edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:609;Page:6197] 
Thursday 12 June 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the main items of business for the House will be the Committee stage and third reading of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill the second reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill the second reading of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) and the supplementary estimates including the second reading of the Imprest Supply Bill. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House assure us that there will not be any urgency next week given the list of bills he has read out because it seems a fairly ambitious list? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No I think that if the member goes through it again he will find that all of those are time-limited debates except the Committee stage of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: That did not answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there urgency? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I said “No” right at the start.
Cunliffe David: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) —  
Cunliffe David: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) —  
[Volume:609;Page:6324] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: Why is it that Mr Rodney Hide MP spends so long castigating the poor old Greens? 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: He’s terrified of them! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is either that he is terrified of the Greens or he has found the only group that makes him look reasonable and that is a stretch. On this case we defend the right of the Greens to their view but Labour Party members hold that the Greens have taken a position with which we cannot agree. 
I commend the Law and Order Committee for this bill. The committee report does a delicate balancing act between the rights to freedom and free expression and the need for greater protection so that everybody’s communications are protected. I note from the conclusion of the committee’s report that the committee has held that that balance has been found.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16041] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 8 
United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Cunliffe David: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8216] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 There is routinely an annual bill to confirm and validate a range of regulations. It is normally introduced in spring and passed by December. This year the bill provides for Parliament to confirm and validate 14 Orders in Council made under nine Acts. I will propose that the bill be referred as is customary to the Regulations Review Committee chaired by my colleague Mr Worth. 
Five of the 14 orders deal with levies that were voted upon themselves by growers of commodities such as passion fruit wheat grain milk solids satsuma mandarins and herbage seeds. The levies serve to finance industry-good activities and are payable to industry organisations such as Federated Farmers. Four of the 14 orders applied movements in the consumer price index. Two of them applied increases to social security benefits and allowances and to war pensions and allowances. The third adjusted the excise on tobacco products and the fourth increased the maximum rate for funeral grants. Another three of the orders prohibited imports or exports. Two of those related to Patagonian toothfish and the other to dogs of specified dangerous breeds. One order provided for the recovery by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries of related costs from the exporters of live animals and germ plasm. The final order removed a requirement relating to the taking of packhorse rock lobster. 
All the orders are unremarkable fare for these annual bills so I shall not go into them in any more detail.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3820] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed. 
Ayes 48 
Noes 67 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20948] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
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 Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
3Purpose of this Act 
The purpose of this Act is— 
(a)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2010 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and 
(b)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2010 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal before the commencement of this Act.
Jones Dail: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22216] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was going to seek two calls. Now I am in the invidious position where if Mr Adams goes first I will have to seek two calls in a row. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can have two calls in a row. I have already taken two calls in a row before.
Clark Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Clark Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3769] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I did give an answer. I have long since forgotten what it was. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that a very direct question was asked of the Prime Minister and you clearly did not think she had answered it—because you invited her to come to the point—and she clearly has forgotten the question it might be more proper if the Leader of the Opposition were to re-ask the question and the Prime Minister can then answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a fair point. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask the question again.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9749] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to schedule 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 25.
