edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19683] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I am now even more alarmed after hearing Dr Cullen’s contribution. I will not quote his words but the effect of what he said is that Standing Order 38 is a mechanism whereby the Government can get its own way if it does not get it by other means and that Governments are always entitled to do that. That is an interesting notion. If we read Standing Order 38 we see that it is actually an instruction. It is an instruction from this House to the executive. It states that a Minister must be present. That is an order. Last night the Government defied this House and defied the Standing Orders. 
I have been giving some thought as to whether it was such a serious defiance that it was a breach of privilege. You Madam Speaker may yourself consider referring the matter to the Privileges Committee. I think so because if we look at what amounts to contempt—and I will take just one example—we see that it is something that obstructs members from carrying out their duties. The ultimate obstruction to carrying out our parliamentary duties is something that prevents us from exercising free speech. If I feel strongly about it it is because I was the member exercising my right of free speech. It was my speech that was interrupted. I take grave exception to the Minister interrupting my speech. I was not invited to the President of Indonesia’s dinner—not that that has anything to do with it; I would have had the same view even if I had been invited. [ 
Interruption 
] Why should I be required to stay here? I think that that was a reflection on me. 
I want to come back to the point I am making. As far as I know Standing Order 38 has never been interpreted by any Speaker but I put to members that the interpretation by a Speaker who is upholding Parliament should be that it is an instruction to Ministers. Where there is evidence that Ministers have deliberately broken it then there ought to be some penalty. I think there is quite a strong case here that the Leader of the House should be referred to the Privileges Committee because he created the ultimate obstruction to this House exercising its duties. He arranged for all Ministers not to be here so that this House could not meet. Not to rule that would be to condone what Mr Cullen is now telling us—that there is a new device and that any Government at any time whenever it chooses can close down this House. I cannot see any other Parliament that calls itself a Parliament accepting that sort of arbitrary power.
Tanczos Nandor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Tanczos Nandor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18279] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Prior to the dinner break I was in the middle of a point of order when the Speaker who was in the Chair suspended the sitting. I am not sure whether that was the correct procedure. My point of order was about a comment made by David Carter which was highly offensive and derogatory to me. I would call for the member to be asked to withdraw and apologise but given that it is now after the dinner break and he has chosen not to come back to the House I am not sure how that will happen. I think the nature of his comment demands that response.
Cullen Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6812] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: Let me first of all deal with one simple issue. Mr Peters now defines as temporary residents of New Zealand everybody who comes here as a tourist everybody who comes here as a short-term— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh yes yes. The figure of 190000 actually includes all those people. It is not the number of people coming into New Zealand for permanent residency. He has everybody frightened about all these numbers of people who happen to be employing large numbers of New Zealanders in hotels and goodness knows what else up and down the country. 
But let us deal with his basic approach. If the rules that he would love to see had applied in this country for the last 160 years he would not be half the man he is now. Of course he is only half the man of anyone else in this Parliament except his own members anyway. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw that comment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw the second part. The first part is undeniably true. If those rules had applied since 1840 he would be half the man he is now. If the original inhabitants of this country had decided that nobody of a different colour ethnicity or culture from those already here was going to come into the country he would not be trying to pretend he can put on a kilt on occasions during the year and be half-Scottish. And he would finally have to teach himself Maori for the first time in his life. 
Of course if those rules had been applied by whoever was not here in the first place before Maori arrived there would be nobody here. By the logic he has just applied this economy would be booming without a single person in the country. And if no Europeans had ever been let in we would have the highest non-literate non - wheel using economy in the world because that is the economy that existed before Europeans arrived in New Zealand. And if migrants had never been allowed into the United States the various Amerindians the early first peoples of the United States would presumably now be an even more dominant economy in the world than the United States is at the present time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am getting to it.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8232] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Mackey Janet: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Janet: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15619] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17085] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8420] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member cannot make a statement that is out of order and then just say that he will be required to leave. In fact if he does something as serious as that he might end up being named. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is correct. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I do say to the member by way of help that the rules are quite clear. One cannot call another member a racist in the House and he should withdraw and apologise for that statement.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10321] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 86 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; United Future 8. 
Noes 30 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21576] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 35 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) the following new paragraph: 
(f)the content of any Code of Responsibility for Foreign Investors.
