The Government is investing $16 million over 4 years in that resource which will help the sector to improve its use of information and communications technology through initiatives such as regional professional development research projects and the creation of information and communications technology - based resources. Those resources include computers phones and digital cameras. 
Helen Duncan 
: What are the benefits of promoting the increased use of information and communications technology in early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Research shows that children’s learning can be enhanced by the effective use of information and communications technology. Children can use it to observe explain record and review their world in different ways. It can be used to assist with the development of early literacy and maths and in the development of communications skills. Information and communications technology can also be a better way to involve parents and communities in children’s education.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
[Volume:608;Page:5679] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not dealing with hypothesis at all. You told the House that if members had any other concern they could not challenge the Prime Minister’s veracity—you said that would always be ruled out—but they could come to you. I assume that meant by way of a breach of privilege a claim that is set out in the Standing Orders and numerous precedents excepting—and this is not a matter of hypothesis in the way you sought to rule out my point of order and I object to that strenuously—that had someone done just that you would have said: “Well this cannot stand because the Prime Minister by way of personal explanation has come down to the House and put the record straight.” Now that is the point I am making and I object to the way you have frivolously slid past it as though it is of no moment at all.
Hide Rodney: Speaker’s Rulings — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
Hide Rodney: Speaker’s Rulings — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
[Volume:619;Page:14513] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That ruling does have some bearing of course on what actions we might take. Am I to understand that in terms of Parliament we have eight MPs and our proportion is eight but that according to the courts we actually have not lost any proportion; that we are dealing with two worlds: one world where we have eight MPs and are treated accordingly; and another world—the courts’—where we have nine? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not concerned with the courts; I am concerned with Parliament only.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8519] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members wish to raise a matter of privilege there is a proper way to do it—and they know that. Prosecutions are a matter for the police not the Speaker. I did give a detailed ruling on the Duynhoven case.
Motions — Dr John Hood 
Motions — Dr John Hood 
[Volume:609;Page:6543] 
Motions 
Dr John Hood 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I move  
That this House congratulates Dr John Hood on his appointment to the position of Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University the first outsider to hold this position in the university’s 900-year history; notes that Dr Hood has made a considerable contribution to New Zealand in both business and academia particularly through his current role as Vice-Chancellor of Auckland University and as a result of his chairmanship of the Knowledge Wave Conference in which he has prompted a national dialogue on the future direction of our country; recognises that Dr Hood is a New Zealander who shows a real passion for and commitment to his country; and wishes him well. 
Motion agreed to.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:20486] 
Sittings of the House 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 As we know on Wednesday during the general debate members have only 5 minutes to speak. The next member is about to take his call and will get only 2 minutes before the House rises for the dinner break. I seek the leave of the House for us to rise now so that the next member can have an uninterrupted speech after 7.30 p.m. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How about I go until 6 o’clock? I seek leave for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can seek leave himself. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to continue until 6 o’clock. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. The member has 2 minutes. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Wonderful— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No the member was too late on his feet. Now he wants to raise points of order. He made no objection.  
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I objected as soon as you said it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Did the member object? 
Rodney Hide 
: I absolutely did. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member objected. OK. The honourable member Jill Pettis—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. Mr Hide has taken objection which means that leave will not be given. The honourable member Jill Pettis was seeking leave for the House to adjourn. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to give Rodney Hide the opportunity to apologise for the statements he has made with regard to Jim Peron as we would expect any honourable decent gentleman to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Jill Pettis who wished to take a point of order. She was seeking leave for the House adjourn. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Yes. I seek leave for the House to rise in 45 seconds. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3808] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
Noes 60 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to the amendment to clause 26(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by omitting the words “1 July 2003” and substituting the words “1 March 2003 ”.
Hawkins George: Veterinarians Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: Veterinarians Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18773] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Agriculture 
: I move  
That the Veterinarians Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee 
referred to Primary Production Committee 
 for consideration and that the committee present its final report on or before 14 June 2005 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4598] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I might be too late but I have been looking at the legislation in respect of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No—I am reporting now. 
RON MARK 
: Regarding the legislation dealing with impounding vehicles I noticed that the Greens and ACT voted for it last time. I wonder whether they are confused. Maybe they might like to recast their votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:611;Page:8821] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: When the House rises today it will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 7 October priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill and the Supreme Court Bill.
Worth Richard: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20630] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite simply this. When the Hon Rick Barker who is in charge of this bill and this process stood to speak at the commencement of this debate he said the bill had to be reported back by 31 October. I made some comment about that because certainly this Parliament will not be here on 31 October. He then rose on a point of order to say there was no report-back date. In the short time that has been available I have not trundled through the Standing Orders to determine what the position might be but there is not in fact a default position when a Minister says there is no report-back date. So we face an issue here that I think calls for your wise and considered judgment. I raise that issue with the opportunity of being heard further when you have given some early indication of how you consider these issues. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that issue. It is a procedural one and accordingly a valid point of order. The point is that the Minister does not have to adhere to the statement that was made; he was simply incorrect. The 6-month Standing Order limit is the default position.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8064] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Power Simon: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17350] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I ask for clarification. When the debate resumed in the Committee stage following the dinner break my recollection is that Mr Paul Adams the member who has just spoken had some time left on a call from when the Committee previously met to discuss this bill. For one reason or another Mr Adams was not available to take up that call at which point I took the call. I just wonder how the apportionment of calls is to operate in an environment where National had two members seeking the call yet the call was handed to United Future in a situation where on only two calls prior to that Mr Adams had the opportunity to complete his call from the last time the Committee met but did not take that opportunity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is completely wrong. It is my responsibility to give the call as per the Standing Orders. Mr Adams was quite entitled to the call.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16693] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Parker David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Parker David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10517] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I want to respond to the suggestion made by an earlier speaker that the commencement date for entitlement to 4 weeks’ leave—about 1 April 2007—is inappropriate. We have heard members saying that this is just a blatant election bribe but it is quite the reverse. The Labour-led Government made a promise not to introduce 4 weeks’ leave effective from this term of Parliament. A member’s bill brought the matter before a select committee. As a consequence it was incorporated into the legislation but with effect from 1 April 2007 so that it does not take effect during this term of Parliament. 
