edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Event: Member Sworn 
Event: Member Sworn 
[Volume:610;Page:7343] 
Member Sworn 
Moana Lynore Mackey was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took her seat in the House.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Tabling of Ministerial Documents 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Tabling of Ministerial Documents 
[Volume:608;Page:5816] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a matter with you because I was expecting a statement from the Government. Last week we were told by the Prime Minister when I raised a question about whether she would table a ministerial document that she would table all of the documents relating to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). I was expecting that. I would also like to know from the Prime Minister whether she stands by her view of 23 February when she said to the then Prime Minister Jenny Shipley when she was tabling documents that it should be done by ministerial statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is in the hands of the Government. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have an interesting situation here. We have an MMP Parliament. Under first past the post the Opposition party was allowed to raise a procedural matter. I am the leader of my party. I had what I took to be a solemn assurance from the Prime Minister that she would table those statements. I stopped asking questions on the basis that they were coming. I think I am entitled to ask the Prime Minister whether she will table them and whether that will be done by ministerial statement—just as she said should be the course for Jenny Shipley. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member that he is perfectly entitled to raise a point of order and I did not rule him out of order for raising it. I am just saying that the matter of whether that will be responded to is a matter for the Prime Minister not a matter for anyone else.
Benson-Pope David: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Benson-Pope David: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6461. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. This is intelligent legislation. It will be widely supported by the community and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3822] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
Noes 68 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to insert new clause 34A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 34 the following clause: 
34A  
The shareholding Ministers may not direct the board or officers of THL on any matter of service performance or customer relationships.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4403] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Mapp Wayne: Points of Order — Privilege—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
Mapp Wayne: Points of Order — Privilege—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
[Volume:610;Page:7291] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given what you have just said I guess we would now seek an assurance from yourself that the issue will be decided strictly in accordance with the law as it stands—not in respect of any bills to be introduced. We have just heard from the Leader of the House that there will be no bills introduced so I would like you to give us that assurance because I feel you have left us in some doubt now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not actually hear the Hon Dr Cullen say that but I can give members the assurance that I will enforce under section 129 of the Electoral Act that it is for the Speaker to decide when satisfied a vacancy exists the present law.
Beyer Georgina: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14761] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17919] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 177 be agreed to: 
to insert after the definition of  
registered bank 
 the following new definition: 
registered building society 
 means a building society within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1965 that is registered on the register of building societies kept under that Act.
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Notices of Motion Nos 6 to 10 Shane Ardern 
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Notices of Motion Nos 6 to 10 Shane Ardern 
[Volume:611;Page:8821] 
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.
Parker David: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Parker David: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:8005] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
The Crown Minerals Act was passed in 1991 and it repealed the prior 1971 Mining Act. At that time virtually everybody believed that no applications for renewal of 1971 Act mining privileges or for extension of their terms could be made. That view was commonly held throughout the mining industry as was demonstrated by publications to that effect issued by the mining industry itself. In the last year or two an anomaly was discovered through the efforts of Glenharrow Holdings which exploited—as it was legally entitled to do—an unexpected outcome of the legislation. 
The move from the Mining Act to the Crown Minerals Act occurred in the first place because of the age of the Mining Act. Were it still in force it would be over 32 years old. It had not moved with the times. The big change was to the rights of owners. The rights of owners whose land was to be mined were significantly improved under the Crown Minerals Act. We have heard a lot of talk today about land and the Department of Conservation estate but the more important thing for most private property owners is that the Crown Minerals Act gave them the right to refuse permission for people to mine their land. Private owners would be very concerned if this remedial legislation were not passed as it brings some of those old expiring Mining Act privileges to an end and that means they can assert their private property rights. I am surprised to hear the National Government arguing effectively against the private property rights of people whose title to land is presently undermined—figuratively and literally—by mining that is occurring. 
This legislation does not strip Glenharrow Holdings of the fruits of its judgment. It does not cause any unfairness to any party. The process of all of those who have made applications to try to take advantage of the gap in the law that Glenharrow Holdings spotted is being protected as well. This new law will apply to anyone who had not applied by the time the Minister announced his intention to pass remedial legislation but it is my submission to the House that that is not at all unfair. I recommend the legislation to the House.
Turei Metiria: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6746] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have some sympathy for the Immigration Service and the difficulties it faces with the backlog of applications—20000 applications which will take 2 years to process is a very sorry state indeed. Clearly the measures that the Government has taken to attempt to deal with them have not been sufficient. 
