edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4408] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is fairly difficult to take seriously that submission because it relates to as the member said the House in the performance of its functions. Those functions obviously include such matters as conduct at question time the examination of Ministers consideration of legislation the work we carry through select committees and so on and so forth. Nothing in this whole matter at all in any shape or form has obstructed or impeded the House or indeed any select committee in the performance of its functions. Indeed one might suggest that it has actually assisted the House in the performance of its functions as it has clearly given the Opposition the opportunity to ask many parliamentary questions and to engage in other behaviour in terms of parliamentary activity. But nothing could possibly be presented to this House that shows that the House has in any way been unable to carry out its functions as a result of whatever actions Taito Phillip Field undertook or of the Ingram report on those actions.
McCully Murray: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
McCully Murray: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4407] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I do not rise to contest your ruling. There is a proper process by which members can do that and that will obviously lead members on this side of the House to reflect on the written version of your ruling over the next day or so. But as we do so I ask whether you will give some further thought to elaborating on the ruling you have made. 
What you have done Madam Speaker if I might say is take a narrow view of Standing Orders 399 and 400. The provision in Standing Order 399 that refers to obstructing or impeding the House in the performance of its functions is a very general one and some members certainly put the Ingram report in that context and regard it as having very considerable application. Standing Order 400 contains some very narrow examples of the types of contempt that might be held to exist by the Speaker. It does not seek in any way to clarify the very general terms of Standing Order 399. 
Madam Speaker if your ruling is to stand as the standard for the House then I am sure that members on this side will at least want to consider making some changes to the Standing Orders. In order that we might have a strong base for doing so I invite you to be a little more definitive as to why the behaviour outlined in the Ingram report cannot be held by you to be covered by the very general provision in Standing Order 399(a) as it refers to obstructing or impeding the House in the performance of its functions. That will give us a more certain base on which to consider some representations to the Standing Orders Committee. I believe that members of the public when confronted with this ruling would expect us to do that. I simply invite you Madam Speaker to give us that further assistance as we give serious consideration to the matters you have outlined to us today.
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4407] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 It is a question of clarification. In the course of this discussion reference has been made to Standing Order 400. Standing Order 400(h) states: “as a member knowingly providing false or misleading information in a return of pecuniary interests:”. My question for you Madam Speaker is should further investigation of matters raised in the Ingram report give rise to the possibility that the member did make a false and misleading return of pecuniary interests is it possible for you then to reconsider the matter of privilege? The Ingram report lays out circumstances in which the member received what amounts to a gift—that is in the terms of the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill there was something of benefit to him for which he did not pay. In the same way as we have to declare free plane trips offered by a lobbyist the member had his house painted at rates well below the market rates or for which he did not pay at all and the scope of the pecuniary interests legislation is such that he should have declared that as a gift. It is not clear whether that is exactly the case—it would take some investigation to establish it. You have dealt with the application that was put to you Madam Speaker but in the interests of demonstrating to the public that Parliament does have an interest in the standards of conduct of an MP and in enforcing its own rules would you consider a privilege application based on that Standing Order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member said that was not a matter raised with me in the original application. Of course any matter that is put to me will be considered seriously. But as the member was seeking clarification I also point out that he should note the date upon which the pecuniary interests register did come into force which was 17 September.
Hide Rodney: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Hide Rodney: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4406] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I do not want to contest your ruling Madam Speaker; it is not appropriate that this Parliament do that. You have received a complaint of breach of privilege and you have ruled accordingly. Of course I accept that 100 percent. But perhaps I could be helpful to the National Party and indeed to this Parliament by pointing out and asking through you that it would be quite within the bounds of the appropriate select committee to undertake an inquiry into say the Minister of Immigration’s discretions in granting permits and how that process might be done. I am thinking of the Commerce Committee or such a committee that would draft the terms of reference and undertake an inquiry. That inquiry would be quite within order. Indeed you may recall that the Finance and Expenditure Committee with Mr Clayton Cosgrove who has some responsibility now for immigration matters I think spent two parliamentary terms trying to undertake an inquiry into my good self as a way of getting around the question of privilege. 
