edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17222] 
9.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What reports has he received about the success of this Government’s decision to buy back the rail network and encouraging road freight on to it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Rail company Toll Holdings and dairy company Fonterra have recently signed a deal that will put one-third of Fonterra’s exports through a rail freight hub in Hamilton. This will see 45000 truck journeys per year being taken off the roads. Fonterra said that this move was “made possible by the Government’s agreement to invest $200 million in rail.” 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How does this report compare with those made at the time—to the effect that the Government should not get involved in buying back the network? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Fonterra has said that the deal signed could not have proceeded earlier because of uncertainties about the rail network and the operator in New Zealand. At the time of the buy-back of the rail network both the National and ACT parties opposed it. They preferred the rail network to stay run-down unsafe and lacking in investment. This deal and others like it that will follow have proved them wrong. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister guarantee that the rail-track that will carry this cargo—probably to the Port of Tauranga—is absolutely and totally safe? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Guarantees and “absolutely and totally” are not in the language I use. I am into risk management. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What other steps have been taken under the new Land Transport Management Act to encourage the movement of freight by methods other than the use of roads in order to meet the objectives of integration public health and sustainability developed by the Government and the Greens? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can think of two examples off the top of my head—a log depot in the lower North Island that enables logs to be transported by rail to Wellington and in Coromandel where the member comes from funding is being given towards taking aggregate to Auckland by barge. Both of those moves take trucks off the road make roads safer and less congested and deliver local economic benefit. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the earlier answer to my question does the Minister think it would be prudent to have an up to date thorough inspection of the rail-track that will carry this cargo—in the light that there are concerns about parts of that rail-track? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I believe that an up to date inspection of the rail-track is an ongoing matter but I would say to the member that new rail legislation that improves safety is due to finish its passage through this House presently.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Iraq—Debate 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Iraq—Debate 
[Volume:606;Page:3977] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I sought leave for the House to set aside its normal business at the conclusion of the Budget Policy Statement and hold a 2-hour debate on the question of Iraq. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:606;Page:3552] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill to be extended to 14 March 2003 for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the Masterton Trust Lands Bill to be extended to 21 March 2003 and for the time by which the Education and Science Committee must finally report the 2001-02 financial review of the Teacher Registration Board to be extended to 12 May 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17560] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments to subclauses (1) to (3) of clause 22 to omit and substitute text the amendment to the heading before clause 23 and the amendments to subclauses (2) and (3) of clause 23 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth are out of order as they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 23 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1).
Benson-Pope David: General Debates 
Benson-Pope David: General Debates 
[Volume:613;Page:9962] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House for a further 1-minute contribution from Mr Cosgrove so he can complete his comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is.
Tisch Lindsay: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8721] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to carry on speaking about this issue because I have not had an answer. I will take a break while the Minister confers with her advisers and then I will sit down. I am asking a very simple question: if there is not a residual value at the end of the lease—[ 
Interruption 
] Why does Mr Benson-Pope not stand up and take a call himself? If there is not a residual value at the end of the lease does clause 48(1)(d)(ii) cover the situation where I do not have the option to purchase the goods at any time during the lease or at the expiry of the lease for the residual value? That is the question. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I think that the member needs to read clause 48(1)(d) carefully. The legislation will apply when the lease is for a term of 1 year or more. Other circumstances may or may not apply but that does apply because clause 48(1)(d) actually states: “ 1 or more of the following applies:”. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is right and “the lessee has an option to purchase the goods.” My question is about what happens if I do not have the option to purchase the goods—and there are a lot of leases where people do not have that option. I ask that question. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: It does not matter. The issue is whether the lease is for more than a year. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is part of it. That is in subparagraph (i): “… for a year or more:”. People can have leases for 2 or 3 years. If I lease a car for example I go for a 2 or 3 year lease but I do not have the— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
:Then it is covered. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
:It’s covered? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: If it is for 2 or more years it is definitely covered. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
:So the Minister is saying that I am covered? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: The member is covered if the term of the lease is for 1 year or more. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: But a lease of under 1 year is not covered? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
:No. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
:It is not covered if it is under 1 year? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
:Not unless other provisions apply. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: OK. So if I lease a vehicle for less than a year I am not covered. 
Judith Collins 
: What about a renewal? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes. What about renewals? A lot of leases are actually for less than 1 year. So those people are not covered by this particular clause.