The Greens will certainly not be supporting this bill because we do not support a bill that arbitrarily deprives people of their just process. We accept that applicants who apply for residency in this country through various processes do have a limited expectation. A country must retain the ability to make policy appropriate in the circumstances surrounding immigration but surely not in such a way as to eliminate completely a just process—to take that process from those who in good faith have met the Government’s requirements and have been waiting some for up to 2 years for their application to proceed. 
We could consider supporting this bill if it were the case that the backlog—that is those applications that have been lodged up until today—was dealt with under the old rules as set out by the High Court which are the rules that applied at the time the application was made and that any application lodged as of today was to be dealt with under any new rules that arise out of the select committee process in relation to the later bill. That would ensure a just process for those already in the system but would also avoid a rush of applications that could undermine the efficacy of the new set of rules that is likely to come into force at some point. But the bill does not do this. Instead applicants who have met the Government’s requirements paid their money and have waited and waited will be punished because the Government could not provide the resources to enable the Immigration Service to deal with applications in a timely fashion. 
This bill is a breach of natural justice. Applicants should not be arbitrarily deprived of a just process. The bill overrides a decision of the court depriving those people of their right to access and to receive justice in that forum. The process by which this House is dealing with this bill is a disgrace and the Greens will oppose it.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13027] 
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 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16912] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended 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 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6850] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent “ and substitute the words “1 September 2003”.
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4770] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
Ayes 93 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:626;Page:21191] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Government orders of the day are nearly 2 pages long. A number of the items—the time-limited debate the land transport bill the tariff bill the taxation bill and the misuse of drugs bill—are required to pass urgently. The terrorism suppression bill certainly has to pass before October; otherwise the designations of terrorist organisations will fail. Obviously if the Opposition is indicating that the House may finish earlier then we may look forward to an ordinary Thursday afternoon which would please me no end.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Chamber—Television Cameras Question No. 5 to Minister 16 March—Minister’s Replies 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Chamber—Television Cameras Question No. 5 to Minister 16 March—Minister’s Replies 
[Volume:624;Page:19303] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Under the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt cameras were not allowed to take pictures of Ministers or MPs asleep. I am interested in whether you as the new Speaker will be enforcing that rule or whether that is no longer the rule. Could you please inform the House what the rule on cameras taking pictures of Ministers asleep is and indeed what action you have taken? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have the matter under consideration. Once I have made a decision then I shall of course inform the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Speaker my question to you was quite simple. We have a rule. Is it still the rule? Is the Speaker enforcing it—yes or no? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The rules have not changed but I have the specific matter under consideration.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16195] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19579] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18388] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That 
 all the words after “this House has no confidence” be omitted and substituted with the following words: “in the Labour-led Government because it continues to promote policies which keep New Zealanders at the lowest level of per capita earnings in the OECD which fail to promote export growth and fail to meet the targets set out in the Labour Party’s 2002 election manifesto and because it continues to offer no competitive future for the people of New Zealand especially the youth of New Zealand.” 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We now come to the question that Jeanette Fitzsimons’ amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put  
That all the words after “this House has no confidence” be omitted and substituted with the following words: “in the Labour-led minority Government because despite there being some positive elements in its programme its decision to allow the release of genetically engineered organisms exposes our health our environment and our economy to significant and quite unnecessary risks.” 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The final question is that Dr Brash’s motion be agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13031] 
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 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 185 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 185. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 186 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 186.  
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 in the name of Marc Alexander to clauses 185 and 186 be agreed to.
Power Simon: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22280] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the point you make drawing a distinction between a bill and a Supplementary Order Paper and the requirement for explanatory notes. We would not dispute that case. But Dr Nick Smith raises an interesting point. The Standing Order you refer to with respect to amendments by way of Supplementary Order Paper—Standing Order 299—states: “Any member intending to move an amendment to a bill may lodge a written copy of the amendment …” and then goes on without stating any requirement for an explanatory note. The interesting thing about that is that the explanatory note in this case indicates that the drafting is to give effect to new policy which I submit is quite different to an amendment to an existing bill. That is the important distinction. When Standing Order 299 refers to Supplementary Order Papers it makes clear that it is talking about an amendment to an existing bill—that is the first instance. But the explanatory note to this Supplementary Order Paper indicates that new policy is being introduced. That is quite a different matter and a matter to which Dr Nick Smith has drawn your attention in a pretty acute way. I ask for your views on that matter. The two cases are quite distinct. I accept the point that a Supplementary Order Paper does not have to contain an explanatory note and that that is a matter for debate. But when a Supplementary Order Paper itself states that it contains new policy that makes it different from just an amendment to a bill as in the explanation with respect to Supplementary Order Papers contained in Standing Order 299.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10309] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert the following definition in its appropriate place: 
Family 
 means a family group including an extended family— 
(a)In which there is at least 1 adult member; and 
(b)in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5530] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I just wanted to clarify the question that Dr Nick Smith asked. I have stood up here at least three times tonight and answered questions raised by him so I have been answering questions. It is a shame he is not always aware of that. 
