edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5575] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13: ACT New Zealand 6 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 8A be agreed to: 
8ANew heading and sections inserted 
The principle Act is amended by inserting after section 29 the following heading and sections: 
Commissioner hearings 
29A Appointment of hearing commissioners 
(1)The Secretary for the Environment may from time to time appoint persons to be hearing commissioners who in the opinion of the Secretary are suitable persons for that purpose. 
(2)A hearing commissioner may not be appointed for a term exceeding 5 years. 
(3)The Secretary for the Environment must keep a register of all persons appointed as hearing commissioners and make the register publicly available. 
(4)The Secretary for the Environment may terminate the appointment of any person as a hearing commissioner for disability bankruptcy neglect of duty or misconduct and may amend the register accordingly. 
29B Hearing commissioners to hear applications 
(1)An application for a resource consent or a requirement for a designation must be heard by a hearings commissioner if required by— 
(a)the local authority; or 
(b)an applicant for a resource consent; or 
(c)a requiring authority for a designation; or 
(d)any person who has made a submission on the application for the resource consent or the requirement for the designation. 
(2)If required the principal administrative officer of the local authority must appoint a hearing commissioner or a panel of hearing commissioners from the register to decide the application. 
(3)When making an appointment under subsection (2) the principal administrative officer of the local authority must not appoint a councillor of the local authority as a hearing commissioner. 
(4)A hearing commissioner has the functions powers and duties of a local authority or consent authority under the provisions listed in Schedule 12. 
(5)The local authority is responsible for providing all administrative services and for the remuneration of a hearing commissioner. 
(6)A resource consent granted by a hearing commissioner is to be treated as if it were a resource consent granted by a local authority after the hearing and determination of appeals (if any).
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6931] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Goods Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time.
Benson-Pope David: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4057] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise and reinforce the Labour Party’s opposition to this bill. 
Debate interrupted.
Barker Rick: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Barker Rick: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4756] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brown Peter: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11199] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not need to take my full 10-minute call on this bill because it looks as though it is going to go through almost unanimously if not unanimously. I think the bill is worthwhile and has been a long time coming. The particular area that I am pleased to see addressed is the situation of unruly passengers. I have had the experience of flying on three planes with unruly passengers and I have to say it is not pleasant. Before the member says it— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The New Zealand First caucus? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think he might have just beaten me to it—it was not my caucus fellows. Flying with unruly passengers is nerve-racking if not scary and I think the honourable Paul Adams has just referred to blatantly drunk people. I do not know whether the guy who comes to my mind was blatantly drunk or just high on drugs but he was throwing his dinner around here there and everywhere. He was sitting next to a female passenger and it was very very difficult for the aircrew to contain him. I was tempted to climb over a few seats to get at him but I thought that might have made the job more difficult for the flight crew. 
Another time I was on a plane flying back from Greece. There was a full ship’s crew of us. I was a cadet officer in those times—and I was a well-behaved one before Maurice Williamson tells me anything different—and one of the junior engineers got tanked up on a Greek plane with a Greek captain in charge. That guy locked himself in the toilet just over the top of Heathrow. The captain first of all in English appealed for him to come out and then broke into rather choice language in Greek. We were trying to break down the toilet door to get the guy out and he was going berserk by the time we got him out and laid him down. We were in the middle of the approach to Heathrow and God knows what was outside. 
So I am very pleased that this bill will address the situation of unruly passengers. It does a good deal more as I think my colleagues have explained and New Zealand First will support the progress of this bill.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17409] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to.  
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Eckhoff 
Laban(P) 
Shirley 
Barker 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke 
Simich 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J 
Sutton 
Benson-Pope 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer 
Gallagher 
Maharey 
Tanczos 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
Mark 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick 
Hawkins 
Okeroa 
Wilson 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide 
Peck 
Yates 
Cullen 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Dalziel 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Ririnui 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson 
Duncan 
Kedgley 
Roy 
Teller: 
Dyson 
King 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis 
Noes 54 
Adams 
Dunne(P) 
Ogilvy 
te Heuheu 
Alexander 
Duynhoven(P) 
Paraone 
Tisch 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks 
Peters W (P) 
Wang 
Brown 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Williamson 
Brownlee (P) 
Gudgeon 
Robertson 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole 
Jones 
Smith L 
Coddington 
Key(P) 
Smith M 
Collins 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Connell (P) 
McNair 
Sowry(P) 
Copeland 
Newman 
Stewart 
Teller: 
Cosgrove 
O’Connor 
Tamihere 
Mapp 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7371] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a third time.