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18656] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Before the House resumes tomorrow I am happy to provide a note to members to give comfort about the explanation I have given. I undertake that that note will be provided and circulated tomorrow morning. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think something good has come out of your point of order Mr Brownlee.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:625;Page:20521] 
Thursday 12 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill to the third reading of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and to the first readings of the bills on the Order Paper. On Thursday of course the Minister of Finance will present Budget 2005 at 2 p.m.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21648] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8665] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How can she have confidence in the Minister of Immigration who states most migrants are making a valuable contribution to our skill base? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Because it is true. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is true when will the Minister of Immigration admit to this House that she is bringing in thousands of immigrants a year who have no intention of contributing positively to this country and do we believe her or those at the coalface such as Gold and Black Taxis manager Ian Gaskin who on rampant tax-dodging taxi drivers said: “I would estimate that I could have 50-60 percent of my fleet in the dog box because I have a lot of immigrants.”; and when most of the taxi drivers in the Inland Revenue Department’s audit of the taxi industry were African Muslims who had applied for a taxi licence in Melbourne but had to wait 12 months before they became eligible to work so they came here to work for 12 months what sort of shim-sham flim-flam policy is that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It simply is not true that thousands of people come here with no intention of contributing positively. The member may like to know that a recent Business and Economic Research Ltd study found that migrants in Auckland alone are paying $1.8 billion in tax revenue a year which among other things enables that member to live in comfort here. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Unlike that member I have had my own business and have had to pay taxes—unlike her who has been on the taxpayers’ teat since she left school. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Please ask the supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If she wants to talk about someone on the taxpayers’ teat she should look in the mirror. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member have a supplementary question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes I have a supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well ask it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If immigrants contribute so much has she stopped to wonder why Work and Income is dishing out $8200 per immigrant to jump behind the wheel of a taxi and as well the Ministry of Health Ministry of Justice Ministry of Housing Ministry of Social Development and Ministry of Education are crying out that immigration is placing a strain on their services—a situation that is not surprising given that the long-term unemployment among immigrants in Auckland alone is 12000 people whom she and her wanted Minister brought here? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can only repeat what the Minister of Immigration has said which is that most migrants make a good contribution. However I defer to the member’s superior knowledge about taxi drivers.
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17568] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 34(1)(a) and clause 34(1)(c) are out of order as they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2).
Parker David: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15399] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise in support of this legislation. We have been criticised for admitting an error or an unintended consequence in the prior legislation but this Government is a modest Government. It is not an arrogant Government. When things have gone wrong it listens and changes them. Something did go wrong with the holidays legislation. Employers were getting ramped up having agreed to pay penal rates on holidays. Those penal rates were being doubled up on as a consequence of the Holidays Act. That was not fair. We are remedying that with this amendment bill. We are remedying it in time for Labour Day. That is important to employers in my electorate. I am pleased to support the legislation. I am also pleased to support the concept of relevant daily pay rather than basic pay otherwise the lowest-paid workers who are paid on the basis of piece rates do not get fair recompense in terms of public holidays. I will say no more because I think that the legislation is simple and sensible and I support it.
Hobbs Marian: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11251] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The addition to that particular subsection—the three lines in subsection (5) that the member referred to—was added by the Parliamentary Counsel Office absolutely to avoid doubt that one can apply the exemptions under section 9(2)(b) and (c) to officials visiting New Zealand who are colleagues of diplomats already in New Zealand—if members can understand that. Let us say there is a diplomatic group the members of the French Embassy in New Zealand. A French delegation is visiting New Zealand so that provision applies to its members in just the same way. It is normal practice. Because that particular section was specifically designed for the European Commission the Parliamentary Counsel Office wanted to doubly ensure that when an EC delegation comes in to the EC office in New Zealand the legislation covers its members—just as it does in other diplomatic practice.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5571] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 3(7) be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
historic heritage 
 in subclause (7) by omitting paragraph (a)(vi). 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 3(7) be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
historic heritage 
 in subclause (7) by omitting paragraph (b)(ii). 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 3(7) be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
historic heritage  
in subclause (7) by omitting from paragraph (b)(iv) the words “and ancestral landscapes”. 
Amendment agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17704] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Aquaculture Reform Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 322. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19306] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The circumstance that has just contributed to Mr Hide being asked to leave the Chamber is in my opinion entirely the problem of the Government. This is question time where there is the opportunity to question Ministers. Repeatedly over the last 3 years we have seen Ministers offend in the House to a point where they should have been asked to leave. The previous Speaker—and I am sure it will be in the rulings that flow from his tenure—has said that if Ministers are to answer a question later in the proceedings they could stay in the House for that. I ask you to consider allowing Mr Hide to come back into the House to ask question No. 6. It seems to me that where a party has only limited opportunities to ask questions it should be given the full opportunity to ask those questions. Ministers have been accorded this sort of courtesy in the past and I ask you to consider today allowing Mr Hide to come back to ask his question question No. 6—which of course we know is going to cause the Government considerable embarrassment.