He asked why I was ignoring Meridian. Today I received a copy of the letter that Meridian wrote. It is now being replied to. It arrived during my absence from this country for the last 3 weeks. The member noted that I had nodded. I was nodding because I have worked with Meridian on a number of issues. I fully recognise Meridian’s and Meridian’s lawyers’ concern about any change that occurs to the Resource Management Act. The previous Government wanted to make a change in redefining the meaning of the word “environment” but the Local Government and Environment Committee advised it not to do that because the resulting legislative change and casework would have brought about too much uncertainty. The work of the select committee over the last wee while has been to retain the language of the Act to reduce uncertainty while at the same time trying to make it a finely balanced Act that really understands the meaning of sustainable development—which is to develop and grow yet allow the community to ensure that it has choices and a future. I think I have answered the questions this morning. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have a serious issue here. The Minister has just told the Committee that she read the Meridian letter this morning. In the House this afternoon the Minister said that she had not seen it. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I wasn’t in the House this afternoon. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No the Minister of Energy answered questions on her behalf because she was not here. In response to a question the Minister said she had not seen the letter. The House has been misled. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I was listening to the comments that the Minister made and I wrote an answer for him. I think the primary question was: “Have you received any advice …?” It did not ask whether I had received a letter from Meridian. The answer I dictated to be read out was that I had received no advice on the current energy questions from my officials.
Hughes Darren: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hughes Darren: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12881] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.
Dunne Peter: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8802] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a separate point. In addition to the I think quite valid point raised by Mr Shirley I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 110/7 which was made by a very esteemed Speaker of this House Mr Speaker Guinness who ruled in 1905: “The Speaker must accept the assurance of a Minister that a document from which the Minister is quoting is not a public document.” The Minister—and I assume that the Deputy Leader of the House was acting in a ministerial role when he sought to table the document—was quoting from what were allegedly the minutes of the Business Committee. I submit to you that the process that has been followed has been deficient on two counts. Firstly you did not as Speaker meet the test of Speaker’s ruling 110/7 in that you did not seek from the Minister an assurance as to the status of the document that he was quoting from and secondly the Minister did not provide clarity to the House as to the status of the document he was quoting from. I therefore submit that the last 35 or 40 minutes have been entirely out of order and that we should simply go back to where we were and carry on as though nothing had happened because the Minister’s procedure has been in error and I submit that your rulings in allowing him to table the document are in breach of Speaker’s ruling 110/7 and that therefore the House finds itself in a position where it has acted completely contrary to its own rules and procedures.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14781] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9898] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20974] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During that vote the senior Labour whip actually voted “two” before the party she was casting the vote for was called. She said “two opposed” but we do not know what party she was voting for because the Clerk did not ask what party it was. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We can ask for clarification on that matter. 
Jill Pettis 
: The two votes were for the Progressives.
Duynhoven Harry: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12202] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call to alert the Committee that I have put up a Supplementary Order Paper which contains mostly technical amendments plus a further amendment as a result of a small glitch we found in the bill today with regard to clause 42. A small change to a term in that clause was needed but not picked up at the time the Supplementary Order Paper was drafted. I hope that clarifies the situation for members. Those amendments are on the Table.
Chadwick Steve: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15136] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4264] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration and that the committee report the bill by 16 June 2003 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 and to meet outside Wellington on a day when the House is not sitting despite Standing Orders 193 195(a) and 196(1)(b) and (c). 
 referred to the Primary Production Committee 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Jim Peron 
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Jim Peron 
[Volume:625;Page:20037] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a series of pictures of naked boys retrieved from Jim Peron’s Auckland bookstore Aristotle’s Books just 3 weeks ago. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3756] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to omit clause 7 and substitute new clause 7 be agreed to.