Jones Dail: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4590] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not referring to your ruling at all. I am raising a fresh point of order based on the inaccurate statements made by the senior Government whip about what happened at the Business Committee. I was present at the Business Committee. As far as I was aware the main things that were discussed at that meeting were first readings. Rushing this bill through the Committee stage was not discussed. I do not intend to take any further time other than to correct that incorrect statement.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21493] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to Part 1 and the following amendments in his name to clause 5(2) be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of section 4(1A) the words “specified in clause 1 of Schedule 5”; and 
to omit paragraph (c) from section 4(1A). 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: General Debate 
Dyson Ruth: General Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22065] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I will speak to Dr Smith’s point of order and then I have a point of order to raise. I would like to quote directly from the document. I have 24 hours in which to table it but I am happy to table it now. It is called “Consent Hassles Risk Delaying Transmission Wires—Press Release by New Zealand National Party at 3:51 PM 06 Jul 2004” and states: “ ‘We cannot let resource consent delays block a long-term solution to the power supply problem at the top of the South Island’ says Nelson MP and National Environment spokesperson Nick Smith.” Three paragraphs down it states: “The situation is now so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation this year so these lines can be installed.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has asked for leave to table the document and the leave has been granted by the Hon Dr Nick Smith.
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 clause 34 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by omitting the expression “12” and substituting the expression “5”
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16194] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4304] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this bill. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation for New Zealand. This bill has been in the redrafting process for some time and I am delighted that with the support of United Future we have been able to bring this bill back to the House. It is a good bill. [ 
Interruption 
] If only ACT and those hard-line right-wingers would read something for a change. This bill gives people an opportunity to be involved earlier on in the process. It encourages debate rather than the hard-line attitude that ACT and National would prefer. I am surprised at the criticism by ACT of participatory democracy. That is what we have fought to preserve all these years is it not? The legislative process that ACT and National would prefer which would ride totally roughshod over people is absolutely ridiculous and does not bear contemplation. I am delighted this bill is back in front of the House. It will be good for our society and I wish it a speedy passage through the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: “Back in front”? It’s the first reading. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Well that member did not mind rapid progress on the Te Puke bypass so he should get his priorities right.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:624;Page:19303] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I have one third reading on the Order Paper and I hope to finish it by roughly 5 o’clock today.
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:610;Page:7874] 
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16150] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to Part 6A in clause 30 be agreed to.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15194] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
New schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15928] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 9(3) be agreed to.
Mark Ron: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mark Ron: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20036] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to take just a minute to reply to the Minister whose sincerity I accept. I actually know him personally and I think I have a very good understanding of his views but I have to say that it is not good enough to say there was a majority in the select committee that supported the status quo. If one looks at the party situation the Labour Party members were the only members on the entire committee who held that view. The select committee is made up of members of the United Future Party the Green Party the New Zealand First Party the National Party and the Labour Party and it is on record that four of the five parties said that this definition should change. 
Labour can get away with a little bit of fudging here but the fact remains that it has stacked the committee with its numbers. It has stacked the committee so that it gets the outcomes it wants and it is bullying its way through this. The Minister should take a wider view. If four of the five parties in this Parliament can agree that generally what the Government is doing is right but that on this particular definition it is wrong then why can the Minister not be magnanimous accept defeat and go with the majority party view? 
We know that the Government has the numbers and can force its way. It does not have to because when we get outside this Chamber it will be dealing with it anyway because United Future the Green Party the ACT party the National Party the New Zealand First Party and the Maori Party will all be out there during the election saying that Labour was wrong. There will be only one party that says that the definition is right and that is the Minister’s party. The tragedy is that within his own caucus we know there is a difference of opinion and he should listen to it.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12326] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 39 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (g) the words “to the extent that it does not compromise the Orchestra’s ability to fulfil its other obligations”.
Mapp Wayne: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13158] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is about the precise point that Mr Mark made. He mentioned and I observed this very closely myself that he continually requested a point of order. It is my understanding that when a point of order is requested and it must have been heard then it will actually be heard. The precise concern that he has is that he made it many times and was frankly ignored. That is the particular issue for the recall of yourself.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9250] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question that Mr Brownlee put was did you receive a bottle of wine from the aforesaid parties—not whether you asked for one but whether you received one.
Cullen Michael: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9968] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 To move to report progress is to take a call in the Committee stage. Indeed Mr Chairman you may have noticed that the senior Government whip was already seeking a call which was why Mr Dunne called for a point of order—to get precedence. If he had been merely seeking a call to move a motion which is the normal procedure for reporting progress Mr Benson-Pope would have had the priority call.
Yates Dianne: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8471] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Gambling Bill comprises well over 180 clauses. It is a very long part and is the meat of this bill. It refers to the four classes of gambling that are restricted in terms of the amounts of money involved and those that require licences and those that do not those that require operator licences as well as venue licences. It also refers to casino gambling and lotteries. The select committee spent a considerable amount of time over the details of this part of the legislation the part that will take a good deal of administration monitoring and policing. 