Barker Rick: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12348] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave that the Committee be able to consider the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) as a single question except that clause 14 be taken as a separate vote.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16747] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8489] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13045] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 199 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) the following new paragraph: 
(ia)the views of prisoners on the Public Prison Service:.
Gosche Mark: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Gosche Mark: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11817] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in this debate also. As a previous Minister of Transport I have had some involvement in a number of these matters. It is good for New Zealand airlines and good for New Zealand that through this bill we have another step forward in the mutual recognition area. As John Key said there were a few nervous moments at the end but we got there and good work was done by the select committee in making sure that this bill is fit for purpose. 
I am also extremely pleased about the provisions for dealing with unruly passengers and I pass on a word of congratulations to the flight attendants union. Terry Law who at the time was head of that organisation did a wonderful job of lobbying Parliament to make sure that that part of the law was put in place. It has taken some time but we finally got there too and I know that a lot of flight attendants will be very pleased that they have this law to protect them and the travelling public. 
I endorse the speeches made by the previous speakers and I am pleased to see finally this bill get to its third reading stage.
Tisch Lindsay: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13298] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The debate on clause 1 “Title” with the change in the Standing Orders is a peroration of all those things we talked about in the debate on Parts 1 and 2. I reiterate the point I made during the earlier debate on Part 1 that the original bill did not have a mechanism for cost recovery and that submitters did not have the opportunity to submit on that. When cost recovery was included at a latter stage there was outrage from the export sector. Only 2 hours were set aside for the select committee to hear submitters express their views. 
Progress reported.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19713] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The fundamental point on which it is essential for this House to operate is the Standing Orders but we also have conventions. Under your ruling many Standing Orders can be abused in exactly the same way that Dr Cullen did last night. We rely on conventions and good faith in this House for this democracy to function. If the Speaker is to take a very narrow interpretation when it involves the Government but a very broad interpretation when it involves members of the Opposition then that in my view will break down the great traditions of this Parliament that enable it to operate effectively as the democratic institution of our nation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not rule; I merely counselled members to think carefully.
Urgent Debates Declined — Carbon Tax—Introduction 
Urgent Debates Declined — Carbon Tax—Introduction 
[Volume:625;Page:20236] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Carbon Tax—Introduction 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from John Key seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 a Government announcement that the carbon tax will be set at $15 per tonne and will be introduced in April 2007. This announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but as Speaker’s ruling 154/7 makes clear not every ministerial announcement even an important one will give grounds for an urgent debate. In this case as the carbon tax does not take effect until April 2007 I do not believe that there are grounds for an urgent debate to be held on it today. I therefore decline the application.
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20195] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I first acknowledge the contribution made by National member the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and her comments in relation to this bill that it is a positive step forward for Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. I also remind the previous speaker Mr Stephen Franks that the Crown is not apologising for the actions he referred to but for the fact that by its actions the Crown was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi—hence the apology. 
I stand also to respond to the amendment tabled by New Zealand First member Pita Paraone. He proposes to amend the preamble by removing the words “ki Kawerau” and adding the words “i waenga te rohe o Kawerau”. That is what we might call a semantic matter in that the English translation means very much the same thing. Why would we add six words when one is sufficient? The reference to Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau is the preferred wording in the description of that particular claimant group and to that end the Government will not be supporting the amendment.
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Franks Stephen: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7637] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your indication of exactly what your role will be following the debate that you wish to have. The indication is that you want to have the benefit of and be guided by the report of the committee— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the House. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The House debate is hardly likely to add anything more than a series of opinions based on the political interests of those in this House. The Privileges Committee is the most neutral body we have and even it is not neutral. It has the advice of the highest law officer. I think the House deserves to know whether if the House did decide one way or another after a debate you would take the House’s decision as binding; if so in what way would that relate to the breach of the law that I believe has been established? It is only sophistry that says there is no breach. How can the standing of the Chair as an apolitical figure be maintained in the face of your apparent indication that you want to wait until the House directs by majority?