Simich Clem: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10615] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Corrections to Answers 
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Corrections to Answers 
[Volume:618;Page:13961] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance in a matter for which I would like some redress. It concerns an answer given in this House on 25 May by the Hon Pete Hodgson Minister of Transport. During the course of question No. 7 that day he claimed that the numbers I had used for the amount of money that had been spent on new State highways and local roads in the Auckland area were incorrect—“in error” were his words. Mr Speaker at the time when I raised it you told me it was a debatable point but I have to say that any mathematician I have spoken to knows that whether one number is bigger or smaller than another is not debatable. Given that those numbers were provided by the Minister himself in answer to questions for written answer Nos 628 to 632 I then took a breach of privilege case to you but you have declined to act on it. I now seek your guidance on how I can have this matter corrected as the figures do show that the amount of money spent on new roading in the last year of the National Government was higher in real dollar terms than the amount spent in any year since that time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If a member disputes the accuracy of a question that is a matter for debate. This issue is still a matter for debate. [ 
Interruption 
] If I hear any comment like that the member will leave the Chamber. I rule having taken careful advice on issues and I make sure I do that.
O'Connor Damien: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5418] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Railways Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Railways Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7524] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Railways Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4451] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 It is not for me to say but of course I envisage that the debate on the title will cover all aspects of the bill and that if members seek a second call that will be entirely in the hands of the Chair. If there is a debate on both the title and the second part of the bill both would be wide ranging to cover all aspects of the bill. Under the Standing Orders and subject to the Chair members would be entitled to up to four contributions if they wish. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I assure the member that certainly it is the will of the Chair to make sure that everyone has his or her say—especially those people who have indicated a special interest in this issue.
Points of Order — Referral of Supreme Court Bill 
Points of Order — Referral of Supreme Court Bill 
[Volume:608;Page:5915] 
Points of Order 
Referral of Supreme Court Bill 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ notice of motion No. 2. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave to move members’ notice of motion No. 2. Is there any objection? There is.
Locke Keith: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21344] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting this bill. It makes a lot of good amendments to the land transport regulations. The issue of taxi-drivers has come up in the debate so far and it did exercise the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Members will note from the commentary on the bill that although the Green Party supports improved safety for taxi passengers in terms of preventing unsuitable people from holding licences that allow them to carry passengers we did criticise the permanent character of the exclusion of certain people who have committed serious offences. That view is in line with the Green Party approach that we cannot hold somebody’s transgressions against them forever. 
We are in favour of rehabilitation. That is the essence of the clean slate legislation that was initiated by my Green colleague Nandor Tanczos and then became a Government bill under the name of Phil Goff and passed through Parliament. The concept behind that legislation is that we do not punish people forever. It is true that the clean slate legislation is about less serious offences—the concept is that after 7 years a minor conviction can be scrubbed from a person’s record instead of it affecting his or her whole life. In terms of serious offences our general approach to rehabilitation is that as much as possible people should be given chances in life to really make amends contribute to society and have a fulfilling life even if they have done time for committing very serious crimes. We should not hold it against them forever. 
The Greens propose that there be a discretion to allow the Director of Land Transport to issue a passenger endorsement to someone who has committed a serious crime according to the list provided in the bill if the director is satisfied that there is no risk to public safety now or in the foreseeable future. That would be a very high test but it would mean that the offence was not held against the person forever. Not to do that would in some ways elevate taxi-driving above some other professions in which there is danger such as the sensitive area of early childhood education. We should not have a totally forever prescriptive sort of approach to the exclusion of people from that particular profession. Sure the offences listed in the bill are serious—attempt to murder conspiracy to murder wounding with intent causing grievous bodily harm aggravated wounding or injury kidnapping aggravated robbery firearms offences etc. 
It is true that there should be an exclusion for such people but the Greens are saying that years later when such people have rehabilitated themselves—and a number of people in our society who have committed murders or done very serious things have later contributed in a very effective way to our society—there has to be room for discretion. The Green Party will support giving the director a discretion in that respect.
Rich Katherine: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Rich Katherine: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14332] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Yes and on Vote Community and Voluntary Sector.
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:17084] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 49 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit from the proposed new heading the words “or cancel”.
Barker Rick: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Barker Rick: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12566] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4769] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
Labour 52; Green Party 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 1 be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13513] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The point has been made by Madam Chair—and she is correct—that points of order have to be raised at the time the matter occurs. There are good reasons for that partly about recollections and partly about the fact that there would otherwise be endless points of order relating to something that happened the day before hours ago or whatever. It is clear in the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
; points have to be raised at the time matters occur.
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11656] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(d)provide the Government with further time to resolve its seabed and foreshore policies.
