edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4129] 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: On how many occasions has the Intelligence and Security Committee met since the last election and does the frequency of such meetings since 27 July 2002 reflect her Government’s idea of consultation with Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The committee has met once. It is not easy to get times when everyone can meet. Given the member’s interest I have asked staff to canvass whether members could meet at any time Thursday morning or afternoon. Everyone was able to come at 3.30 except the member. I am now endeavouring to see whether time can be made to fit with his programme on Wednesday afternoon. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has the Prime Minister made a pathetic attempt to mislead this House on that issue when my office has been approached nine times and has agreed on nine former occasions to meet in respect of this committee; why is she trying to tell the House something else at this point in time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No disrespect to the member but there are other members involved. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister guarantee that the information collected at the Waihopai satellite communications interception station is not used by the United States National Security Agency for its war aims including the agency’s announced spying on UN Security Council members; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is very wide of the original question. The Prime Minister may comment. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not my practice to comment on the uses to which New Zealand intelligence is put. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Prime Minister decide today to call a meeting of the Intelligence and Security Committee? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: We have been trying to find time for a meeting for some time. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What items of business actually before the committee necessitate a meeting at this time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No matters of formal business but the committee did agree that it would like to meet again to discuss intelligence in the post-Bali era. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect Parliament to take the work of that committee seriously when she clearly does not having last year had only one meeting back in December after the 27 July election and this year with her being the chair of that organisation being able to effect no meetings at all at this point in time right on the edge of war with Iraq? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: With the exception of the period when the committee was considering legislation around the amendments to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act it has been the practice of the committee to meet three or four times in a calendar year. Last year it met three times. 
Question time interrupted.
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:10006] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This whole matter began over the timing of a closure. I want to ask you to advise the Committee why if we commenced the vote at about a quarter to 10 when this process got underway and if the vote is already therefore ongoing in the sense that we have started it so we cannot stop until we finish it you are now proceeding to put the vote again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There has been a lot of going backwards and forwards and I did it to try to clear matters up. I want to reiterate for the member— 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In now putting it again you are accepting that it was not put in the first place—which is the problem we have got into. Either we put it and it has been disposed of and we are about to commence voting on the amendments or at 20 past 10 or thereabouts we have not put it in which case the Committee rises. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell the member that the vote had not been completed; it was in progress. I want to read this again. The ruling is that the vote on the closure was in progress. The Committee must continue and decide that vote. The vote was a closure. After it is determined the remaining votes on Part 3 must be decided and then the Committee reports.
Carter John: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12416] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The member is advising the Committee of what the House will do when it resumes.
Cullen Michael: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19806] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 
.
Jones Dail: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5734] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 As a matter of interest New Zealand First was not at the meeting at 4.30 on Tuesday but still apologises for having to take this call. I draw members’ attention to clause 5 in the original version of the bill which stated that “The trusts declared in the trust deed are declared to be charitable trusts for all purposes at law.” That was deleted because the Maori Affairs Committee realised that it was far too wide-ranging. 
I was not at the select committee either but I have taken the trouble to read the report. The select committee then took the advice of the Inland Revenue Department—which is the body that is most concerned to protect New Zealanders from breaches of charitable trusts—Treasury Te Puni Kokiri and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. That is set out on page 4 of the commentary on the bill. As a result of that advice the new clause 5 was inserted. There is a recommendation to ensure that for the period specified in the clause the fact that the beneficiaries under the trust deed are related by blood does not prevent the purposes of the trust declared by the trust deed from complying with the public benefit requirement of the law relating to charitable trusts. Anyone who had taken a few moments to read the bill would have worked that one out. 