 So it is quite possible for Parliament to make an inquiry into what has gone on here through a wider inquiry within the terms of a select committee. We could indeed achieve the aims that we seek to achieve. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions and I suggest that a copy of the statement is available in members’ boxes if they wish to consider it. I make the point that once members read it I hope they will appreciate that there is a difference between parliamentary privilege as such which is quite a technical area and the member’s standards or conduct. That is why I took the unusual course of making the statement to the House today.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4406] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I think the member quite simply confused two different meanings of the word “privilege” and in one of those was extending the use of the word “privilege” to mean something rather more than it does in the circumstance. Clearly people have an assumption that approaches from members of Parliament on immigration matters will be dealt with with some care by a Minister of Immigration. That is why the member’s colleagues frequently make representation to the Minister of Immigration on immigration matters. 
In that respect however a member does not have a specific parliamentary privilege in the sense that parliamentary privilege is covered by the Standing Orders. Parliamentary privilege covers a much narrower range of matters than matters that we might regard as privileges held by members of Parliament in the broad and common-language sense of that word. That includes for example a privilege in relation to parliamentary travel in relation to telephones and in relation to a whole number of matters that are themselves not necessarily matters of parliamentary privilege at all. 
In relation of course to Standing Order 400(h) that merely relates quite specifically to the declaration of pecuniary interest. Nothing in the Ingram report comes anywhere close to that nor indeed do the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition as I understand the letter he has sent from what I have heard about it within the House here and from statements made by members opposite about that particular complaint. The member is stretching the bow far too long in that regard. 
For example in your own statement Madam Speaker you refer to being found guilty of a contempt of court which of course the Hon Dr Nick Smith was. When he entered this House he was applauded by his parliamentary colleagues for having received that conviction. One might well regard it as some form of breach of privilege that people could make such a public display of affirmation of support for breaking the law. But that of course is not in itself a breach of parliamentary privilege. It might be regarded as bad form bad behaviour or indeed even perhaps a contempt for the law but not a breach of parliamentary privilege. Your order Madam Speaker quite properly confines itself to matters of parliamentary privilege.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Privilege—Taito Phillip Field 
[Volume:632;Page:4405] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it would be an understatement to say that we are disappointed by your ruling. It would be a further understatement to say that we are surprised by your ruling. Although you have given us a reasonably extensive rationale behind your reasoning I do not accept that what you said in relation to Standing Order 400(i) (j) and (k) is relevant in this case or that this case is excluded from scrutiny under those paragraphs. We did not supply you with a list of alleged breaches because we thought that the 180 pages of Mr Ingram’s report would be relatively self-explanatory. 
You will note Madam Speaker that in one part of the report Mr Ingram goes into discussion about the way in which Ministers of Immigration over a period of years have dealt with requests from members of Parliament—a subject that is a cause of a degree of angst by those who represent people in immigration cases who are not members of Parliament. Essentially the Ministers who were spoken to said that if a member of Parliament makes an application then that application carries a great deal more weight than if it were to come from someone else. Indeed Mr O’Connor went into some explanation in the report as to why he felt a member of Parliament listing pleadings on behalf of someone who wanted an immigration preferment carried a great deal more weight if it were supported by a member of Parliament. Surely that is part of the privilege of being a member of Parliament and it surely is part of the requirement of being a member of Parliament that a privilege like that is not abused. 
The concern that we have is that this is a case where a large percentage of the public believe there is an element of corruption involved. In many ways that taints the whole of Parliament. So our disappointment is that Parliament through its Privileges Committee will not be able to protect itself from the allegation that Parliament is now complicit in the cover-up of that corruption. I would accordingly ask you Madam Speaker to reconsider Standing Order 400(h) on the basis of the testimony given by Mr O’Connor in Mr Ingram’s report which is testimony that I understand is backed by previous immigration Ministers and which makes it very clear that the opportunity to advocate very directly on the part of someone in an immigration matter is a privilege of this House.
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
[Volume:632;Page:4404] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition and all those party spokespersons who have supported the statement made on behalf of the Government in the House today. I want to say that New Zealand under many Governments over a long period of time has taken an even-handed position on the Middle East crisis. The position is that which the Hon Peter Dunne referred to: we are looking for an outcome in the Middle East based on two States each recognising the other with secure boundaries. That is the only basis on which a durable peace settlement can be founded. 
I say to the spokesperson from the Green Party that the Government’s statements have been very carefully balanced to condemn violence on both sides. Two wrongs do not ever make a right and we would like a ceasefire now. I am sure all members would want the thoughts of this Parliament to be conveyed to the Parliaments of those countries from which the four deceased peacekeepers come. Those names and countries have not been revealed at this point by the United Nations while they contact the families and countries concerned but in due course they will be made public.