Hide Rodney: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12487] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I must admit that I have been guilty of this myself but I think you may have cast aspersions on every member here. Maybe if one knew who the offender was one should name him or her rather than accuse in a general way all MPs of having their cellphones go off.
Copeland Gordon: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15725] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to direct your attention to Speaker’s ruling 24/1 which states: “(1) The convention of not referring to the absence of a member is equally valid when applied to the presence or absence of a member from a select committee hearing.” I could not bring the reference to mind when I raised my point of order but I think that that Speaker’s ruling makes it very clear that members should not refer to the absence of a particular member from a select committee. I would like you to take that into account.
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12358] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 44; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 11 
New Zealand Labour 5; New Zealand National 5; United Future 1. 
Provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brent Catchpole to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 219E(2) of the principal Act by omitting the expression “15%” and substituting the expression “7.5%”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to insert after subclause (1) the following new subclause: 
(1A)Section 36(4) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words “or any other premises on which the principal business is the sale of food or groceries”.
Ririnui Mita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Second Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18504] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 A tena koutou kai Te Manuku Tutahi nau mai hara mai. 
[ 
And so to you of Te Manuka Tutahi welcome welcome 
. 
] 
I stand to take a very brief call on this Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill. I had intended to speak at some length in response to the contribution of the ACT member the Hon Ken Shirley. I am sure that if he had studied the bill more thoroughly he would have realised that there are accompanying constitutions to assist Ngati Awa in managing their post-settlement assets. But I think my whanaunga the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has given him a sufficient verbal clipping. In Maoridom that is what we call a real beat-up. 
I want to welcome Ngati Awa to the House today for the second reading of this very very important legislation that will accompany the settlement legislation. As we all appreciate Ngati Awa have gone through a long arduous process to establish the right type of structures they need not only to manage their settlement assets but to ensure the fair distribution and dissemination of the benefits from those assets. Much of those benefits are very visible in Whakatane and in wider areas at this time. 
Tena koutou. I do not have any more to contribute to the discussion except to say that this is a huge milestone in the development of Ngati Awa. Kia ora tatou.
Cullen Michael: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Cullen Michael: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6635] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Mr Speaker the reason that you do not do that is that Government members of Parliament do not raise points of order that are simply debating material. Mr Brownlee entered into a long debating speech and he got a long way through it. We on the Government side sometimes think you should intervene earlier. It is the nature of Parliament that those tend to be the views of the Government and of the Opposition.
Hughes Darren: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21626] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 The speech that was just given to the House by David Carter really was a pathetic contribution and here is the reason for that. He oscillated from being totally sympathetic towards the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11 to going straight back into raw political attacks on the Prime Minister on Steve Maharey on New Zealand First and on the Greens. Then he returned once again to his almost tear-jerking soft voice and his Oprah Winfrey - style attempts at connecting with the victims of terrorism all around the world. 
David Carter should have given one speech or the other. He should have either got up and talked about how terrible the different political parties in this House were and gone ruthlessly political or given a speech in which he would supposedly give his genuine views on the bill. But he tried to do both and he showed himself to be a silly silly member in that regard. That was a silly contribution from a man who was beaten three times by Ruth Dyson because he always mixes the politics in. David Carter should have focused on the bill. I am attacking him only because I cannot believe how silly that speech was. It came from somebody who has been in Parliament for 11 years—and he could well be gone shortly. David Carter engaged in pathetic theatrics and melodrama and the next thing we would have expected to see from him was a tear-jerking performance because that was how immature and juvenile he was about it. That was the silliness of that speech. 
The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) extends the requirements of the law until 2007 and gives the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the chance to consider it. I hope when the committee does that it takes the matter seriously and puts in place a proper process for Parliament to debate rather than listening to pathetic political partisan attacks that are mixed up with  
School Journal 
 plays. That did not do the member any service at all. He is a disgrace.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:625;Page:20145] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is the second time I have sought your assistance on this matter. I have asked several written questions of the Minister of Health and the answers are now long overdue. In fact one of the questions was first asked of the Minister of Health on 29 April 2004 so that question is now more than 1 year overdue. I raised this matter with you in the House on a point of order on 16 March and you requested that I should write to you. I did so and you responded on 17 March saying that you would look into this matter and contact me again. That was 6 weeks ago and I have yet to hear from you. I would just like to say that Standing Order 366(4) is very specific on this matter and reads: “The reply to a question for written answer must be lodged no later than the sixth working day following the day on which the question is published.” I have 11 questions that are well and truly beyond the 6-day mark and I wonder what redress I now have. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. My understanding is that a response was given but I will look into it further for her.