Franks Stephen: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
Franks Stephen: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
[Volume:626;Page:21038] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would be very grateful if you could although not right now give guidance to the House on exactly what the Speaker’s role is in the preliminary examination of these complaints. I have studied the rulings and I see a note that says that until 1979 the Speaker ruled on whether there was a prima facie case to be answered. It does not say what the Speaker’s role is now but the rulings are still there that state that the Speaker does not decide on the evidence. But when I look at the advice that you gave Mr Hide it does appear that you have at least considered the evidence. I believe that this is a matter of general application unrelated to the particular case. ACT had a similar experience a year ago when we sought a privileges inquiry into the conduct of Donna Awatere and some of her votes. In that case too the Speaker made a decision that it did not satisfy the requirements needed for it to be sent for the consideration of the Privileges Committee or the House. 
I think we need guidance on just what is left for the Privileges Committee and for this House if Speakers in fact decide it appears on the balance of the evidence that is presented to them.
Hunt Jonathan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12300] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have actually passed the bill but I can take the leave of the House that we have a vote. Is there any objection to my restating the question? There is.
Parker David: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3930] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 One of the things we have not heard from Opposition members when they talk to address the taxation of Maori authorities is the recognition that at present Maori authorities suffer from double taxation and they have suffered from it for many many years. In addition to paying 25 percent if the income has not been distributed within 4 years a Maori authority has suffered an additional 33 percent taxation. That is a total of 58 percent tax paid by Maori organisations which is plainly out of sync with the tax paid by other members of the community and is unjust. The bill contains a number of protections for other taxpayers. One is that the rate of 19.5 percent can be applied only when the Maori authority records the tax number of the taxpayer where distributions are $200 or more. So there is an easy mechanism for the Inland Revenue Department to check where people are receiving income taxed at the lower rate of 19.5 percent to see whether they have a higher marginal tax rate. In that case if they had underpaid their tax they would be required to pay the balance of the tax at the end of the year. 
The other protection that was inserted through the efforts of the Finance and Expenditure Committee was to limit the definition of a Maori authority to exclude wholly-owned subsidiaries of Maori authorities. There was a concern—and there are arguments on both sides of this debate—that a wholly-owned subsidiary of a Maori authority that was taxed at the 19.5 percent rate would have an advantage over another company that had paid tax at 33c in the dollar and so had less retained earnings to plough back into the company. The committee heard views from the Inland Revenue Department that said that in a pure academic sense that was incorrect and that the company paying 33 company would not be disadvantaged. Having said that there were concerns amongst committee members including myself that that would have been a practical advantage to the Maori authority competing with another company. Therefore we changed the definition to limit the definition of Maori authority by excluding those wholly owned subsidiaries. I for one am completely supportive of this proposal. It will save the Department of Inland Revenue compliance costs.
Collins Judith: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20967] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Is the Minister’s microphone on? If it is he has been interjecting all the way through without regard to the convention that he not do so because he is in the chair and the microphone is on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the point.
Sowry Roger: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4039] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I understand the matter quite clearly. The member indicated in his speech the committee he will send the bill to—in fact he did so by way of a point of order immediately after his speech. I do not believe that at this point towards the end of the debate the member can now change that. The bill has to be referred to that committee unless he gets the leave of the House. We are more than happy for the bill to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. That is the appropriate committee for this legislation to go to. If during the debate the member decides that he might not have the numbers on that committee and he wants to refer the bill to another committee that is something for the House or the—[ 
Interruption 
] I am just waiting for Judith Tizard to calm down. If the member wants to move that the bill go to a different committee that is something for the member to do by way of leave or for the Business Committee to decide. But the member cannot just pop up in the House and say that he has changed his mind.
Locke Keith: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
Locke Keith: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
[Volume:620;Page:15362] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I wish to endorse the comments made by the previous speakers. The Green Party totally condemns the unspeakable atrocity that has taken place. No political goal can justify sacrificing the lives of hundreds of innocent people mainly children. We must help the world community and Russia to track down all of those responsible for this outrageous terrorist act and bring them to justice. 
We also have a duty to address the dire situation in Chechnya itself and the ongoing war there where atrocities are committed on both sides as Amnesty International points out with almost total impunity which provides a breeding ground for terrorists. We have to support the international agencies like the United Nations Human Rights Committee in ending such practices. 