Mapp Wayne: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20631] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just been looking at Standing Order 289(1) which as you quite rightly stated states a bill must be reported back to the House within 6 months. The issue that has been raised by Dr Worth is not so much whether it is 6 months or the October date; the difficulty is that Parliament will have an election no later than 24 September this year so it would seem that the Minister has to provide a date inside that date. It cannot be later than that. Of course if the matter has not been dealt with before the election there are obviously the carry-over procedures. The Minister cannot just provide no date at all. It seems to me that he has to provide a date that is inside 24 September which is the latest possible date for the existence of the forty-seventh Parliament. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not need any assistance on the point made by Dr Wayne Mapp; I am quite clear on that. I thank him for raising it. It is hardly relevant. Those issues will be a matter for the new Parliament. No Minister is under any obligation to provide a date. If he or she does not provide a date the relevant Standing Order applies and that Standing Order is quite clear that the due date is 6 months later. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Except that 6 months is beyond the election. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I have just told the member that that is not relevant. The new Parliament will decide that in any case. It may not make sense but it does not mean that it cannot be done—I put it that way. In the view of some it might not make sense but that too is not relevant. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:614;Page:10437] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 If the bills have been on the Order Paper since 1996 they will probably wait a while longer without urgency.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9390] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8536] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an extract from a Deportation Review Tribunal decision in respect of the Somali referred to in question No. 10 who was granted residence in October 1997. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:5038] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter of 14 February written to the general manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service and counter-copied to Phil Goff MP for Mt Roskill setting out six cases of fraudulent activities relating to the New Delhi embassy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
[Volume:624;Page:19165] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The suggestion that the general debate might be a reasonable forum for this issue to be discussed finds no acceptance with the National Party. We have two speaking slots in tomorrow’s debate and that gives us 10 minutes in which to discuss this case inside a 1-hour debate in which as the House knows the topics will be wide ranging. As for the suggestion that the financial review debate is imminent anyone who has had a look at the House programme for this week will know that the financial review debate will not start until the House returns from next week’s adjournment which would mean that it would be 2 weeks from today before the House could possibly have a debate on this particular topic. In any event in the financial review debate we get 11 opportunities for 5-minute speeches to scrutinise some 72 Government agencies departments and such. I do not think that the reasons you gave to decline the debate which may well have been valid some time ago when Parliament was smaller and debate times longer hold water today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is aware of course that he cannot argue with the Speaker’s ruling. However the member can seek leave for a debate. Is the member seeking leave for a debate?
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Iraq—Debate 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Iraq—Debate 
[Volume:606;Page:3976] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House at the conclusion of the debate on the Budget Policy Statement to set aside its normal business and hold a 2-hour debate on the situation in Iraq. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13161] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; 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 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (Rights for Prisoners Abolition of Private Management and Integrated Offender Management) Act”.
Jones Dail: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Jones Dail: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:625;Page:20183] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Just briefly I suggest to the Green member Keith Locke in so far as emissions from motor vehicles are concerned that he comes along to the Regulations Review Committee a very exciting committee that sits at 8 or 8.30 on a Wednesday morning as we are looking at that particular issue at this very moment in terms of the regulations that are before us. 
In relation to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment I tell members that I read with interest the article from Dr Morgan Williams on the protection of the Waitakere Ranges. He made the very good point that the draft bill is imprecise. I notice that even the Mayor of Waitakere has said that the bill needs to be worked up. But the important point made by Dr Morgan Williams was that some aspect of compensation should be considered and I hope that in any working up that point is considered as well. If we want to quote the Great Charter the Magna Carta of 1215—and I notice Mr Copeland’s comments—we see there is some provision even in the Magna Carta for the protection of persons’ property rights and that particular right goes back to 1215. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I know. I am just quoting the member’s bill. I have read the explanatory note and the reference to the Magna Carta. 
The other point I make in relation to Dr Morgan Williams is that the phrase “death by a thousand cuts” actually goes back to the Sung Dynasty of about 905 AD. It is not a phrase that Dr Williams coined; it relates to a person being killed by a thousand cuts. I would say on behalf of the people who live in the area bounding the Waitakere Ranges that they are the people being killed by a thousand cuts—by various forms of Government taxation and various Government measures that are preventing them from enjoying their properties. If this bill were passed—a bill that affects the outskirts of the ranges the land leading up to the ranges—we would see the people themselves dying by a thousand cuts rather than the ranges. 