Anderton Jim: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
Anderton Jim: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
[Volume:632;Page:4403] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Progressive party fully endorses the concerns expressed by the Prime Minister to the House today. Protecting innocent civilians or peacekeepers from harm should be the first priority of international diplomatic efforts in Lebanon Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Once a ceasefire is in place to protect civilians then attention will need to be paid to strengthening the foundations for a solution that offers justice and dignity to all sides of this conflict. 
New Zealand has a long history of involvement in this region which stretches back to the role New Zealand soldiers played in pushing the imperial Turkish army out of Palestine in World War I. The first Labour Government played a significant role in the 1940s in campaigning for international support for the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. It is therefore with a deep sense of disappointment and regret that many New Zealanders of my generation see and read news reports of the Israeli defence force one of the strongest armies in the world inflicting the scale of damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure that we have seen over the past few months in both the occupied Palestine territories and in the past 2 weeks Lebanon. 
 New Zealanders will continue to contribute of course to the peaceful development of the region but we must surely know by now that a durable and sustainable peace will come only when there is justice and dignity for all sides of this conflict. 
New Zealand will of course have to give serious consideration to whether keeping our own observers in place in Lebanon is justified under the circumstances surrounding the untimely deaths of four United Nations peacekeepers there.
Hide Rodney: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
Hide Rodney: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
[Volume:632;Page:4403] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises to join with the Prime Minister in deploring the loss of life in the Middle East and especially the four UN peacekeepers. But we do not endorse the Prime Minister’s statement. In particular we take issue with the Prime Minister’s repetition of the statement of “disproportionate violence”. I can do no better than to refer to page B3 of today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 where Dominic Lawson writing for the  
Independent 
 states: “What is the proportionate response to a terrorist organisation which repeatedly sends rockets packed with ball bearings to cause maximum civilian casualties in your main domestic tourist resort? And what do you do if that organisation backed by Iran and Syria also has two ministers in the Government of the country from which they are sending those rockets?”. 
I ask New Zealanders and this Parliament to consider what New Zealand’s response would be if we had to confront a neighbour right on our borders who would commit such atrocities and whether we would stand idly by and talk about a proportionate response. I say to this House and to New Zealand that until Hezbollah stops the violence and recognises the State of Israel’s right to exist then we cannot expect peace and that our focus should be on achieving that peace not on repeating propaganda. Thank you.
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
[Volume:632;Page:4402] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future endorses the Prime Minister’s statement of concern at the escalating violence in the Middle East that has culminated in the senseless killing of four UN peacekeepers in Khiam in southern Lebanon. 
 This horrific escalation that has exploded in recent weeks is a further reminder that there can be no lasting peace or no lasting road map towards peace in the Middle East until the provisions of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 are given credence and the right of Israel and the Palestinians to live within secure and recognised boundaries is adopted as an international commitment. Although the immediate pressure must be on both Israel and Hezbollah to cease the violence at this time I strongly believe that the pressure must go on those nations that support those countries to work towards achieving the peaceful outcome that Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 envisaged. Until there can be an accepted set of ground rules about what constitutes both the Jewish State and a legitimate self-determining Palestinian State these types of fracas that explode into mini-wars are inevitable and will continue. 
We want to see an end to the violence now through a ceasefire brokered through the United States the United Nations and other agencies with an interest but we want to see the same vigour brought to bear to ensure that the road map can be implemented and the rights of both nations to live in freedom and security can be established.
Harawira Hone: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
Harawira Hone: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
[Volume:632;Page:4402] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
:  
Tena koe e te Kaikorero tena tatou e te Whare. E tautoko ana te Pati Maori i nga korero a te Pirimia kia takatakahia e nga mahi kohuru a nga Hurae. Me mutu nga mahi kohuru i nga tangata o Lebanon. He tuku aroha tenei mai i te Pati Maori ki nga whanau o ratou kua mate. Ehara tenei mahi te kohuru tangata i te mahi kia mahia ki a wai ranei hakoa ko wai hakoa no hea. E mea ana matou kia u ki te aio ki nga whenua kei te mura o te ahi. Ko tenei mahi whakapahupahu pu kohuru tangata he mahi kino. E mohio tuturu ana matou ki aua momo mahi. Kia ora tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker and to us in the House. The Maori Party endorses the Prime Minister’s statement that acts of murder by the Jews should be stopped. Such acts against the people of Lebanon must cease. We send our condolences from the Maori Party to the families who have suffered losses. Murdering people is not condoned regardless of whom it is inflicted upon or where they are from. We say that peace should prevail in countries where war is occurring. Armed warfare in which people are murdered represents acts of violence. We are truly aware of the outcome of such actions. Greetings to us. 
