edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peck Mark: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21345] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in this debate and to congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on some extremely good work in bringing this bill back to the House. 
I want to comment briefly on the taxi-driver issue. A whole bunch of issues around taxi-drivers cause concern. Recently I was in Auckland to do a couple of things and I caught a cab off the rank to get back to where I was staying. As I hopped in the driver said: “This is my second day.” and I suddenly realised that I would have enormous difficulty getting anywhere much less to my destination. Indeed it proved to be that way. I had to tell the driver where I was going and I was more confused than she was. I despair at what the Parliamentary Service has to pay out in taxi chits on occasions like that. It took us an extraordinary amount of time to get from the centre of Auckland out to Mount Wellington. I shuddered—I nearly wrote out two taxi chits I was so embarrassed about the size of the amount to get back from the city. [ 
Interruption 
] I must say that that crossed my mind. 
I note that Peter Brown has made some good comments this morning about work that has been done in the interim since the commencement of this debate. I do think it is right that we take a strong line on who can and who cannot be a taxi-driver particularly in relation to violent sexual offenders. There is one cab company in this city that I simply will not use. There is a history of reasons why I will not use that cab company. It goes back a long way to a time when the company treated a rape complaint frivolously. I simply will not use that company at all. Indeed if the company I do use suggests to me that it will send a cab from another company I tell it not to bother. Even to this day I would rather walk than use a company that took a complaint of that sort frivolously. 
These are not frivolous issues and it is good to see that they are now being tidied up in this bill. It is good legislation. I am delighted to see that we have perhaps managed to sort out an issue that concerned New Zealand First. So there will be rather widespread support for this bill and I am just sorry for Maurice Williamson that his radio audience is no longer listening.
Smith Murray: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Smith Murray: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16671] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to record Larry Baldock’s vote in favour of my amendment. It was omitted by accident from the vote.
Tisch Lindsay: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8860] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 This is exactly the point that I made following the closure on the title. I sought an assurance from you that there would be a wide-ranging debate on these and you ruled that you would take that into consideration. That is all Jeanette Fitzsimons is asking for but all members want to be assured that this debate will be a debate with speeches allowed and calls to be taken by as many members as want to take them. As I said earlier this bill is one of the most controversial measures that we are going to deal with. That is all the Green Party is asking for and you gave an assurance—indeed we could check the  
Hansard  
about what I asked at that time and what you said. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking for the Standing Orders to be set aside. We just want a fair go.
Hobbs Marian: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15632] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Social Security (Working for Families) Amendment Bill Taxation (Working for Families) Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Social Security (Working for Families) Amendment Bill Taxation (Working for Families) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:617;Page:13539] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Working for Families) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 4; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debate Declined — Government's Welfare Policies 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debate Declined — Government's Welfare Policies 
[Volume:606;Page:3699] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 a speech made by the Hon John Tamihere on the Government’s welfare policies. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However no announcement of a change in Government policy in this area has been made and I am not persuaded that it requires the House to set aside its other business for an urgent debate today. The application is therefore declined.
Smith Nick: General Debates 
Smith Nick: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8537] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have to draw to your attention the fact that you gave a specific ruling early on during the continuous interjections from Mr Mallard. In your ruling you said you would not allow that to occur yet after that ruling—and I was not going to interrupt Bill English’s speech—I counted 11 interjections. There were 11 interjections in the last 4 minutes. I want to know why you did not enforce your ruling. You had already given a ruling to Mr Mallard about his continuous interjections but you allowed him to roar continuously all the way through the speech. 
The reason I bring this to your attention is that every single Wednesday during every general debate it is the same—same Minister same possie same routine same ritual and again I have to say that the Opposition has had enough. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that I acknowledge what he said. But the reality is that this has been a robust debate. The member did not impugn the Hon Bill English’s reputation and because there has been a bit of toing and froing in this particular debate I have allowed it to continue.
Beyer Georgina: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10426] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I think the member might better direct his questions to the Minister who deals with those particular matters. However I have to say that the foundation being established will not be dealing with native forests which is what the West Coast Accord was about. It does not talk about the harvesting of native forest as was the situation with the West Coast Accord so in my view there is an inconsistency there with the member’s argument.
Vote: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9575] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to and clause 1 as amended agreed to.