However on this day our hearts must go out first and foremost to the Russian people and in particular the families of those who have died in Beslan in their day of anguish.
Copeland Gordon: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Copeland Gordon: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:614;Page:10562] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Government’s motion that a committee be established by this House to consider and report on such fisheries and other sea-related legislation as may be referred to it. The motion is well conceived. It is an opportunity for each of the parties represented in this House to be involved in considering the Maori fisheries legislation and the important issues of the foreshore and seabed aquaculture and marine reserves. The central issue that of the foreshore and seabed is potentially one of the most important matters that has come before our Parliament for many many years. It has very important ramifications for the future harmony of our nation and we need to sort out once and for all hopefully the very important and vexed question of who should own the foreshore and the seabed. It seems to United Future that it is quite a privilege for all the parties in this House to be asked to consider that important matter. 
I found it difficult to follow the logic advanced by the previous speaker Stephen Franks of the ACT party whereby he seemed to be saying yes the issue was very very important but the committee was also a way in which the Government could escape responsibility. I would have thought that the task of the select committee and indeed the principle behind an MMP Parliament is to allow all parties to have a say on such important matters and United Future is one party that certainly welcomes the opportunity to do that. I make the point also that although it is not recognised very much by the House itself or certainly by the media one of United Future’s members is Maori. I refer to my colleague Bernie Ogilvy who has very strong iwi connections. From that point of view it is very important that our party has an opportunity to participate in these matters. 
However I do think that the Government should give very careful thought to the question of the chairmanship of this committee. We have been told several times in this debate—mainly by parties that are not in Government—that the chairman of this committee will be Russell Fairbrother. On the other hand Russell Fairbrother himself seems to have scant knowledge of that reality although I must say that when this motion was brought to the House on the last sitting day Russell Fairbrother sat in for most of the debate which seemed to indicate to me that he was taking an especially close interest in the issue. Whether or not the matter of the chairmanship is settled I would appeal to the Government to give that very very careful thought. I do agree with the sentiment that this will be a very important committee. We need to have an experienced chairperson with the requisite expertise. 
With that reservation I say we will be voting against the amendment proposed by Stephen Franks but for the motion itself.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:621;Page:16929] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through its remaining stages of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill.  
This is so that the bill can be passed before the House rises for a 1-week adjournment and to give legal certainty around the framework on the matter. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17079] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not disputing in any way that decisions on closure are yours but nothing in the Standing Orders states that members cannot draw things to your attention. I would like to have a reassurance from you that before you take a closure motion you will look at Speaker’s ruling 85/2 which is a ruling of our present Speaker and one I am sure you are aware of. Speaker Hunt states: “The form of drafting of a bill is a matter that the chairpersons should take into account in committee in deciding when to accept a closure motion.” The explanatory note states that a “Considerably longer debate would be permitted on a part with numerous subparts than would otherwise be the case.”  
If you look at the literal meaning Mr Chairperson you will see that it is stating that chairpersons should take into account the drafting. I say to you that in my experience—and I have been here a little longer than most—I have never seen a bill that has been drafted in this way where we have had a fundamentally new bill suddenly presented to us and then have been put into urgency. It would appear to me that Speaker Hunt’s ruling is a guide to the Chair that in this sort of circumstance there should be considerably longer time given than is usually given. I want an assurance from you Mr Chairperson that you accept that that is the way the Chair ought to deal with this debate. 
I say that partly to protect the rights of the minority and partly to protect the rights of this Committee. It is undesirable that bills go through in this sort of way and one way of making sure it does not happen again is by making sure that the Government does not save any time by cutting out the rights it otherwise would be able to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that consideration. I have looked at every issue. I have also considered the issue under Speaker’s ruling 58/8. I take the point; however the ruling relates to a number of subparts.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12054] 
12.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to address boys’ underachievement in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This Government is committed to ensuring that all our children achieve to their full potential in education. We know that at secondary level boys are not doing as well as girls are. That is why I have put in place a programme to identify solutions for lifting boys’ achievement at secondary school. It includes research to identify programmes that result in improved achievement by boys and the establishment of an external reference group of experts in boys’ education. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What information is available to schools and teachers to help them to identify and address areas of student underperformance? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is actually an enormous amount of material available now: data from the literacy and numeracy test asTTle from the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and from the National Education Monitoring Project. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Ministry of Education both have international data available. There is quite a lot of existing research analysis. The research shows some really interesting patterns. There is not much difference in achievement up to the end of primary school but subject-based differences occur as boys and girls go through secondary school. It appears that the results start to come back together again at university.