]
Brown Peter: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
Brown Peter: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
[Volume:632;Page:4402] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First endorses 100 percent the comments of the Prime Minister. This war has gone on long enough. It is time it stopped and diplomacy or discussion took its place. It is time for those countries that have influence to use their influence to good effect. Innocent people are getting killed. Infrastructure is being destroyed for no sound reason. People are losing their livelihoods for no sound reason. Now is the time for talking. 
This war must end. We must use every bit of influence we have to bring it to a conclusion before it destroys everything including the reputations of those who should know better.
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
[Volume:632;Page:4401] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party also endorses the Prime Minister’s condemnation of the bombing by Israeli planes of the UN post in Lebanon. I am sure there will be international condemnation of that action. 
 But it is unfortunate that it takes an attack on a UN post really to wake up the world to what is going on in Israel and Lebanon. Almost 400 Lebanese and almost 40 Israelis have been killed and much of Lebanon particularly south Lebanon has been levelled by Israeli attacks. It is quite clear that both Israel and Hezbollah are committing war crimes as defined in our own legislation passed in setting up the International Criminal Court and New Zealand’s participation in it. Both sides are targeting civilian areas with Israel’s attacks clearly being the most destructive and in fact seeming to be collectively punishing the Lebanese nation for the actions of Hezbollah. 
The Green Party endorses the Prime Minister’s call for an immediate ceasefire. I think it is important to be even-handed and I am a little concerned that the Prime Minister says Hezbollah should stop its attacks yet she asks Israel only to cease its “disproportionate” violence. We should be calling on Israel to stop all its attacks and stating that any ceasefire must be unconditional on both sides if we are to work to a long-term resolution of the problems of the region which includes a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that recognises the rights of the Palestinian people to their own State.
Brash Don: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
Brash Don: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
[Volume:632;Page:4401] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The National Party also deeply regrets the loss of four United Nations peacekeepers in the strike in Lebanon. More generally we deeply regret the loss of innocent lives on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese border. Tragically there appears little prospect of lasting peace in the Middle East until all parties recognise the right of Israel to exist. In the meantime we certainly share the Government’s desire that there be a ceasefire as soon as possible so that diplomacy can take over where warfare clearly is having such frequently disastrous results.
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
Clark Helen: Ministerial Statements — Lebanon—Israeli Bombing of United Nations Post 
[Volume:632;Page:4401] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 348 I propose to make a ministerial statement. The New Zealand Government deplores the Israeli bombing of the United Nations post in Khiam southern Lebanon that killed four United Nations peacekeeping personnel earlier today. Other United Nations personnel have been wounded in earlier attacks by both sides. The Government is deeply shocked that neutral United Nations posts have been caught up in the violence in southern Lebanon. We are instructing the New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York Rosemary Banks to discuss urgently with the United Nations the ongoing status and safety of its missions in Lebanon. 
The United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO) has staff in Lebanon and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is based there. New Zealand has New Zealand Defence Force personnel serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation including two who are in Lebanon as military observers. In addition a third New Zealander is a UN contractor working on de-mining operations in Lebanon. New Zealander Major General Clive Lilley heads the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization and is based in Jerusalem. 
In respect of today’s bombing of the UNIFIL post in Khiam New Zealand joins the Secretary-General of the United Nations in calling on the Government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident and demands that any further attack on UN positions and personnel must stop. New Zealand will be conveying its concerns at this attack to Israel. New Zealand has consistently and strongly urged all sides to pull back from violence observe international law and allow international facilitators and mediators a chance to put a peace process together. We reiterate that call today. Just as Hezbollah is urged to stop its attacks so must Israel cease the disproportionate violence that is striking civilians infrastructure and United Nations personnel and posts. 
There should be an immediate ceasefire but in the absence of that we call on both sides to cease attacks in the vicinity of civilians and UN posts and personnel. A ceasefire in Lebanon and resolution of the immediate causes of the conflict must be followed by negotiations for a comprehensive peace in the region if such crises are to be avoided in the future.