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14521] 
4.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Is he satisfied with the environmental performance of Solid Energy? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that this company has made some mistakes. However it now has in place a prevention monitoring and remediation work programme designed to address identified issues. That said there is clearly ongoing work required. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he believe that the high levels of acid heavy metals and solids in the Ngakawau River which drains the Stockton mine meet the objective of Solid Energy’s current statement of intent to have a positive net effect on the New Zealand environment; if not why has he given the company no direction at any time to clean up its act? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member asks and answers the question. The statement of corporate intent is the clearly stated intent of the company. It is against that statement that I will hold it to account. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister by way of example give an indication of remediation work being undertaken by the company? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: A number of initiatives are being worked on to manage fires revegetate slopes and rehabilitate sites in consultation with the Department of Conservation and the Grey District Council and the West Coast Regional Council. I note that Solid Energy’s chief executive has said that it is no longer acceptable for anyone in coalmining to have long-term detrimental effects on the environment. I strongly agree with his assertion. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware that there is still no plan in place for the overall management of the Stockton site; that only some of the water monitors are in place and others are planned; and that remediation work has barely begun and in fact is still in the planning stages; if so why did he not talk to the board earlier about this disgraceful pollution of the Ngakawau River which has been going on for years? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As the member says the pollution has been going on for many many years. I think it is fair to say that until relatively recent time many in this industry took no action in terms of remediation in environmental standards. This company is taking action. The member refers to some of the work yet to be done. Some of the equipment is on its way and is yet to be installed. I acknowledged in my first answer that there is still much more to do. I am satisfied that this board is committed to doing the work. I raised the issue with members of the board when I last visited it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has he received any advice from his colleague the Minister of Conservation that this is Conservation Week and that the theme is: “Conservation needs you!”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I most certainly have. My colleague the Minister of Conservation is active in his work and ensures that every member understands the responsibility.
Points of Order — Notices of Motion Nos 6 to 10 Shane Ardern 
Points of Order — Notices of Motion Nos 6 to 10 Shane Ardern 
[Volume:611;Page:8821] 
Points of Order 
Notices of Motion Nos 6 to 10 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave after the close of question time to move with debate notices of motion Nos 6 to 10 standing in my name on the Order Paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I seek leave after the close of question time to move without debate notices of motion Nos 6 to 10 standing in my name on the Order Paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to move in that direction. Is there any objection? There is. 
Shane Ardern 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding was—and maybe you were going to do it after question time—that you would come back to the House today on issues with regard to the charges that Mr Ardern faces in relation to the way that his statement was taken and whether that would be admissible in the court. Given that the House will be adjourned for the next 2 weeks I presume that any decision you make during that period of time will not be able to acted on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can assure the member that the member who raised the matter with me by way of privilege—not yourself of course—will receive an answer as soon as I have finished question time. I will be sending him an answer.
Peters Winston: Business Statement 
Peters Winston: Business Statement 
[Volume:624;Page:19679] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Can I ask Dr Cullen why we need urgency next week when he abandoned proceedings in the House last night and we are shortly to contemplate a month away from this place in an adjournment. How could the public and anyone who is halfway sane believe there is a need for urgency in those circumstances?
Vote: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Vote: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:614;Page:10566] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this House establish a committee to consider and report to it on such fisheries and other sea-related legislation that may be referred to it; the committee to consist of 10 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour 4 New Zealand National 2 New Zealand First 1 Green Party 1 ACT New Zealand 1 and United Future 1; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c) 
. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13385] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2004. I move  
That this paper be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Visitors — Minister of Finance Republic of Chile Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia Minister of Agriculture Australia 
Visitors — Minister of Finance Republic of Chile Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia Minister of Agriculture Australia 
[Volume:614;Page:10569] 
Wednesday 10 December 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Minister of Finance Republic of Chile 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Nicolas Eyzaguirre Minister of Finance from the Republic of Chile is within the precincts of this Chamber with the Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
His Excellency Mr Nicolas Eyzaguirre accompanied by the Acting Prime Minister entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Trish Worth Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed. 