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:609;Page:6946] 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment 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 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19685] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to seek clarification. The Government has generously given leave for the time that was lost last night to be made up next Wednesday. But I suspect that the Government’s intention is to subvert that as well by moving the House into urgency on Tuesday which means that Wednesday technically will not occur because as we know we have this archaic ritual whereby Wednesday is not recognised during urgency. So can I seek clarification from the Leader of the House as to whether he is actually acting in good faith allowing members to have the 2½ hours or whether it is just another tricky deal? Is he intending not to give members the time he took away from us last night and simply to subvert it by urgency?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:613;Page:10013] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill and the Children’s Commissioner Bill. If time allows bills available for first reading will be dealt with.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8755] 
9.  
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Who suggested that interactive gambling should be included in the Gambling Bill and what were the reasons for its inclusion? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I am advised that the inclusion of remote interactive gambling was suggested by the Lotteries Commission in its submission to the select committee. I imagine it made that decision because it thought it was a sound idea. 
Judith Collins 
: Did United Future members communicate to him or his representatives their reasons for being pleased as they recently said with the changes allowing the Lotteries Commission to move into Internet-based gaming; if so what influence did their reasons have on the inclusion of the interactive gambling provision in the bill? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Many people had input to that provision. I remind that member that her party’s minority report in the Government Administration Committee’s report on the Gambling Bill stated that: “The Lotteries Commission which has lost market share over the years is penalised as it cannot use modern technology such as the online telephone account to sell their products. Unless the Lotteries Commission has flexibility its long-term future is limited.” 
Dianne Yates 
: What has been the reaction to the passage of the Gambling Bill? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have had very little correspondence about the bill since it passed. However I note that Dave Macpherson of the Waikato group GamblingWatch praised the reduction in the number of pokie machines in Hamilton as a result of the bill. 
Sue Bradford 
: On what grounds did the Minister overturn the considered decision of the select committee which had heard the submissions of the Lotteries Commission and other bodies in terms of putting up the last-minute Supplementary Order Paper that introduced interactive Internet gaming through the Lotteries Commission? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: After visiting Europe and Scandinavia and seeing it in operation I thought it was a good idea. 
Judith Collins 
: Has he received advice from United Future that the Australian Productivity Commission inquiry found that interactive gambling was “a quantum leap” in accessibility for problem gamblers and that there were undue risks associated with problem gambling by minors and people under the influence of alcohol or drugs? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: We had a good look at everything. The Productivity Commission report of 1999 states: “Without harm-minimisation measures and appropriate regulation online gambling will pose significant new risks for problem gambling.” We have put in safeguards.
Hide Rodney: Architects Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Architects Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9767] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is interested in this bill and we will support it to the select committee for its consideration. This does not mean that we will support the bill at the end of that consideration but we are certainly interested in what the public has to say. I was very interested in my colleague Keith Locke’s comments and I just wish that David Benson-Pope would cheer up and concentrate on what is going on in the House instead of being a snarling miserable member of the Government.
Paraone Pita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20218] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make some comment on this part of the bill—particularly in terms of some of the comments made by those who have already spoken—given that it is all about cultural redress. 
Reference has been made to the narratives regarding cultural connection that have been excluded from and included in the bill. I say right from the outset that Ngati Tuwharetoa have a right to their beliefs and their tikanga. We in New Zealand First do not have any gripe with that. For that matter any group—Maori or non-Maori—in this country is entitled to its view. 
However New Zealand First is concerned that those beliefs should not be legislated for in order to give credibility to them. Our concern is that the fact that this reference has been included in this legislation will give credibility to those beliefs. It is very important to note that there was an earlier intention to include a reference in the bill as to where fire came from and that the Government agreed to exclude that. 
The important issue for me is that the exclusion of those references would not affect this settlement or the effect intended by this bill. Of course one could rightly ask whether their inclusion was something the Crown was happy about in order to give the sense or feeling to the claimants that they were getting something they wanted with the Crown knowing that it would not be too much of a concern to the Crown. 
But the question that needs to be asked is what the effect of including those beliefs in legislation is. In considering that question we must look to the future. Are those beliefs what future generations of New Zealanders will have to believe in even though they may not be of Ngati Tuwharetoa descent? That is the major crux of the concern I am expressing. I just want to make it quite clear that we certainly do not wish to contradict the beliefs of Ngati Tuwharetoa or of any other such group. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:621;Page:16865] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Transport Legislation Bill the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and if time allows the Electoral Matters Bill.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5185] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Nick Smith’s column in the  
Sunday News 
 and the fiction in it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member can seek leave to table the document without adding that comment to it. Is there any objection to that course? There is.
Pettis Jill: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5269] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. As a result of the settlement process we are going through slowly in New Zealand we now have a growing understanding of our nation’s history. I hope that an increasing number of New Zealanders will continue to open their hearts and their minds to learning more about our own history. The history of the Taranaki and Wanganui area is particularly interesting and the more we learn about it the better we will be. We need to understand the hurt and the pain that Ngati Ruanui has been carrying for so long. An understanding of that can come about from people taking responsibility for learning more about what happened in the area in which we live. 