I point out that one of the parts in the Supplementary Order Paper that was not favoured at the time by the select committee or that was considered very seriously was the whole role of the Lotteries Commission and interactive gambling. That was a very difficult question. One of the questions that we have to consider is the amount of money—given that Internet gambling is a fact of life—that is retained within this country rather than money being spent overseas and also the fact that we are looking at the continuing viability of lotteries as such. They were matters that were considered several times by the select committee and I can say that they were discussed very fully in this case. 
There was also the additional matter of the use in machines—which of course will be electronically monitored—of note acceptor devices. That was not a matter that the select committee felt relaxed about but we realised that people whether or not they had gambling cards or notes could whip outside to a money machine anyhow and acquire money or access money from their credit cards and so on. Sometimes we have to face realities and accept them. The select committee as I can say debated some of those issues very strongly backwards and forwards and looked at them in great detail. In many cases we had submitters come back to the committee report and bring us additional information. So those were the deliberations of the committee in that respect. 
I can also comment on a little bit of history. I remind those members who do not remember when we voted on the moratorium on casinos that it was a conscience vote and I remember that some very notable members of the National Party including Mrs Shipley at the time voted in favour of the moratorium. I see people smiling. I remember that vote very distinctly.
Hereora Dave: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16193] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wilson Margaret: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10176] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
I wish to address two or three points raised by previous speakers. I want to assure the previous speaker that yes the settlements are intended to be full final and durable. But it is also true that the only thing in life that is full final and durable is death. So we do the best that we can with goodwill from all parties and that is the way in which we have approached this legislation as have the claimants.  
I also address the point made by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who sought assurances in reference to the National Party’s view in the report back. I want to assure her that the provision she was referring to relating to the provision for coastal space and preferential rights thereto to Ngati Tama are similar to those provided in previous settlements of Ngai Tahu and Ngati Ruanui. So there is a consistency there and there is nothing new about that.  
Finally on the comment that was made by my colleague from New Zealand First relating to the mandating process: we would agree with that and I think we have improved the processes enormously since that was undertaken. I do not want to be party political about it but it was undertaken under a previous Government that was also gaining experience at the time. We have learnt from that experience and I think at the moment certainly the mandating processes do take a lot longer. They are more rigorous and I would expect in future we would not have similar problems but I would be very surprised if there were ever a settlement that someone was not slightly unhappy with. We addressed that as I have said before by ensuring that everyone has a place at the table and will benefit.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5075] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 15(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “sections 16 and 17” from paragraph (b) and substitute the words “section 16”.
Smith Nick: Personal Explanations — Trevor Mallard—Statement Made About Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Smith Nick: Personal Explanations — Trevor Mallard—Statement Made About Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:625;Page:20526] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 On Monday evening on  
Close Up 
 the Minister of Education said in response to a question from Susan Wood as to who should be held responsible for the mess in the wananga and the $20 million bail-out that it was me Nick Smith. 
I wish to make it absolutely plain to the House that I have never held any responsibility for the portfolio of tertiary education or for the wananga. I have dealt with no ministerial correspondence and no Cabinet papers. I have never had responsibility for any of the vote. I find it extraordinary that the Minister went on to say that I was responsible for developing a funding system. I was not responsible for developing any funding system in any of the responsibilities I held during my 3 years as a Minister of the Crown. I seek the leave of the House to table the ministerial delegations and responsibilities held during the time that I was a Minister of the Crown. 
Document not tabled.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14328] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Finance be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Vote Finance agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
[Volume:620;Page:15444] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the member raises a very interesting question. It is an important one and one that I have commented about on a number of occasions when that issue has been raised in the House. It does seem to me at the end of the day that the Minister has to be the person who decides whether giving an answer is consistent with the public interest because only the Minister at the end of the day is privy to the information that may be relevant to that decision. A member may ask a question that involves matters that are not appropriate to be in the public domain for privacy reasons or other reasons and by the very nature of that fact only the Minister can determine that because should it then become a matter for discussion via the point of order procedure that then negates the very reason for not giving the answer in the first place. The Speaker at the end of the day its seems to me cannot really be in a position to be able to determine the factors that the Minister has taken into account in that respect. On the other hand I would say that there would come a point where a Minister’s refusal to answer a question on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to give an answer would be so patently absurd and in contradiction with the facts which would be obvious to all members that the Speaker would be justified perhaps in making some comment in respect of that.