Minister of Agriculture Australia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Finally I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Bob Cameron Minister of Agriculture from the state of Victoria Australia is present in the gallery and I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Brownlee Gerry: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 July 
Brownlee Gerry: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 26 July 
[Volume:627;Page:22131] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for his explanation; that is fine. But seriously is this the first opportunity he has had to make that explanation? Has it really taken from question time on Tuesday through to the end of question time on Thursday to find out that he had this problem? Did he have that statement in his pocket when he came into the House at 2 o’clock? Did he have it at any stage yesterday—perhaps last night? For the Government to try to bury its mistakes at little moments when that may not be noticed is not a fair use of the Standing Orders at all.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15797] 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has he read the publicly released police file relating to the alleged burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue on 12 September 2002; if so what steps will he be taking as a result? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have seen the publicly released police file. I will not be taking further action as that is an operational matter for the police commissioner not for the Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he had read the file. It is one thing to have a document in one’s hand and say that one has seen it but I asked him whether he had read it. Mr Speaker could you ask him to answer me properly so that I can begin my supplementary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I assumed the Minister meant he had read it. I assumed that is what the Minister said. If the Minister nods in agreement to that I will assume that is what he means. Therefore he has said he has read it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is the case what does the Minister intend to do about the fact that Shaw failed to tell the police he knew his assailant Edwards and that Shaw concealed evidence even though the investigation had 15 police officers involved in it; what does the Minister of Police intend to do about that? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I refer to a 1993 ruling made by J J McGrath then the Solicitor-General who said: “For many years it has been accepted that ‘operational’ decisions made by the Commissioner are for that person and no other.” I do not get involved in individual cases. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What on earth does the Minister think he is doing holding a warrant to be a Minister of Police if such an appalling investigation—or lack of it—by the police ends up in someone being murdered and a claim made of homophobic panic when no such a claim could properly now be sustained if the Minister had done his job properly in the first place? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I repeat that I do not get involved in operational matters. The police commissioner has reviewed the file. He is satisfied that the police took appropriate action.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:616;Page:12215] 
Voting 
Correction 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I put the question that the motion be agreed to I wish to announce to the House that the result of the vote on the third reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 75 Noes 44. It has made no difference to the overall result.
Benson-Pope David: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11185] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 In the first reading the Minister when speaking to the House foreshadowed as required under Standing Order 282(1) that there would be a motion to refer this bill to the Health Committee. She has discussed this matter with the whips of all parties and has received their approval for me to seek leave to alter that foreshadowed motion in order to refer the bill to the Social Services Committee.
Brownlee Gerry: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8778] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Business Committee decisions are upheld only if leave is not opposed when the decisions are put in the House. I want to make clear again that the minutes of the meeting will show that no clear position was reached on this. We are saying quite simply that if we can get six 10-minute speeches which is not unreasonable the House will save itself a 4-hour Committee stage. If we do not get that then clearly we will have perhaps an hour and a half or so for the second reading today we will have the Committee stage next Wednesday and maybe by Christmas this bill will get past its third reading. We would like to facilitate it being passed through all stages today. Given that we are giving up a considerable amount of time by not having the Committee stage and are disclaiming our third reading time that is not unreasonable. For the House to make progress on this it would not be unreasonable for other parties to agree to what we want.
Benson-Pope David: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7464] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could the National whip confirm that he did cast 27 votes on this occasion?
Benson-Pope David: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9371] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 164 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Peters Jim: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17933] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I have recently been reading a study—the most recent one—of Queen Elizabeth I. One of the issues she had continually throughout her reign was the issue of religion particularly the desire of her newly converted in many cases Protestant Ministers to delve deeply into the religious life of her subjects. Her comment to them was and it is very relevant here: “I have no wish to peer into the conscience or the soul of my subjects.” Despite the best efforts of her Ministers she managed not to do so. 
Here we have a contrast. The bill before us throughout its whole length—and we are now looking at Part 8—has a different philosophy entirely. That philosophy is an embracing desire by the State to peer down and to peer into every relevant section as the Minister sees it of the day-to-day life of State-owned enterprises. The last two speakers have been correct because section 8(2) in clause 238 embodies again the strange industrial bargaining that we have seen in recent years in some segments of State operations whereby there is never any proper negotiation between relevant parties—namely employer and employee. 