This settlement package provides Ngati Ruanui Tangahoe and Pakakohi with the resources to help them to develop economic social and cultural well-being. I acknowledge here today the people who have worked so hard for so long and who have contributed so much to this settlement process. I acknowledge those who worked to heal the pain. I acknowledge those who through their own good and open hearts and minds stretched out a hand to calm the anger and the hurt. I also acknowledge those who have shown incredible patience integrity and humility which has led us to this moment in time. I pay respect to you all. 
This settlement will assist the people of Ngati Ruanui to re-empower themselves and will help towards the self-development of Ngati Ruanui. But I must say that the people of Ngati Ruanui have not sat around on their hands waiting for this day. We are already very aware of the excellent services being provided by Ngati Ruanui to the people of South Taranaki—services such as health provision social services services responding to the needs of young people and perhaps most important education services to equip our young people for the bright and encouraging world they face as they go out into the future. 
In closing I acknowledge the people of Ngati Ruanui their ancestors their elders their descendants and their negotiating team. I wish everyone well as they move forward to a more secure and positive future. Kia kaha kia toa kia manawanui.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8818] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 This is actually a very serious issue. We have just had the Speaker recalled on matters that related to comments made by persons outside the House. The Speaker was very quick to remind us that they come down to matters of taste. Here we have a direct case where comments are made I assume about a member in the Chamber. Madam Chair you have to act very strongly on this point. Mr Brown made some telling points in the earlier exchange with the Speaker about the taste if one likes of comments made about persons made outside the House. If you now do not uphold the point of order raised by the member you create a very serious imbalance it seems to me which would not be conducive to the good order of this Committee for the remainder of its time this evening.
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:8999] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Brown Peter: Points of Order — Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill—Procedure Request for Apology—“Rope-head” Comments Made in House 
Brown Peter: Points of Order — Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill—Procedure Request for Apology—“Rope-head” Comments Made in House 
[Volume:620;Page:15946] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For reasons that I am prepared to divulge if necessary last night I sought through the Chair of the Committee of the whole House to obtain information on who voted for and against clauses and parts where parties were recording a split vote. I am well aware that that procedure was agreed to in the Business Committee but it never occurred to me or my colleagues that we would be denied that information. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That bill is still before the Committee. I cannot rule at this stage. The time to raise that point of order is once we get back into Committee on that bill.
Carter Chris: Parental Leave and Employment Protection mendment Bill — Second Reading 
Carter Chris: Parental Leave and Employment Protection mendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16297] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I rise to support the legislation. 
Richard Worth 
: Where is the substance in that comment?
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16921] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Budget Debate 
Robertson H V Ross: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21073] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise the House that United Future members have split their call into two 5-minute calls and for their benefit the bell will ring with 1 minute to go.
Cullen Michael: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5355] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 That was the most extraordinary speech which really summed up the wellspring of bitterness and hatred that that member has for anything to do with matters Maori. That was an extraordinary speech. He described the setting up of a Maori television service to promote Maori language and Maori culture in both Maori and English as racist. Does this mean that the British Broadcasting Corporation is racist because it is there as part of the United Kingdom and United Kingdom culture? Is it true that the United States Public Broadcasting Service is racist because it is about the United States? Racism is something that is not Pakeha as far as that member is concerned. If it is not Pakeha it is racist. That is the most extraordinary drivel I have heard in a very long time in my life and in this House. 
We were then treated to the spectacle of the member trying to deal with what the treaty says in article 2 by combining parts of the words in English with parts of the words in Maori. We can do almost anything with a document if we care to get a bad translation from a rather peculiar form of the indigenous language into another language then combine one bit with another bit and say that this cannot be true. What a particular piece of drivel from the member that was! 
Then we were told that the Maori language can survive only if it acquires the status of being some kind of unique elite thing that people treasure because it is an elite means of advancement in society. I thought ACT’s complaint was that Maori was an elite means of advancement in society these days under a Labour Government but never mind about that particular inconsequentiality on the part of the ACT party! How on earth does the member think the English language survived in the 11th 12th 13th and 14th centuries if it was supposed to be an elite language? It was the language of the conquered—conquered by Normans. Which side does he claim descent from with a name like Franks? I assume from neither in that particular respect but if he descends from either of them it has to be the Normans rather than the English. English survived because it was a language treasured by those who were downtrodden. Anglo-Saxon was kept alive and became the dominant part of the English language. We do not go back and study French to study the roots of the English language; we go back and study Old English and Anglo-Saxon—or at least we used to in the time that I was at university. 