Vote: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4608] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put.  
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Dalziel Lianne: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4608] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pillay Lynne: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Coroners Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4604] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 In rising to speak to this bill I acknowledge Chris Finlayson who was a very hard-working and conscientious member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I know that we worked very very hard on this bill to make it the bill it is today. It will deliver a much better coronial service in New Zealand and enhance public confidence in that service. 
I acknowledge in particular all the work done by JPs who worked under the former system who gave tremendous time energy and skill with no remuneration. I point out that we on the committee whilst wanting to deliver a better system spent quite some time discussing how the new system in no way denigrated the contribution that JPs and coroners provided under the old system. Quite to the contrary many—in fact most—went far beyond the call of duty in their commitment to providing a good service. 
I also acknowledge the Law Commission. It spent a lot of time on this bill which replaces the Coroners Act 1988. The Law Commission worked very hard on this bill and looked at how we could have the best system to address a very difficult circumstance for people in New Zealand. 
The key element that the bill establishes is the office of the chief coroner. We know that that is quite instrumental to providing the best system and support for people who use the coroners service and moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time and appropriately legally qualified coroners will be the best service. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To this point the honourable member has not dealt with Part 2 at all. She is dealing with Part 1 “General provisions”; Part 2 is headed “Deaths to be reported and post-mortems”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I was just about to address that issue. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I thank the member for drawing my attention to a technicality—something I have to say he was not quite so good at earlier in the Chamber this afternoon. I will end this call now but I just say that this bill does actually ensure that families are notified at significant steps. I feel really proud to be part of a Government that has introduced this legislation and proud of the hard work the committee has done despite Dr Worth’s slightly obsessive manner of dealing with things. I know that this is a good bill and I commend it to the Committee.
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4603] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill — Third Reading 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4602] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4602] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4602] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill read a third time. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill read a second time.
Dalziel Lianne: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Dalziel Lianne: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4601] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I would happily accept the invitation of the previous speaker Mr Gallagher. I enjoy visiting that member’s city because it is exceptionally well represented by Martin Gallagher and Dianne Yates. They do a great job for the people of Hamilton. 
Today I felt very proud to be a Labour member of Parliament and a member of this great Labour-led Government because I listened to a great new Labour member of Parliament give his maiden statement. It makes me very proud to know that I have been a friend of his since 1989. I am really really pleased to see him here joining us in Parliament. 
I have listened to members of the Opposition with difficulty. I think a lot of people on this side of the House have difficulty reconciling the fact that we are having an important debate here in Parliament with the fact that all the members opposite deal with are the sideshows—they do not deal with the real issues. 
I remind people that our Minister of Finance and Peter Dunne together released a business tax review recently. This review has already caused those who said that only the headline rate mattered to think again. People have been confronted with a document that lays out some real choices and the word that has been fed back to me time and time again is “investment”—not “cuts” but “investment”. People want to invest in the future of our economy and in the future of our country. They want to invest in new technology. They want to invest in research and development. They want to invest in innovative staff training. They want to invest in developing export markets. They know that the Labour-led Government is a Government that believes in investing in the future. All they know is that on the other side of the House are some grizzly griping young ones who despite their born-to-rule attitude just have not got over the fact that they are still on that side of the House. Well I tell those members that those in the business world do not care who is in Government as long as the Government is talking and listening to them. This side of the House has been working with business because this side of the House is able to make a difference. 
The bottom line is that the business tax development document is just a further building block on what we as a Government have already delivered which was over a billion dollars worth of changes in the 2005 Budget. We have increased depreciation rates we have reduced the fringe benefit tax and the list goes on. I am glad we can end the debate on that note.
Robertson H V Ross: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Robertson H V Ross: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4593] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind the member Heather Roy that she has 5 minutes. The bell will go at 4 minutes with a 1-minute warning.