Instead above and beyond with a draconian hand at times stands the hand of the State. The reason for that particularly in the cases that I have been a party to is not quite known. There is no discernible reason why there should be a third party between two operating groups namely the employer who is given full powers under this legislation to agree and those who are employed. Here there is the clearly expressed desire that “every State enterprise to which this subsection applies must consult” with the Minister’s personal appointee in this regard the State Services Commissioner. 
My experience of the States Services Commission is not that it has an even-handed proper approach to industrial matters. In actual fact as we all know it complicates what should be a reasonable 2 or 3-year undertaking to resolve the industrial conditions under which people work day to day. Instead there is the unknown where there should be certainty and at all times there is a greater or lesser degree of political interference. That has always been so but these provisions propose a strengthening of that relationship. We in New Zealand First believe that is not sound industrial negotiation. It intrudes another imperative into what should be a proper discussion about the future conditions and salary or wages of workers; that is what the Minister thinks in the form of the State Services Commissioner. As I said this clause embraces the total controlling philosophy that the bill displays. New Zealand First will oppose it vigorously. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Kia ora morena good morning honourable members. I call the honourable member Pansy Wong.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11085] 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has she received any reports regarding the content of the Seriously Asia website as it relates to international students in New Zealand; if so does she have any plans to address the issues it raises? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister think it is acceptable to create an environment where students say this about this country: “Gambling and prostitution are legal. There is no pressure from parents teachers and society. International students perceive that there is a very small chance to be caught without a licence when police are rarely seen on the street.” and further quoting them: “and if you have a low attendance rate you can also pay an immigration company or lawyer to get your visa extended. As long as you have money you can buy almost anything including university assessments.” Is that a satisfactory picture to have painted about this country in terms of the people she is bringing in? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the answer is no pray tell me what is the Minister doing about it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Government—and it was not my ministerial responsibility as Minister of Immigration but the Minister of Education’s—introduced a code of pastoral care for international students in order to address a number of those issues. We have increased significantly from an immigration perspective the fraud capacity of the New Zealand Immigration Service. If the member has particular examples that he brings to our attention he now knows that we follow them up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first one is an article where the Race Relations Commissioner says to Aucklanders: “Smile and you’ll come to like it.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The second document states: “Shoddy course and the students running amok”. It is an article from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 22 December. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The third one is an article written out of Hong Kong which states: “The Kiwis are just a walkover” which is a representation to that country. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Beyer Georgina: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17350] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter Chris: Third Readings 
Carter Chris: Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:14134] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill (No 2) the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. 
The purpose of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) was to further ensure that the legislative framework in which local government operates is as comprehensive and clear as possible. These bills achieve the same. Collectively they will provide more certainty for councils as they administer and work within the existing legislation. They will also provide communities with greater certainty in their dealings with their local authority. 
These bills are part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to bringing New Zealand’s local government legislation into the 21st century. They address some minor largely technical issues that have arisen in the larger legislative changes of recent years. The bills and the changes that have been made to them throughout the parliamentary process are further evidence of the cooperation between local and central government that has taken place for the last 5 years. As Minister of Local Government I am confident that this cooperation and sense of partnership will remain strong and continue to serve us in our communities into the future.
Choudhary Ashraf: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10686] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to support this bill along with my colleagues.
Collins Judith: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10694] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table a press release that the Hon Peter Dunne has just put out. It contains a particularly vitriolic attack on myself and suggests that I be demoted even further. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.
Hartley Ann: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9002] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has taken offence to that. Would the member like to withdraw that remark. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I withdraw and apologise if the member took offence. 
The key question that I think members have misunderstood and it is important that I can perhaps elucidate it for them is that they have got mixed up that the replacement of the Privy Council is exactly that. There is a replacement—a third level of appeal. Members may quibble whether that third level of appeal is as good as the appeal level that is replaced but they cannot quibble with the fact that there is a third level of appeal. So the people they are concerned about—who will not have a right to appeal for instance to the Court of Appeal—will give them no need to be concerned. Those people will have a right of appeal to the new and third layer of appeal within New Zealand. 