Also as a lawyer familiar with trusts and charitable trusts I looked to see what happens when the trust is liquidated. This bill has special provisions for the liquidation of the charitable trust and restrictions on liquidation under the Charitable Trusts Act. So that aspect of it is covered as well. Looking at the creation of the trust and the matters that the trustees have to promote it seems to me that they come within the broad range of the Statute of Elizabeth of 1601 and I am perfectly happy to support the bill on behalf of New Zealand First.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20524] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point is a simple one. When a member is asked to withdraw and apologise he should do so immediately. You saw then from Trevor Mallard exactly what you had asked him to withdraw and apologise about. Immediately after withdrawing and apologising he then took another point of order simply for the purpose of having another attack on the Hon Murray McCully. It seems to me that you have to deal with that because that was a complete abuse of firstly the Standing Orders and secondly your authority in the Chair when you had asked him to withdraw and apologise.
Brownlee Gerry: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20955] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance. Parliament is currently in urgency to consider urgent matters. I would like to know what the procedure is for the rather unusual step of the Opposition wanting to add something to the urgency motion. Can we do that by leave during the Committee stage or would we need to call the Speaker back? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the Opposition wished to pursue that the Speaker would of course need to be recalled because that is a matter to be dealt with by the House. The urgency motion has been passed and dealt with for the purposes of this Committee.
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11695] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I repeat my thanks to Mr Carter for the comments he made about the contribution of the ministry staff. It is obviously an enlightened chairman who looks after the Primary Production Committee. So often in this place officials whatever the department come in for criticism that is often most unjustified and inappropriate so it is nice to hear those positive comments that Mr Carter made about the contribution those officials made in reaching what was obviously quite a difficult resolution around an acknowledged complex issue. 
I would like to make a few comments in relation to what Mr Ewen-Street just said. Some of those issues have already been foreshadowed by the select committee chair but they are very clear. In statutory terms it would be quite inconsistent with the statutory nature of the Fisheries Act 1996 to personalise repayments or refunds of that kind. Equally there is the issue of the extraordinary practical difficulties and the identification and location of those who might be dead bankrupt gone from the industry and so on in attempting the redress that Mr Ewen-Street was canvassing. 
I would also like to make some comments about the other major part of this bill—that is the clarification of the law that has become necessary because of recent court cases. We have become focused on the overs and unders until now but we should not forget the financial risk this country faces because of the illegal take in our fisheries which is not only most significantly a threat to the sustainability of the resource but also a threat in terms of illegal fishing of paua and rock lobster alone. That probably costs the country in excess of $20 million a year. It is for that reason that new section 233 substituted by clause 6 deals with the highest band of offences. They have caused some difficulty and some convictions have been overturned recently which has attracted considerable attention in the courts and that is why this clause is so important. In terms of improving the robustness of those offences clearly the message that the Government is serious about cracking down on and being able to hold convictions on commercial poaching and black market offending will go out into the community. 
The original provision under section 233 made it an offence to knowingly contravene the Act for the purpose of obtaining a benefit under the Act. Unfortunately the Court of Appeal has held that commercial gain was not a benefit—understandably—under that Act and that finding has prevented some prosecutions from being successful. We look forward with the passage of this bill to that no longer being the case. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: On the question before the Committee the debate is on clauses 5 to 13 and on schedules 1 and 2.
Burton Mark: Business Law Reform Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Burton Mark: Business Law Reform Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12410] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Business Law Reform Bill that it take the bill part by part 
.
Pettis Jill: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7087] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8483] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 65(1)(b) be agreed to.
Samuels Dover: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Samuels Dover: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17729] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Catchpole Brent: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21185] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to express New Zealand First’s support of Brian Connell’s comments. It is time that this particular legislation was made far easier and more manageable. The Commerce Committee discussed this during its deliberations and made some recommendations to that effect. However it was decided that we could not go ahead with it at this point in time because four trusts are involved with similar legislation and each one of those pieces of legislation would have to be changed individually. Whereas if we go down the track of making one separate piece of legislation that is an umbrella legislation for those four trusts that would leave the mechanism for all four trusts to go through the process of an Order in Council. 