Benson-Pope David: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16919] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4955] 
2.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Can he categorically tell the House whether a letter was written and delivered to an official of the United States National Security Council apologising for the comments the Prime Minister made about the war in Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Yes. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer will the Minister table the letter in Parliament so we can digest the actual comments? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It has never been the tradition in this country for diplomatic letters to be tabled and it will not be on this occasion. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider that answer because the Prime Minister has just told us that the only other incident in New Zealand’s history was with regard to President Carter and there was no apology then. So how can there be a tradition of not tabling them if this is the first time we have ever given an apology? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No interesting though that point is that is a matter for the general debate. 
David Cunliffe 
: Was the US embassy in New Zealand likewise advised of the Prime Minister’s response? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes the ambassador in Wellington also received a letter. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What possible national-interest reason or indeed any other reason is there to prevent the release of the text of apology; what is the Government covering up? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Government is covering up nothing. The next question which is to be delivered by the leader of the party the member belongs to asks for a full account of that letter and I intend to give it to the House in answer to that question. 
Keith Locke 
: Did the letter express concern about the growing number of Iraqi civilians being killed in the illegal and immoral war and did it request an apology from the US administration? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The letter requested neither of those things but I think everybody in this House would be concerned about the very high level of civilian casualties in any war. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that many New Zealanders took offence at the Prime Minister’s comments and will the Minister table a letter of apology to New Zealanders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have received no letter from any New Zealander expressing offence.
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8811] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Following the logic that you have just given us I think that your ruling is that only Part 2 and Part 2A are in the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am just telling you that that is what the bill is. Either one accepts that there is Part 1 and Part 3 as you are putting it or the logic is that there is Part 1 which is clause 1A and 2 then Part 2 which is either clause 3 or as I read it goes all the way through from clause 3 to clause 12—which of course would be an outrage—and then Part 2A. The instruction of the House was to take the bill on every part. It did not say we should ignore some parts and it is not for you to decide to ignore some parts. I ask you to reconsider this matter because if you do not I think we should call back the Speaker. This appears to be an attempt by the executive by means of quite extraordinary drafting to prevent the Committee from being able to debate every part that has been put. Unless I have misunderstood the situation—and you can read the motion out to me—it is my understanding that we had a motion that instructed the Committee to take the bill part by part. Those were the words. The parts are there and the fact that they are out of order cannot matter. Perhaps you will not take Part 2A; perhaps you were going to decide that that is not a part. I would really like to know what you think the parts of this bill are. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have already indicated that and it is not up to me to distinguish the parts. The parts are very clearly set out in the bill as I have already ruled.
Brownlee Gerry: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6876] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What about getting your hand off the button and on the pulse because the Minister was extremely insulting to the National Party and we would like a withdrawal and an apology. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: As far as I am concerned there was an exchange between the two members and it was robust debate. I did not take any offence at it.
Pettis Jill: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21464] 
JILL PETTIS (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 378 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (9) the expression “75C”. 