Most of those who support that change will point out that that will also give greater accessibility to a level of appeal that before was only the preserve of those who could in the main afford to take a case to the Privy Council or in a very small minority who could access legal aid or some other form of payment. But for the great number of people in New Zealand the level of appeal that replaces the Privy Council is an extension of their right to appeal. 
Concerning the question of the famous Samoan case that went to the Privy Council—I was supportive of and overjoyed with the Privy Council’s ruling; I thought it was very very good and a lawful appeal—I point out that it was the New Zealand Parliament that overturned the Privy Council’s ruling. Some people who have spoken about this debate outside and even inside this Parliament were connected to the decision of the then National Party—joined unfortunately by some Labour members at the time—to overturn that decision. I am absolutely confident that a New Zealand court which is the third level of appeal in New Zealand would also come to the right decision and the question would then be whether the New Zealand Parliament would overturn the finding of a New Zealand court.
Franks Stephen: Business Statement 
Franks Stephen: Business Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18738] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to the matters dealt with last night but is a different point of order from those of last night. I am very hopeful that we may have the benefit of your considered views on the matter and this I believe is the last day on which we can be sure of having those. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is not? Well OK. Certainly I hope that we would have— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A few more questions to ask; two more sleeps! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Thank you! The point of order arose out of the circumstance in which Supplementary Order Paper 327 was tabled to introduce a new text in Maori into the bill. There was some discussion about how that text should be translated and where it fitted in the English text. But in the course of the point of order it became clear that the official interpreter was not going to be called upon to give that translation. The position we find ourselves in is that it appears that there may have been a significant difference between the two texts that were put forward by the Minister as being equivalent. The Minister had advised the House that the two texts were proper translations and he had said that that had been confirmed by the Maori Language Commission.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21368] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6233] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 75 
Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Bill read a third time.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19529] 
10.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Has she received any reports recently concerning parenting of youths who have committed a crime? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes. I have read various reports about the National Party’s proposal to punish parents of young offenders. 
Moana Mackey 
: What has been the response to those reports from professionals working in the sector? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Cindy Kiro the Children’s Commissioner said that the parents of young offenders can already be ordered by the court to undergo counselling or training. Such orders she said are imposed fairly regularly. On the other hand Dr Brash admitted on  
Checkpoint 
 on 21 March that he had not read about the UK programme on which his policy was based and could not provide any information on the specifics. 
Judith Collins 
: Why would the Minister deny help and support to parents of the hard-core 5 percent of young offenders who account for a quarter of all crime in this country when the same system trialled in the UK found that 90 percent of the parents would recommend the parenting orders and that offending by their children had dropped by a massive 50 percent? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The help and support that the member referred to in the opening statement of her supplementary question are exactly what New Zealand’s youth justice system offers to the entire family not just to the custodial parent. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that a key requirement placed on parents of youth offenders is to ensure that commitments made by the offender to the victim agreed to at family group conferences are actually carried out; and given that last year’s Ministry of Social Development report revealed that these commitments were largely being ignored what is her department doing to correct this deficiency—or is this now what passes for justice to victims? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think that is a misinterpretation of the Ministry of Social Development report but I do agree that a primary role of the family group conferences is to make sure that the commitments made by all parties are adhered to. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a report from BBC News entitled “Parenting orders ‘success story’ ”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table another report from BBC News which states that a study has said that parenting orders work: “ ‘Going on the course certainly helped me’ said the mother”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. The document will not be tabled.
Chadwick Steve: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4636] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill. I would like to clarify that this bill is setting up the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra as a non-company Crown entity. That is what the orchestra itself has asked for. I make the point that this orchestra was one of our languishing icons. All the cultural devotees flock to the House to talk about their knowledge of the orchestra and the arts but the orchestra was one of our icons that was floundering until we came into Government in 1999 with our cultural recovery package. We put $1.4 million into making a stable financial footing for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra to move on. I think this Government needs to be applauded for that. And it is remembered for that as we go out in support of our cultural institutions. The bill simply gives clarity to how the orchestra wishes to perform and takes away that driver of it being a commercially driven entity. For that I support this bill.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Hunt Jonathan: 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:10000] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution but Mr Robertson gave his reasons for accepting the closure and under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings I cannot review those. That is the end of the matter. Of course this carries on now that the member has accepted the closure. The closure will be put before the House adjourns this evening.