Under those circumstances New Zealand First agreed that it would proceed with this bill as it is but with the understanding from the Minister and the officials that the review was under way and the legislation would be not very far down the track. However I was very disturbed by the Minister’s comments when she was winding up her second reading speech that the review and the legislation is not a high priority for this Government. That tells me one thing—that this Government’s high priority is to waste the time of this Parliament simply because we will have to go through this process time and time again as the trusts change ownership. It is unfortunate that change of ownership takes place so regularly but that is one of the situations of the commercial world. Unfortunately this Government is of the opinion that to stop wasting Parliament’s time is not a high priority. 
New Zealand First supports this legislation as it is but would like to see it come under an umbrella that takes this whole process out of the way and the name of the owner can be changed instead of having to go through separate legislation.
Peck Mark: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Peck Mark: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8480] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Shirley Ken: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12209] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not quite sure of the process here so can you assist us?. Are you advising the Committee that the amendment was filed late and the member needs leave for it to be considered?
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14041] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11564] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22332] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3)  
divided into Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3)  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 388 
.
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5572] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I actually think it is quite simple. People call “Yes” and “No” in the Chamber and the Chair makes a determination and says “The Ayes have it.” or “The Noes have it.” We have just had a series of votes on amendments in the name of Mr Baldock. We voted against some of them by voice. You called “The Ayes have it.” We did not want a party vote on those so we did not call for a party vote. That happens all the time. We had a voice vote; we did not have a party vote. On this amendment from Dr Nick Smith people voted you said “The Ayes have it.” no one called for a party vote and I understand that at that point the vote was locked in.
Pettis Jill: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8819] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill. This is an important bill and I know that we have had a fair amount of argy-bargy across the House tonight. I suppose that if we cannot have that kind of debate across the Chamber in this Parliament where can we have it? I want to say at what is almost the close of play tonight that this is an important bill about the health of New Zealanders. It would be really good if we as responsible adult members of the public could debate this bill in the manner in which the bill is presented. It is a well-considered bill. A great deal of time and effort has been spent on it and I would like to recommend to members that when we resume debate on this bill we should debate it in a mature and considered way. We should leave the name-calling aside and get on with— 
Richard Worth 
: Look to your own party. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I am including all members in that comment. We should put personality issues aside and get on with debating an important bill. In the end this bill is about protecting the health of all New Zealanders including some people whom we might be related to ourselves. Let us think about that. It is nearly the end of the sitting for the day and I implore members to debate the bill rather than personality issues when we resume debate on this.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19101] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedules 1AA to 12 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
Anderton(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Gallagher  
Mahuta(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick  
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hobbs  
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia  
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Roy(P) 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Duynhoven  
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Teller: 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Simich  
Pettis  
Noes 44 
Adams(P) 
Copeland(P) 
Newman  
Smith N (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters J 
Turner(P) 
Brown  
Goudie(P) 
Peters W 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones(P) 
Scott(P) 
Collins(P) 
Mark(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M 
Tisch  
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 336 in the name of Stephen Franks to schedule 13 to omit items relating to Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 be agreed to.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9310] 
7.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What are the implications of New Zealand’s election to the World Heritage Committee? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Our election gives New Zealand the opportunity for the first time ever to be part of the decision-making process within the World Heritage Committee and to promote the heritage values we believe in. It was an excellent result by New Zealand. We won by the biggest-ever margin on that committee—top equal; one of 22 candidates. That shows the very high regard for New Zealand internationally and the effective campaign that we ran. It also gives us the opportunity to have heading our delegation paramount chief Tumu te Heuheu who has continued the leadership work of his forefathers in conserving the natural and cultural heritage of this country. It is really good news for New Zealand. 