Everyone in Auckland supports the ranges; there is no one who does not support them. It is an Auckland right—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not sure whether Mr Prebble has been to any of the meetings; he has shown a total lack of interest in those meetings. The Government should keep its sticky hands off the Waitakere Ranges.
Catchpole Brent: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8731] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 5 deals with the reopening of oppressive credit contracts consumer leases and buy-back transactions. When the Commerce Committee considered this part we were confident that this would cover buy-back schemes but I have my serious doubts that this does. Clause 91“ Application of Part” states: “This Part applies to—(a) every credit contract (whether or not it is a consumer credit contract); and (b) every consumer lease; and (c) every buy-back transaction.” That sounds great. 
 However if we read on we see clause 93 “Reopening of credit contracts consumer leases and buy-back transactions”. If we then move to clause 96 we can see that it is the one that traps us for existing buy-back transactions. Clause 93 “Time and circumstances relevant to reopening credit contracts consumer leases or buy-back transactions” states: “a buy-back transaction is not oppressive if the contract lease transaction term or act would not have been considered oppressive at the time and in the circumstances that it was made or performed.” Therefore this clause traps those people who are already in the buy-back schemes and unfortunately this clause gives the lenders the way out and those people basically suffer the loss of their property. Sadly that clause is left in there because it really does leave it wide open for those schemes. 
During our deliberations we considered that the Commerce Commission would be able to take proceedings on behalf of some consumers because the bill particularly Part 5 deals largely with commercial arrangements and commercial deals. If the Commerce Commission can take cases on behalf of small businesses then that is well and good. But sadly I think that clause 96 may well be the death knell for those people who have already entered those contracts before this bill comes into place as a transaction is not considered to be oppressive if it would not have been considered oppressive at the time the transaction was put in place. This section of the bill on buy-back schemes was put in at a very late stage during the Commerce Committee deliberations—after those buy-back schemes had been in operation for a number of months. A large number of people were trapped because it happened very quickly. They were genuinely under the consumer credit legislation previously. So this particular clause is giving the out to those contracts and it means that the 1981 Act is the one that was covering those—[ 
Interruption 
] I think I might have lost some of the Ministers over there! I would like the Minister to take a call on this and I ask that she check with her advisors because this clause here does not allow these particular contracts to be reopened because they were not oppressive at the time that they were set in place. This bill makes all sorts of attempts to try to capture them but it does not. This clause lets them out and it means that the people who have already been trapped in that situation do not have the recourse to recover their property.
Barker Rick: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14169] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
:  
So do we want Supplementary Order Paper 223 as a separate vote? That is OK. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is that all clear now?
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Procedure 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16803] 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to a discussion at the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to be taken through its third reading today following any recommittal. As I am sure most members are aware Dr Hutchison has a small typing error amendment to move in the Committee stage then we will move back to the third reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This was discussed at the Business Committee. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. It will be so done.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18428] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Question agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5572] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 Just to add to what I said before one of my other members has just confirmed that she heard me vote “No” and your memory will remind you that I stood to vote and waited for the Clerk to call the vote. It was clearly my expectation that we were about to call the detailed vote and I ask that we proceed with that.
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8039] 
12.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied at the current sanctions that are able to be imposed on those caught drinking alcohol or appearing drunk in a public place? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. Drinking alcohol in a public place is an offence under the Summary Offences Act for under-age drinkers who are subject to fines. Under the Local Government Act limited bans on all drinking of liquor in a public place can be imposed by by-laws with breach of by-laws subject to fines of up to $20000. While it is not generally illegal to drink or be drunk in a public place sanctions including fines and imprisonment can be imposed under the Summary Offences Act on those who behave in a disorderly or offensive manner. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister concerned that the only legal mechanism that Wellington police employed when they recently cracked down on 80 under-age drinkers—one as young as 9—in the central city was to take them home and fine their parents $200 when in many cases the parents did not seem to care or admitted that they could not control their children; if so what does he intend to do about it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think it is appropriate for the police if they decide to do so to lay charges against parents for not exercising proper care over their children. It is not appropriate of course to enter convictions against 9-year-olds. That has never been legal in New Zealand. The obvious thing for the police to do under I think section 48 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act or under the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act is to take people suffering from drunkenness to their homes whether they be a child or an adult. If adults cannot be taken home they can be put in a police cell for 12 hours to sober up. 