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17098] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Committee is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Jones Dail: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7751] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has just occurred to me: I am sure that the House is very grateful that you are abstaining but what happens in the Committee stage? Will your abstention be recorded in some fashion? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is up to me but I intend— 
DAIL JONES 
: I know that you will not be present. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I intend to maintain that position. 
DAIL JONES 
: We really appreciate that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I actually have the right to be present during the Committee stage—in the voting lobby.
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18800] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your consideration of this matter. When I submitted my question this morning all the advice had been that the document it concerns was indeed secret and had been so for 4 years but upon my submitting my question miraculously this document became available. I therefore seek the leave of the House to amend my question accordingly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To what extent does the member want to amend it? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I want to omit the second part of the question which is no longer relevant. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will rule from the Chair that that is satisfactory. Please read the question as amended.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17616] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker (P)  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Simich 
Barnett 
Fairbrother 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
Mark(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates 
Coddington (P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel 
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
O'Connor 
Tamihere(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English (P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turner 
Brash(P) 
Franks 
Peters J (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown 
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Robertson 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones 
Scott(P) 
Collins(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
McNair 
Sowry(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch  
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6653] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — David McGee—Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — David McGee—Clerk of the House of Representatives 
[Volume:627;Page:22163] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps I could use this moment to take the liberty of referring to the fact that yesterday Mr David McGee achieved the position of being the Clerk of the House for some 20 years. Perhaps colleagues might like to join me in noting that fact.
Roy Heather: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Roy Heather: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16855] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to name now the way in which our split vote was taken. I will do that verbally if that is the will of the Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Shall I go ahead and do that? I was going to do it verbally. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry. I thought the member sought leave to table the vote. 
HEATHER ROY 
: No to give the names verbally now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No to table the document. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is not what I sought leave for. I did seek leave and it was not denied. The two votes in favour were: Heather Roy and Ken Shirley. Those opposed were: Stephen Franks Muriel Newman Richard Prebble Deborah Coddington Gerrard Eckhoff and Rodney Hide.
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7948] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We have to correct that vote in the House rather than in Committee. We will do that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I give members notice that that is coming.
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15591] 
2.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: What criteria did the committee use to determine which submitters out of the hundreds of submissions received on the Civil Union Bill would be allowed to submit orally? 
TIM BARNETT (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 The Justice and Electoral Committee agreed on and is implementing the criterion that every submitter who requested to be heard would be invited to submit orally. Therefore we will be hearing up to 389 submissions. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the chairperson advise the House how many submissions have been received on the Civil Union Bill to this date—both complete submissions and form 1-page submissions? 
TIM BARNETT 
: Certainly. The committee has received 3263 individual submissions and 2907 form submissions.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8270] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Hereora Dave: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hereora Dave: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5387] 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand in support of the second reading of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill. It promotes and fosters a principle that we as a nation should embrace—that is a health initiative. That health initiative is to decrease the consumption of alcohol by young people.
Visitors — Major-General ImadMaayar 
Visitors — Major-General ImadMaayar 
[Volume:612;Page:9583] 
Visitors 
Major-General ImadMaayar 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Major-General ImadMaayar a member of the Jordanian Parliament is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Swain Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16195] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Human Rights Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 265.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6414. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not quite correct I am sorry to inform the Leader of the House. My precise question asked on what date the Minister learnt that the Te MangaiPaho board had rolled over Trevor Moeke’s contract. I received an answer as the Leader of the House says between 11 and 11.30 this morning but in no way does it answer that question. The Minister said in this House yesterday in answer to my question: “I do not have that information at the moment. However I assure the member that I will put it in writing and send it directly to him.” As at this time the Minister of Maori Affairs has not done so. I take it from your ruling given the way this Minister of Maori Affairs works that that could be next year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. We cannot argue in this House about a subsequent communication between a Minister and a member. As to the point the Hon Roger Sowry raises it is entirely up to the Minister as to when he follows up; there is no time constraint. But of course I urge Ministers if they say they are going to provide an answer to do so as quickly as they reasonably can. And the Minister did between 11 and 11.30 a.m.
Robertson H V Ross: Visitors — Major-General ImadMaayar 
Robertson H V Ross: Visitors — Major-General ImadMaayar 
[Volume:612;Page:9583] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Major-General ImadMaayar a member of the Jordanian Parliament is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11515] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does not matter what Mr Prebble’s reasons were he is entitled to deny leave. Any member in this House can deny leave. The member has now asked for leave to be granted to table a further document. Is there any objection?
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20523] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I thank my friend for his advice to the House and remind him that there are a number of precedents in this area. One dates from the late 1990s when the then Minister of Tourism after paying a friend of his nearly $500000 to leave her job absented himself from the House for days on end. The right of members to come to the House or not to come or to have other business—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Out! 