David Parker 
: Will New Zealand be seeking to represent the region on the committee as well as the heritage values of this country? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand stood for the position on the World Heritage Committee as a country with three important world heritage sites of its own that it is committed to preserving but it also campaigned on the basis that no country in the region had ever been represented on the World Heritage Committee. In that sense we stood on behalf of all Pacific Island countries and will be working to ensure that they have input and that their voices are heard also for the first time in that forum.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7223] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Peters would have been given five supplementary questions if he had wanted them because it is still within his allocation. He was not ejected for that at all. He was ejected for being rude to the Chair which he has been constantly over the past few weeks. I have heard that point of order now.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20535] 
6.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What announcements are being made today about assistance to people with disabilities or ill health? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I am delighted that we are investing $27.7 million over the next 4 years for a major expansion of the new service for sickness and invalids benefit recipients that has already helped thousands of people move into work. This brings the total investment in the new service to $127.8 million over 4 years. We have already seen through this service a 13 percent increase in the number of people leaving sickness and invalids benefits since the service pilot began. It is clear that many people on these two benefits want to work and now they are getting the support they need to do so. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How will this additional funding improve the new service for sickness and invalids benefit recipients? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The funding will allow for work assessments to prepare 2500 people a year for a long-term return to work increased support for disabled job seekers and their employers increased payments to designated doctors and a nationwide roll-out of the programme enabling doctors to seek a second opinion to better assess sickness benefit eligibility. This is on top of existing features such as slashing case manager workloads and introducing Providing Access to Health Solutions in five regions. 
Judith Collins 
: If the Minister is spending almost $30 million on more administration and more programmes to get 2500 people off the sickness and invalids benefits just how much more is she planning to spend on the staggering 120000 working-age adults who reckon they are too sick to work when under her watch their numbers have already grown by 39 percent? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Despite my outlining more detail of the expenditure in my answer to the previous supplementary question the member was extremely selective in highlighting just one of many points. We have seen a 13 percent increase in the number of people moving from sickness and invalids benefits into work since the pilots began. I note also that under the last National Government the number of people on sickness and invalids benefits actually grew by 69 percent and 84 percent respectively. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When will all New Zealanders experiencing depression or similar mental health conditions be able to benefit from the Providing Access to Health Solutions programme and why is this key part of the new service available in only four regions rather than across the country? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I appreciate the member’s support for the continued expansion of this programme and I can assure her that that is definitely on our programme.
Vote: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Vote: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:606;Page:3801] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
Noes 8 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8.
Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—Labour Party 
Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—Labour Party 
[Volume:617;Page:12553] 
Points of Order 
Parliamentary Membership—Labour Party 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a question about the order of the House—I did not want to interrupt question time—under Standing Order 35 and invite you to make a Speaker’s ruling about Standing Order 35. Standing Order 35 states that a party must inform the Speaker of its parliamentary membership. The Speaker must be informed of any change in those matters. You have advised the House that you have not been advised of the change in membership but the whole House saw the Clerk advise you that the Labour Party vote was one too many. 
It would appear that there has actually been a change in the Labour Party membership. Standing Order 35 requires a party to advise that change promptly. The reason for that is obvious because things like funding and the like follow a statement by the party under Standing Order 35. If a party did not have to advise promptly it could fail to tell the House that there had been a change for maybe—what is it—16 months to the next election and then say: “By the way there has been a change.” I think we need to have a ruling from you that if a party is aware that there has been a change in its membership then the Speaker should be advised immediately of that fact. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the member has made a perfectly fair and accurate point that once a party has been notified of a change it should notify the Speaker of that change—for the reasons raised by the member. In the particular case being referred to of course the Labour Party has not received any official notification of a change in its membership. In a situation where public statements have been made to the contrary we took the cautious position of voting 51. It subsequently turns out that we are still entitled to 52 votes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 5/7. The Speaker acts on formal advice and does not take the initiative. How members conduct themselves politically is a matter for them to determine.
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14755] 
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. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 240 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to.
Maharey Steve: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Maharey Steve: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4868] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 Just because there may well be some people still listening to this debate outside the Chamber and they may well seriously have taken in any of the arguments that have been put up so far I will spend a couple of minutes advising them that this is the normal kind of Committee debate where Opposition members entertain themselves by raising issues that they know the answers to. For example Dr Nick Smith who has been a Minister knows that the Crown entities legislation is reflected in this bill and that the clauses in it are standard to that kind of legislation. Muriel Newman knows that also. 