Tim Barnett 
: Is there evidence that local liquor bans reduce some of the problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The police credit by-laws banning public liquor consumption from central business districts in some parts of New Zealand with significantly reducing disorder antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related criminal offending. [ 
Interruption 
] The member is not in Courtenay Place now; he should show some order when I am trying to answer a question. The success of targeted bans indicates that this approach is effective and appropriate as long as it is properly notified in advance and has public support as being reasonable in all the circumstances. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the Local Government (Prohibition of Liquor in Public Places) Amendment Bill which United Future voted against. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that bill. Is there any objection? There is.
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
[Volume:617;Page:12540] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the honourable Tariana Turia. 
Donna Awatere Huata 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have actually called another member. I will hear the member shortly.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new subclause (5) in clause 110 be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: List Member Vacancy 
Hunt Jonathan: List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:610;Page:7343] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act Moana Lynore Mackey has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Graham Kelly. I understand that Moana Mackey is present and wishes to affirm. Would she please come forward to the chair on my right.
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:17102] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 67 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (b) (c) and (d).
Power Simon: Motions — Civil Emergency—Lower North Island 
Power Simon: Motions — Civil Emergency—Lower North Island 
[Volume:615;Page:10997] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I move  
That this House notes the severe flooding and damage to houses bridges power and water supply and telecommunications that have hit the Rangitikei Horowhenua and the lower North Island and expresses its sympathy to those who have been affected; and further that this House commends the emergency services and hundreds of volunteers who have worked during this disaster in many cases with little sleep since Sunday 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13520] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 28 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3972] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 116 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 8; United Future; 8 Progressive 2. 
Noes 0 
Part 3 as amended agreed to unanimously. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That should have been called on. It should not have been a party vote.
Stewart Barbara: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Stewart Barbara: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16359] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to clauses 1 and 2 “Title” and “Commencement”. The title of this bill is exactly as it should be. It is clear short specific and concise. There can be no misunderstanding as to what the bill is about. Any title should convey the essence and the substance of the legislation and this title really does. The bill meets those criteria. 
When we look at the title of the Government bill introduced back in 1996—the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill—I say that those specifications would be hard to meet. Really the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill was about technology way back in 1998 so the word “technology” did need to be included and even now it more completely covers what actually occurs in this area. I would say too that that technology has provided many couples with the children that they had previously been unable to have and have desperately wanted. 
This bill has been a very long time in getting to this point and we are pleased to see that it is making progress through the House today. We need to remember that fertility clinics are professional bodies. Tonight with some of the arguments and debate that we have heard I was beginning to wonder. But we need to realise that fertility clinics are professional bodies that they do have strict standards and that they do have quality requirements. After all the bottom line is that they are dealing with humans. Humans are unique. We are special. We need to have the very best legislation that we can in this area and this legislation is a good start. 
I know that fertility clinics have worked in their field for over 20 years and we read in newspapers about only the very major occurrences. Nothing has happened with fertility clinics that really casts doubt on those bodies. When I look at the commencement date I can understand why there is a 9-month phase-in to set up this particular legislation. When all is said and done we need to have a ministerial advisory committee and an ethics committee set up and in this legislation it is very clearly outlined and set out as to what the requirements of those committees will be. Clauses 1 and 2 firmly cover what the bill is about. New Zealand First supports them.