All the member’s arguments added up to one thing: he hates Maori he hates anything to do with Maori he sees them as some kind of excrescence on the New Zealand body politic and he says that one of the worst things about this channel is that it will promote superstition which apparently means anything other than neoclassical economics which is what I call superstition. Anybody who believes in that in the 21st century is truly superstitious.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13044] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 197 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2).
Williamson Maurice: Transport Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Transport Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14910] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a report from the  
Dominion 
 dated 29 September 1998 headed “Minister rules out law on helmets”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Bill read a first time.
O'Connor Damien: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4838] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill facilitates the regulatory and structural reform of the New Zealand hop industry. It removes the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board’s single-desk powers to procure and export all New Zealand hop products and it restructures the board into a producer-owned cooperative company. The bill is consistent with the Government’s policy for producer-board reform. It is supported by all 26 hop producers and by the board itself and is in the national interest. The bill will give producers the autonomy to raise capital and to make their own investment decisions in a contestable commercial environment. 
The Hop Industry Restructuring Bill was introduced into the House on 19 March 2002. It had its first reading on 1 October 2002 after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The committee received one written submission on the bill which was from the Hop Marketing Board. The board gave its support for deregulation of the hop industry and restructuring as per the bill subject to an amendment to the date of the restructuring day. The board’s preferred restructuring day and the date specified in the bill was 1 August 2002. However that day had passed by the time the bill was referred to the select committee. The board proposed a new restructuring day of 1 August 2003 the first day of the board’s 2003-04 financial year and that has been recommended by the committee. 
I would like to thank the board for its support of this bill and for its constructive comments on it. I would also like to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill and for the report tabled in Parliament on 4 December 2002. I commend this bill to the House.
Gosche Mark: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Gosche Mark: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7793] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (NZ Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13163] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (Regulation of Inmates) Act”.
Gosche Mark: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17947] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Turner Judy: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18502] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I speak to the second reading of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill on behalf of United Future. I greet and welcome those from the iwi who are here in the gallery to oversee this process and I thank them for coming. United Future understands the importance of advancing this bill as an essential prerequisite to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill and congratulates the Minister on personally championing the issue. 
It shows a huge amount of foresight that Ngati Awa has not focused purely on the settlement it can expect but has also given sensible consideration to the governance and management of the resources it will receive. I also congratulate Ngati Awa on determining for itself the governance structure that it felt was the best fit for it—for choosing not to reinvent the wheel but to take the current working arrangement and change the less appropriate status of a trust board for the structure that is in the bill that United Future supports today. This bill gives effect to the agreements between the Crown and Ngati Awa. Te Runanga o Ngati Awa will cease to be a Maori trust board under the Maori Trust Boards Act and will instead become a stand-alone body corporate. Unlike the Maori trust boards which have been accountable to the Crown the new body will be directly accountable to the Ngati Awa people. The transition planned will be smooth with the current office holders of the trust continuing in that role until the election of representatives of te runanga is completed under the charter. 
United Future supports this reading and will work cooperatively to ensure the timely passage of this bill and of the claims settlement bill through the House.
Carter Chris: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Carter Chris: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12487] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I must fess up and say that it was my cellphone and I am going to make sure it is turned off. I am sorry about that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that if that happens at a select committee the member has to shout morning tea.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5837] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister not only said he wanted to table the letter; he then said it substantiated the answer he had given in the House. He is a new Minister and it is his first question so does he really want to make it a breach of privilege matter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No in fact he should not have said that. The member has said he wants to table a letter.
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17567] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit and substitute words in clause 31. The amendment is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision 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 34 be agreed to:
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6863] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; 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 the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit new subsection (6) of section 41.
Mark Ron: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18777] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First but particularly on behalf of the Hon Brian Donnelly the New Zealand First MP who is the chair of the Education and Science Committee. New Zealand First will be taking only brief calls on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
This bill is one of a raft of bills that have their genesis in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 drawn up by the National administration of that time. It was an Act that created a new framework for how we deal with hazardous substances in New Zealand. This bill continues the process of bringing the regulation of all hazardous substances under the hazardous substances and new organisms regulatory framework. For example the Ministry of Defence portfolio which I watch over on behalf of New Zealand First has responsibility for quite a few hazardous substances. This bill attempts to harmonise the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and the Environmental Risk Management Authority and that seems entirely sensible. 