The main reason we have changed from 6 years to 8 years for registration was explained in my second reading speech and I am sure Dr Newman sat riveted in her seat listening to it. We have changed it because we believe that probably the most likely thing is that people will settle into a 3 years academic 2 years practise requirement to become a registered social worker. Many of them will have to do this part time. It seemed to us that 6 years was a little tight for that so we have agreed to allow 2 years’ latitude. 
Dr Newman had just started on a question about overseas-trained social workers. Yes we do want to get our share of those skills that move around the world. Some of them will be social workers and some of them will want temporary registration and this bill allows that. There will be other questions for those people who are listening at home to this debate but I give an assurance that most of them will be rhetorical. Members are asking questions to which they know the answers.
Hartley Ann: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5511] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Speaker the House has recalled you because there is a dispute over the continuation of the vote. The closure had been taken before 6 o’clock. That was disputed in several points of order and then when I commenced the voting that was contested.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12327] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:613;Page:10219] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Families Commission Bill the first reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill and probably further progress of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.
Brownlee Gerry: Budget Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5966] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Throughout the previous member’s contribution to the debate I was brought into the debate without my having made any comment. There are of course remedies available to me in the Standing Orders but I think that in the circumstances those would be somewhat extreme. I simply say to the member that if he thinks he can achieve all that for $1.50 a head kia ora to him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Japan—Prime Minister's Fellow 2004 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Japan—Prime Minister's Fellow 2004 
[Volume:618;Page:13768] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have very much pleasure in informing members that Mr Taro Kono member of the Japanese Diet and Prime Minister’s Fellow for 2004 is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Taro Kono accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Question time resumed.
Copeland Gordon: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21579] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I fully accept your ruling in that regard but I would like to say that I have checked Standing Order 365 which relates to the lodging of oral questions. It specifically states that such a question must be “signed by the member or by another member on the member’s behalf”. So there is a distinction between Standing Order 120 and Standing Order 365 which is contrary to what Rod Donald advised. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. Thank you for pointing that out. That was not part of my ruling.
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18825] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 The issues raised by both Dr Mapp and Pita Paraone are serious and we have already commented on them. I want to make a further comment on the issue of the hapu. Dr Mapp is absolutely right; we are legislators. I think Judy Turner has totally lost sight of that as United Future sometimes does with regard to these settlements. There is no intention at all for any member of this Parliament to be disrespectful to Ngati Awa but there is every desire to make sure that this Committee understands very clearly what it does when it starts to put into legislation certain concepts that for some iwi at least will be contentious. On the issue of adding in urban groups and now calling them hapu from here on in although that may be acceptable for Ngati Awa it will not be acceptable for other tribes that are still to settle. I think it behoves members who do not quite understand that issue to think about it because every one of the 120 MPs in this Parliament will be here when that issue is passed into law. 
Stephen Franks 
: Which way should I vote—yes or no? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: National will probably support the Supplementary Order Paper that Pita Paraone has laid on the Table. I will leave that to the whip to do. We are deeply concerned that this Government is taking on the notion however well intentioned that somehow urban groups fall within the meaning of the term “hapu” in its traditional form. I think Stephen Franks was probably quite right to ask about Ngati Awa ki Sydney. Maybe the numbers of Ngati Awa in Sydney are not great at this point but we are a very mobile people and in time our numbers will be spread throughout the world. 
In relation to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi I was on the tribunal in its earlier days when we were faced with interpreting that phrase. As I said earlier I rather think the phrase has been brought into disrepute by this Government trying to include it in general legislation. Again I say members need to think quite clearly about the three parts of the treaty the third part being that which gives Maori the same rights as British subjects. That is where the reference to general legislation applies. The insertion of the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” does not belong there. I suppose over the last 2 years the Government has backtracked on inserting it but certainly in its first 2 years in power it was trying to—as I think I said then—poke the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi into every bit of legislation that moved. That was wrong and it is no wonder that New Zealanders started to get upset. 