Robertson H V Ross: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Robertson H V Ross: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4586] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind Mr Copeland that he has a 5-minute address. The bell will go at 4 minutes for a 1-minute warning.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4564] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4564] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4563] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just a minute; I am going to rule on this point of order. The point about the matter is that a member has an absolute right to raise a point of order about relevancy and that was done. I could not rule at the time but when I heard the interpretation Nanaia Mahuta the member raising the original point of order was correct. So the member cannot now contest my ruling on that—I have ruled on it. But the member is right in saying there is sometimes an issue of relevancy—it often depends on the context. However a point of order was raised on the matter of relevancy. That is the end of this matter. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No Dr Sharples I am not going to take any more points of order on the same matter. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.referred to Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4563] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled that much of the speech was not relevant to the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) and that is the end of the matter. I took particular note of the translation and I ruled that what the member raised in her point of order was correct. If any member had raised that issue and if I had been able to understand the speech I would have ruled in exactly the same way. Much of the speech was not related to the bill. That is the end of the matter. I have ruled on the point of order but we will consider the matter. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member raising a point of order? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Ae. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just say to the member that if the point of order concerns what I have already ruled on it would be disorderly. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Ehara. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
No. 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No? The member is saying it is a new point of order. Hone Harawira. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Tena koe e te Kaikorero. Taku rongona atu ki nga kaikorero roto i te Whare nei tino whanui rawa nga korero a ia kaikorero mo te kaupapa. He aha te take e whakakahoretia ana koe i taku korero? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker. I have listened to addresses in this House by various speakers and they draw a very long bow about a topic. Why are you ruling out my speech? 
]  
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Point of order—
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4562] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just say to the member and to Nanaia Mahuta the member who raised the point of order that the point of order was absolutely correct. A lot of that speech was not relevant. The presiding officers will have to discuss how we deal with speeches and whether we will allow the whole 10 minutes before we have the interpretation because it was impossible for anyone to rule on that. We will certainly have a look at the matter but I do uphold the member’s point of order. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He aha nga mea kua he ki taku kaupapa? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What aspects of my speech were incorrect? 
]
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4557] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It might just help the member to understand a little more about these matters if he were to realise that one cannot take someone to the Privileges Committee for not presenting an accurate document when leave to present the document was not granted in the first place. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is of course not a point of order.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4557] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that points of order are heard in silence. 
RON MARK 
: Madam Speaker I just want clarification from you as to which specific paragraph of the Standing Orders applies. Is it true that Standing Order 400(b) makes it possible for a case of privilege to be laid with you where a member has deliberately misled the House by presenting a document that does not exist? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. If the member has a matter of privilege this is not the place—as I have ruled before—for it to be raised. The member knows what the proper process is.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4557] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National in which New Zealand First was insistent that some $38 million be spent on pouring concrete into the bottom of the  
Charles Upham 
 because Ron Mark thought that doing that would stabilise it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is getting a tad silly but leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4557] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Well I might as well join in the fray. I seek leave to table whatever documents I have in my office that show that I spoke to the Minister of Defence at the time Max Bradford about what could be done for the  
Charles Upham 
 because he freely admitted that it was a dog and that purchasing it was a big mistake by the National Government. 
Documents not tabled.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4557] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the 1996 coalition document between New Zealand First and National in which the New Zealand First Party agreed to the very extensive refit of the  
Charles Upham 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4557] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table newspaper reports in 1996 and 1997 in which Ron Mark as the New Zealand First defence spokesperson strongly endorsed the purchase of the  
Charles Upham  
as part of New Zealand’s Defence Force capability. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4556] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the report by the Controller and Auditor-General on the  
Charles Upham 
 dated 24 September 1998 which shows clearly that the  
Charles Upham 
 was purchased by a National Government 2 years before I came to Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4556] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table page 81 of  
Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 
 which states quite categorically that the HMNZS  
Charles Upham 
 was purchased in 1994—2 years prior to my entering Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Worth Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4556] 
2.  
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: What further evidence if any has she requested before the committee completes its inquiry into the 2005 general election? 
LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 Any decisions the committee has made to seek further evidence are confidential to the committee at this time. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Can she confirm that the committee is awaiting a report from the Controller and Auditor-General as to whether the expenditure of public funds by the office of Helen Clark on the Labour Party pledge card and leaflet was outside the scope of the relevant appropriation; if so what is the reason for the delay in the release of that report? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is not the role of the select committee to determine when that report comes from the Auditor-General. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I seek leave to table a letter dated 31 July from the Controller and Auditor-General that notes the matters that are the subject of these questions are complex and sensitive. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That letter is to the select committee and has not been tabled at that committee yet so should it be presented? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There should have been an objection to it being tabled if that was the case. That was the opportunity to do that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I was going to do that but I was a little tardy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am afraid the member was too late.