If perchance the Opposition were lucky enough to win the next election— 
Jill Pettis 
: But it won’t. 
DAVID PARKER 
: —which it will not it would have the opportunity to reverse it. If we win the next election it can be taken that we have a mandate for this new law. So it will then quite properly take effect from 1 April 2007. Rather than this bill being an election bribe it is the most proper way to deal with the issue.
Burton Mark: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Burton Mark: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20217] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I say in brief response that I think the points made are certainly worthy of consideration for future reference. I acknowledged that myself to the Maori Affairs Committee when we met concerning this matter. In looking to future settlements and to the legislation and at the link between them and the deeds I think indeed that this is a matter that can be properly discussed. I think the potential difficulty in this case was that in good faith the negotiators had reached a point where the legislation was to reflect by repetition of those records what is contained within the deed. 
I want to put on record my appreciation of the willingness of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty negotiators to be responsive to the concerns that were raised and their willingness to have that amendment agreed to. I think that allowed us all to move forward constructively and to bring the legislation back to the House with a general agreement. Rather than discord we are having a sensible discussion about how we will deal with these matters in the future.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16052] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Council of Ethnic Minorities National Assembly of Vietnam 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Council of Ethnic Minorities National Assembly of Vietnam 
[Volume:614;Page:10653] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Council of Ethnic Minorities of the National Assembly of Vietnam led by Her Excellency Madam Nguyen Thi Nuong is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7634] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Maybe you can help the House a bit further in this regard. I read from the Privileges Committee report—thanks to Mr Brownlee we know that this is the advice of the Solicitor-General— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are starting to debate the privileges issue. The report has been tabled but this has to be a point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The report states that the Hon Harry Duynhoven’s seat became vacant on 11 June 2003 under section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. It seems clear to me that the Privileges Committee has stated that the Hon Harry Duynhoven has gone. My question to you is this: why has he not gone? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance as I said before. I quote what I said on 23 July: “I will be guided in my actions under the Electoral Act by the committee’s report and the House’s conclusions on it.” Committees can make recommendations; the House makes decisions.
Jones Dail: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19968] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I should have mentioned that I have put forward another amendment. Clause 15(2)(c) ends with the words: “… and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. I have put forward an amendment to remove those words so that the clause would simply relate to: “(c) an individual who or a body corporate that has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) …”. 
We are talking about dishonesty. We are not talking about Springbok tour protests. If someone has been involved in a Springbok tour protest that is fine—that person can be a trustee. A person who has been convicted of driving while disqualified can be an officer of a charitable entity. Any conviction that does not involve dishonesty is fine; it does not debar a person from being an officer of a charitable entity. 
If members do not want to vote for my amendment to leave struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and 15(2)(d) in the bill I have just offered the better alternative of deleting the last few words from new clause 15(2)(c). The Government may care to think about it again. The offences referred to in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act are serious offences. We are not talking about minor crimes of dishonesty. Theft is there receiving is there—we are talking about 7 year - type offences. I think that the final words in clause 15(2)(c) could be removed and that members and other people who have admitted their involvement in non-dishonesty situations could still be officers of a charitable entity. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to insert after subclause (2)(b) the following new paragraphs: 
(bb)a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more: 
(bc) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence: 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) of clause 15(2) the words “and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20061] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 351 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 7 to insert new section 131B be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (1) of section 132 the expression “14 years” and substitute the expression “17 years”.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5262] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the ACT party does not have a member on that select committee and because Government members are now denying leave it means my party does not know what is happening at that committee. I regard that as thoroughly unparliamentary. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. That is a comment made by the member.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10003] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 My clear recollection is that Mr Hughes moved that the closure take place. There was uproar because a number of members particularly on this side of the Committee—I think I counted about 12 or 14 members—were seeking the call. I immediately saw what was likely to happen and sought to call very loudly for a point of order. I did so several times. The Chairman commenced but did not complete the vote before he heard me then called me to speak. That led to your recall where you ruled that had the motion been put and carried we would have to proceed with the vote. My point is that the vote had not been completed no result had been declared and there had been no request for a party vote or anything of that order. Therefore the vote was not completed. Therefore when the Committee got to five to 10 this evening and certainly now at two minutes past 10 the business is not complete and it is appropriate for the House to be lifted.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15719] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that Part 1 as amended be agreed to.