In any event this bill will pass this time. But perhaps the Government ought to give some serious consideration to the issue of the principles of the treaty and also to the issue of urban communities from here on in being classed as hapu.
Urgent Debates Declined — Department of Corrections—Emergency Response Unit 
Urgent Debates Declined — Department of Corrections—Emergency Response Unit 
[Volume:623;Page:18245] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Department of Corrections—Emergency Response Unit 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 a report from the State Services Commissioner on the Department of Corrections emergency response unit. The report was said to have been released on 16 December 2004 but the member has not submitted any authenticating material with his application. In these circumstances it cannot be considered for debate—see Speaker’s ruling 150/3. The application is declined.
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14121] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:620;Page:15945] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I cannot give the member any indication at this stage of any intended urgency.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16607] 
10.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What recent reports has he received about the success of the Government’s broadcasting policies? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I have received the report released today from New Zealand On Air’s research which shows that 90 percent of New Zealanders regularly watch locally made documentaries. More than three-quarters believe that they want to see more television with New Zealanders in their proper place on the television screen and more than three-quarters enjoy hearing New Zealand music on radio and think radio stations should play more. This research endorses completely the Government’s policies in these areas. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports has the Government seen on the possible sale of Television New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a report which leaves open the possibility of selling TV2 and scrapping the charter from someone who says that he never watches television. If he did watch television he would know that TV2 is a channel for locally produced children’s and young people’s programming. Selling it would fly in the face of the views of 86 percent of New Zealanders who want to see a lot more local programmes for children and young people on our screens. Furthermore that member might like to know that it is impracticable to sell Television New Zealand’s second channel because it is just a frequency. It would require first of all splitting an integrated business but of course someone who does not watch television probably does not know that.
Collins Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14707] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I too will take just a short call on this bill. The previous speaker for the National Party Dr Paul Hutchison summed up this bill very well. There are a couple of little issues I would like to highlight. The previous speaker Steve Chadwick has just commented on the “fault / no fault” provision and the difficulty with medical misadventure. Certainly in our electorates we find that one of the biggest complaints of members of the public is that they do not understand why the different attitude in relation to medical misadventure exists. 
 But of course that is the nature of accident compensation; it is never going to please anyone in the first place. In many ways it is trying to deal with a situation and say that there is no fault when actually a lot of people feel that there is a certain amount of fault—particularly if one happens to be the victim of a drunk driver. It is very difficult to tell that person there is no fault and it is even more difficult to explain why somebody who hurt a knee in a driving accident in which that person happened to be drunk and caused the accident should get instant medical treatment on a knee while a World War II veteran has to linger for years and years and is basically left to die because the veteran cannot get an operation. I would certainly be very happy to see a situation where the veterans of this country get treated with the same respect as the drunk drivers. 
In essence we are supporting the referral of this bill to the Health Committee. We have of course some concerns as Dr Hutchison has outlined but we will try with the Government and the other parties to get this bill in good order. I note that it is the third accident compensation bill that this Government has put up in the last 5 years and it does beg the question of when it is going to get it right.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11515] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker regardless of what you just heard the fact is that they are two totally separate and different events. Seeking leave to table a judgment of the court that is perhaps though public not known by members is a totally separate matter from one’s view of a decision a judge might have made. It is up to members to distinguish between offensive behaviour in respect of a judge and criticising a judgment. They are two different things. My fear was that Mr Prebble had unknowingly misled the House as to the import of what Mr Ron Mark had said when he sought leave at that time and nothing in seeking leave relates to what he said at a prior time. It is a different exercise in his rights as a member of Parliament.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3762] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
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. Tony Ryall to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (iv) from subclause (2)(a).
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10735] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber if he raises a point of order that disputes my ruling. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Let me make it very clear to you Mr Speaker that a fundamental right of members of Parliament in our type of democracy is the right to raise a point of order without being coerced out of it by threats of what might happen should a point of order be raised.