Amendment agreed to and clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Schedulesagreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Privacy Amendment Bill (No 3)  
divided into Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Privacy Amendment Bill (No 3)  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper379. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4088] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I take pleasure in talking to the title on behalf of New Zealand First. As I was looking at the title “Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill” I did think of some different names that could come along with the bill. Some other names could be used in relation to Part 2 which talks precisely about what Lockwood Smith has been talking about—that is different tax rates for Maori organisations. I thought that we could call this bill the “Taxation (Annual Rates Unequal Opportunities for”— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: That’s a more polite version. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Yes that is probably a more politically correct version. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It’s discriminatory. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Yes that is a good point. I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill and we will be voting on it during the debate on Part 2. Basically New Zealand First would agree with the bill if all New Zealanders had that opportunity not just one type or one race. We believe that other groups should have that available to them as well. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that the debate on clause 1 is not an opportunity to debate the purpose or the principles of the bill. There will be an opportunity to do that during the debate on Part 1. I know that the member is a new member. If the Committee wants to widen the debate on clause 1 then that is a course that the Committee could take but it has not done so as yet. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Thank you for your guidance Mr Chairperson. I was getting right back to my point. If we adopt my Supplementary Order Paper maybe we could give the bill a different title. We could call it the “Taxation (Annual Rates Equal Opportunities Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill” or the “Taxation (Annual Rates New Zealanders First Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We could call the bill the “One Nation (Organisations and Annual Rates) Bill”—or we could use the term “One New Zealand”. We could think of a whole raft of different names for this bill. I am sure the honourable Dr Lockwood Smith would agree with me and I think that other members around the Chamber will see my point and see where I am coming from. They can see where we are going with this whole deal. If members support a Supplementary Order Paper like the one I will be promoting New Zealand First would be happy to support it and we would be able to change the title of the bill.
Brown Peter: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10307] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave for the honourable memberto have an extension of time of 1 minute. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows he cannot seek leave for another member. Please be seated. 
PETER BROWN 
: He has made some comments and I would like to know his view on homosexual adoption.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17355] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16685] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Muriel Newman to clause 131 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 131 and substitute the following clause: 
131Proceedings to be open to public 
(1)Sittings of a Family Court must be open to the public. 
(2)Any person may publish a report of proceedings of a Family Court 
(3)Subsections (1) and (2) are subject to subsection (4) and to the provisions of any other enactment but are not subject to such provisions where those provisions 
(a)restrict access to the proceedings of a Family Court; or 
(b)restrict the publication of reports of proceedings of a Family Court in any case where and to the extent to which the Family Court is exercising the function of adjudicating on the proceedings. 
(4)Where a Family Court is of the opinion that the interests of justice or of public morality or of the privacy of any person require and outweigh the interests protected by the openness of its proceedings it may make any of the following orders: 
(a)an order forbidding publication of any report or account of the whole or any part of the proceedings including any evidence adduced or submissions made: 
(b)an order forbidding the publication of the name of any person connected whether as a witness or otherwise with the proceedings or of any name or other particulars likely to lead to the identification of any such person: 
(c)in exceptional cases an order that the sitting not be open to the public. 
(5)An order made under subsection (4)— 
(a)may be made for a limited period or permanently; and 
(b)if it is made for a limited period may be renewed for a further period or periods by a Family Court; and 
(c)if it is made permanently may be reviewed by a Family Court at any time; and 
(d)may be subject to such exceptions or conditions as a Family Court in its discretion decides. 
(6)Every person who contravenes an order made under subsection (4)(a) or (b) commits an offence against the Act and is liable on summary conviction— 
(a)in the case of an individual to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $2000: 
(b)in the case of a body corporate to a fine not exceeding $10000. 
(7)Nothing in this section limits— 
(a)any other enactment relating to the prohibition or regulation of the publication of reports or particulars relating to judicial proceedings; or 
(b)the power of a court to punish any contempt of Court.
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20000] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Duncan Helen: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Duncan Helen: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6968] 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pillay Lynne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12183] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3759] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley tonew clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (xi) of subclause (2)(b) the word “addresses” and substitute the words “ensures that children are not adversely affected by”.
Maharey Steve: Sittings of the House 
Maharey Steve: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:606;Page:3631] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I seek leave for the House at its rising on Wednesday 26 February to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Thursday 27 February. This is to allow for the luncheon for the European Parliament delegation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Cosgrove Clayton: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21943] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 35(1) be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (d) of section 85A(4) after the word “employer” the words “or any former employers”.
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16469] 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Coddington Deborah: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8718] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on this part because sense seems to have prevailed with Part 3. I would like to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard whether she could clarify what I think is the confusing issue of the “occupier” in buy-back transactions of land. There is a definition of “occupier” in clause 6B of an earlier part which I will refer back to even though we have already debated it. It sets out that the occupier is the person who agrees to transfer an estate in land to another person in exchange for borrowing money from that person. That is fine so far. The land handed over is security for the money loaned and is the principal place of residence for the occupier at the time the occupier enters into the transaction. That is all fine. 