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Report by Secretary of Labour—Immigration Service 
Hartley Ann: Urgent Debates — Report by Secretary of Labour—Immigration Service 
[Volume:611;Page:8342] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have previously ruled on them. I will just make the point that I had not called the member before the senior Government whip spoke. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think if you check the  
Hansard 
 you will find that to Mr Hide’s point of order you said: “The member will withdraw that last remark.” and that is all you said about it. Therefore you have not ruled on this point of order at all. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No Mr Peters I was not referring to that point of order at all. He was referring to an interjection that Mr Benson-Pope made previously. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will have to concentrate your mind on the proceedings of this House. If you look at the  
Hansard 
 you will see what was said. Mr Hide raised a point of order and he at the end added a comment that you found to be an aspersion on the Speaker of the House and you asked him instantly to withdraw it. That is the fact. That is what happened and we still have not had a ruling on Mr Hide’s point which was that Mr Benson-Pope interrupted his point of order and he said something else that I cannot repeat because it was unparliamentary. But the first point of order still stands not ruled upon.
Anderton Jim: Motions — Tomb of the Unknown Warrior—Recognition of Service of New Zealanders 
Anderton Jim: Motions — Tomb of the Unknown Warrior—Recognition of Service of New Zealanders 
[Volume:621;Page:16873] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Progressive party supports the motion moved by the Prime Minister and the sentiments expressed by all parties in this House this afternoon. Along with thousands of other Kiwis a young New Zealander left these Pacific Islands to serve his country in uniform. For that young man the year would have been between 1914 and 1917. He would have been on a ship sailing into a world war. Let us imagine he was like so many thousands of his peers about 18 years old when he left. In today’s terms that would be just leaving school—possibly a first-year tertiary student or just starting his first job. Of course he left behind friends and family—loved ones all. For all the loved ones who say farewell today as planes and ships take servicemen and servicewomen abroad and who crowd wharves and airports when they come back the return of the body of the Unknown Warrior will also have special significance. They know what it is like and what it must have been like for the family of this young man and indeed for many many New Zealanders. 
As he is an Unknown Warrior we do not know whether this young man went straight to the front in France or whether he had already been in the Mediterranean. Perhaps he had even served under Colonial William Malone at Gallipoli and witnessed or was even part of the extraordinary heroism of New Zealand’s greatest unsung warrior at Chunuk Bair whose grave lies unmarked on the Gallipoli peninsula. But it does not really matter whether this young man was ever actually at Gallipoli; what is important is the symbolism. The return of this Unknown Warrior and his tomb represent New Zealanders who have served their country in uniform. Wherever he had been he was killed in his prime in that bitter muddy trench hell that was the front line in France. He was a young New Zealander who was part of the unique and emerging South Pacific tribe that we increasingly recognise as Ngati Kiwi and the fact that we do not even know his name is the point. 
Nameless we honour him and all who serve their country in peace and war. Nameless he represents the other New Zealanders whose bodies were never identified some of whose graves are simply marked: “A soldier known unto God.” Nameless he gives special identity to Colonial Malone and countless others of the First World War to the many from the Second World War to those from Vietnam and—in more recent times—to Private Leonard Manning who was killed in East Timor and Major John McNutt who was accidentally bombed whilst training in Kuwait. Nameless he invites those who stay behind to remember and to demand a world where we collectively seek peace whilst also defending freedom. Nameless he is returned reclaimed and reburied in his own soil. Nameless he is at last named on his tombstone as the New Zealand Unknown Warrior. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14167] 
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. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Marc Alexander to section 107A(b) in clause 10 be agreed to.
Peters Winston:  
Peters Winston:  
[Volume:607;Page:4109] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want some clarification of your principal ruling: that those who are not addressing the House in this debate will remain silent. First I want to know why you placed that prescription before the Business Committee—but not before the House—after it was agreed by the committee that this debate would be held. Second you may think this is a deadly serious issue—so do we. That is why we have demanded a debate for months. We were denied that debate and have had to endure the effrontery of the Prime Minister saying for example that it should be held in “our time” as though it is a party-based partisan matter when it is not.
Tisch Lindsay: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18407] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask that the motion moved by the Minister be read again so that we can have the exact wording of what was proposed. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The wording of the motion was: “That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 10 May 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House except during questions for oral answer during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).”