Hon Chris Carter withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
—is a matter that has been ruled on on many occasions. For that member to talk about a member’s absence from the House when he spent most of the first month of this sitting of the House outside because he had the pip with the person who sits on his left is just classic. [ 
Interruption 
]
Yates Dianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Yates Dianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6729] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to support the first reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill and its referral to the select committee.
Points of Order — Personal Explanations 
Points of Order — Personal Explanations 
[Volume:608;Page:5278] 
Points of Order 
Personal Explanations 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the beginning of the session today I raised with you a matter that you said you were going to look at. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have already been doing some work on the matter. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Thank you but I want to bring you further developments because I regard this matter as very unparliamentary. Members of Parliament appointed to select committees are appointed by this House not by themselves or by the parties. I now discover that the member of Parliament concerned Mr Ewen-Street is putting out press statements saying that he has withdrawn from an inquiry. He is quite prepared to brief members of the press gallery but is not prepared to come to this House to account for his actions. From what I read here it appears that he has been sitting on an inquiry and has had an improper relationship with one of the lawyers to the inquiry—I understand the media is calling it a “sex for questions” scandal—yet he is not prepared to come to this House to explain—[ 
Interruption 
] If the member thinks it is appropriate to resign today how long has this situation existed? Has he been asking questions as an MP or has he been asking them on behalf of someone else? Has he compromised the whole inquiry? Why is he not prepared to account for his actions in this House rather than doing so around the press gallery? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have taken note of what the member said and I am looking at this particular matter—as I promised him earlier I would.
Pettis Jill: Voting — Correction 
Pettis Jill: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:624;Page:19001] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: I have a brief procedural matter. Just before the dinner break when we took the vote on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill inadvertently a vote was cast for one member on our side of the House in both lobbies. It was the Hon Phillip Field. I want to record that Mr Field was voting against the bill. I seek leave for that voting record to be amended. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. The Ayes are now 76 and the Noes are 42.
Cosgrove Clayton: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4711] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call to support the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill. Unlike the future leader of the National Party Mr Key who I am told— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: No deputy. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No no—leader! I hear that that reality is getting nearer and nearer every day. Mr Tisch over there is doing the numbers—“Old Squeaky”! I just make two points to Mr Key: firstly hangi are not cooked in a microwave and secondly instead of having his groceries delivered it may pay him to go down to the supermarket. That is a good way for MPs to keep in touch with their constituents. This is a good bill. It ensures that New Zealand’s trade practices statutes are consistent with each other. It makes a number of very positive amendments. I support the bill.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9029] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Swain Paul: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Swain Paul: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8469] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Adequacy 
[Volume:620;Page:15735] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it with you in relation to questions for written answer No. 12723 and Nos. 12732 to 12805 inclusive. In all those cases I have asked written questions of Ministers to indicate the number of employees in each Crown entity State-owned enterprise and department of State for which they hold ministerial responsibility. In each case I have received an identical response—now 29 in number—that indicates I should go to the organisation’s annual report seek the information through its financial review process or wait for the State Services Commission’s human resources survey that will come out later in the year. In relation to each of the processes nominated in the answer there is the delay of at least weeks and potentially of months. 
I put it to you that if that standard of answer is acceptable in response to a question that simply seeks without any great difficulty a factual answer as to the number of employees in each entity for which those Ministers hold accountability then we will have a very poor time in holding Ministers accountable in this House. There was one answer only with a direct response in terms of the number of employees in each entity for which ministerial or similar responsibility was held. That was the answer you gave as Speaker and therefore as the person responsible for the Parliamentary Service Commission the Office of the Ombudsmen and one or two other entities. I would like you to look at the adequacy of the other answers and to give your serious consideration to whether the Ministers concerned should be directed to give more fulsome and helpful responses than has been the case. In essence I ask you to direct Ministers of the Crown to meet the exemplary standards set by your good self in responding to questions from members of this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course I answer on my behalf and not on anyone else’s. The member has written to me. I am still looking at the matter and he will get his response.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22033] 
2.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to the student loan scheme?
Power Simon: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Power Simon: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22216] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that in Committee or in the House it is inappropriate for us to challenge your ruling. Far be it from me to speak on behalf of New Zealand First—it certainly does not need my protection—but it would seem to me that as the third-largest party in Parliament the first call on a vote should go to New Zealand First unless it yields to United Future. My understanding is that Dail Jones has not done that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. He is perfectly correct and I stand corrected. But the problem now is that under Speaker’s ruling 25/4 because I have already called Mr Adams I have to give him the call. I will certainly come to Mr Jones straight after that.