But clause 58B sets out the disclosure provisions of buy-back transactions. The onus is very much on transferees to disclose and to make sure that occupiers understand the transactions they are getting into and all details of those transactions. In fact the onus is on the transferee to ensure that the occupier has independent legal advice and so on—which is fine—but then clause 58B(2) states that every transferee must ensure that a copy of the terms is given or sent to every occupier under the transaction. I find that confusing because up until that point we had been dealing with “an occupier” but suddenly we get to “every occupier”—presumably under the one transaction therefore one piece of land is being dealt with. 
That raises the question of how the transferee is to know—or is he or she presumed to know—whether there is one occupier or more of the land in the transaction. Is the transferee liable because he or she did not know or did not try to find out? That also raises the question of what happens when the hardship provisions are enacted by the occupier or whoever the occupiers are. Can one occupier try out the hardship provisions or can every occupier use the hardship provisions as an excuse for not paying back the debt or whatever is owed under the terms of the contract? I consulted the expert Judith Collins who is a lawyer—because I am not—and she was confused too. As I said this is just a short call and perhaps the Minister in the chair could take a call and explain whether it should be one occupier or several occupiers.
Baldock Larry: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9861] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to make a few comments on clause 1A(1) which states: “Section 24 comes into force on 1 June 2004.” New section 52A(2)(b) inserted by clause 24 states that a dog must be “confined within the land or premises in such a manner that it cannot freely leave the land or premises”. I am sure we will have a more extensive debate on that provision when we come to Part 5. The requirement is a vast improvement on the original one which was to provide fenced access to the front door and I think it will be welcomed by many people. It is wise that the commencement of that provision does not occur until 1 June because it will involve some costs to dog owners. It will require some planning on their part to ensure that their properties comply with the regulations. 
I think the provision is sensible and reasonable. I know that many people are concerned when they jog and walk around communities about dogs that are able to come straight out on to the road. Although those dogs may not actually engage in an attack they do cause a considerable degree of fear and concern in people who are simply passing by properties. I welcome this measure and I think it is sensible that it does not commence until next year. 
However the public should be made aware of the fact that this law is coming and that they will need to count the cost of having a dog on their property. If their dogs are to be allowed to circulate their sections completely they will need to consider how they will meet this requirement to have them under control.
Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15843] 
Electricity and Gas Industries Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 15 September. 
ANN HARTLEY (Labour—Northcote) 
: 
 The House is in Committee for further consideration of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill. When the Committee was last considering the bill the question before the Committee was— 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think I got my votes round the wrong way. I thought I was voting for the procedure and United Future was voting against the bill but voted for the procedure. I am not sure but I think I have got those votes around the wrong way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We cannot deal with that until the House resumes so we will have to wait. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson I know that the Speaker is just outside the door so I seek leave for the House to resume and to change the vote right now. I think United Future will not want this to be recorded in the House and I can see the Speaker through the door. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Progress reported.
Pillay Lynne: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3618] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I stand in this House to support this bill as a woman as a former unionist representing workers and as a mother. I sat on the select committee the Justice and Electoral Committee with an open mind. I had the privilege of meeting and hearing from many who work in the profession. These people work in a profession that is not highly regarded but as people I have tremendous respect for them. They cared about the people they worked with in the industry both now and for many generations before and they want to ensure that these people are safe and fairly treated. I also want to pay my respects to the many organisations that have written to me and spoken to me in support of this bill I refer to the National Council of Women of New Zealand the YMCA business women of New Zealand health organisations the Human Rights Commission and so many more. I do not mean to be unkind but I think that members who oppose this view are not speaking from a position of knowledge are not speaking from a position of understanding and are not speaking from a position of wisdom. They are influenced by their prejudice.  
I stand and support this bill and I refer back to what I said at the beginning. I support this bill as a woman because it is about the right to choose and to be safe and secure in that choice. I support the bill as a unionist representing workers because it is the right of every New Zealand worker to be covered by health and safety legislation that does the best to ensure they are safe at work. Most important to me I support the bill as a mother. Prostitution would not be the occupation of choice for my children but neither would selling tobacco and neither quite frankly would be sitting in the Opposition benches. However given that my children have that choice I would want them to be safe and secure and to have the best life possible in that choice. That is why I support this bill.