The interesting point to note though is that the Government is sending the bill to the Education and Science Committee rather than the more obvious select committee the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is to be noted that this Government has made a practice this parliamentary session of sending hazardous substances and new organisms legislation including the GE legislation to the Education and Science Committee. The reason is simple from where we sit and it is this: the chairman of the Education and Science Committee the Hon Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First is a very competent MP a former Associate Minister a man whom the Government knows is a safe and sensible pair of hands a man who will not allow the legislation to progress without careful scrutiny and a man who will not play any silly games. 
I guess the other thing that cannot be avoided is the observation that the Government clearly does not have the same view as that of the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. That is something that must annoy the Green Party intensely given the amount of support those members gave the Labour Government—that is the supplying of confidence during its first term of governance. But that is clearly a relationship issue that the Government must sort out. New Zealand First’s Brian Donnelly if the bill finally ends up there will do his duty as the Government knows he will and as New Zealand First knows he will. 
So New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the select committee. As usual we promise that we will examine it very carefully at that stage so that the outcomes will ensure citizens that all New Zealanders are kept as safe as possible without unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles to the safe use of hazardous substances.
Vote: Debate on Iraq 
Vote: Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:607;Page:4126] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 84 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Assistant Speaker Simich—Ruling Questioned by Member Ahmed Zaoui—Birthday 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Assistant Speaker Simich—Ruling Questioned by Member Ahmed Zaoui—Birthday 
[Volume:622;Page:17421] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are perfectly at liberty to write to me and I have been written to often by many members. I have replied to Mr Eckhoff.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9312] 
9.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What approaches is the Government working on to help at-risk young people get into employment or further training? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Last Friday I launched the trial of Youth Pathways. It is a new programme for young people who leave school with no concrete plans to put them into employment or further training. Ninety school leavers in three locations will receive one-on-one guidance through a support transition programme run by Career Services. That programme is one of a number of initiatives designed to ensure that by 2007 every 15 to 19-year old is engaged in appropriate education training or work options that will lead those people into long-term economic independence and well-being. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other initiatives does the Government have in place currently to help at-risk young people to get into employment or into further training? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Heaps. But to pick out two of the initiatives that are outstanding I would mention the Modern Apprenticeships programme which is focused on 16 to 21-year olds and currently involves 5739 participants. The programme recently received a boost of $600000. It is so popular we needed to put more funding into it. I also mention that the Prime Minister and I announced further initiatives like Youth Pathways as part of a $56 million education and training school-leaving age package in the last Budget. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the fact that the number of students being officially allowed to leave school before they are 16 has doubled in the last 5 years because of the reduced capacity of schools to cater for these students; and is he satisfied with this appalling increase? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The question is better directed to the Minister of Education but since I happen to be the Acting Minister of Education I will on this occasion try to answer the member’s question. These issues are of concern to all of us—that young people are leaving school at that time. That is exactly why the Minister of Education has been putting in place programmes to ensure those young people are not truant are not suspended; they are at school where they belong.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12192] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21591] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 19; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13156] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I probably have two points of order now. I had to call for a point of order seven times to get your attention and you deliberately looked the other way and continued on. I want to register my concern and dissatisfaction with that. The reason I was originally seeking the point of order was to draw your attention to this before you made that decision. Successive Chairs have sat in that very seat and given the Committee an assurance that calls would be allocated on a proportional basis. I know that you have already proceeded on the voting path and that it is a very deliberate act and cannot be overturned but I ask you to look at your figures as to who took calls and were granted calls. New Zealand First representation in this Parliament is half that of the National Party and almost twice that of United Future. On that basis I would have thought New Zealand First would have been granted half the number of calls that National got and twice the number that United Future was granted. But that has not happened. I have sought the call time and time and time again and I absolutely take exception to your deliberately ignoring me and denying me that opportunity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The decision on the closure is mine entirely. I take into account what Mr Tisch raised about the previous debate on clause 3 last night. The debate on the title as members know has recently been changed. I took that into account. All factors are taken into account not just proportionality. I have ruled on that and I will not entertain further debate on my decision.
Peters Jim: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18928] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I can understand that at this point members may believe that the insertion of the term “renewable energy”—which was unanimously agreed to by the Local Government and Environment Committee as stated in the commentary on the bill—should be seen as and perhaps is restrictive. But I bring to the minds of members here who were members of that select committee that the chairperson of the Wellington Regional Council and the other member from the council expressly said in the course of discussion with them that that was the use they wished to have confined in the change of designation as it were that this bill will bring into being allowing them to proceed. That was made very clear to members of the select committee. 
The insertion is therefore in line with the meaning and amendments of the Resource Management Act. The committee concurred with that. Although it may seem at this stage that it is a confinement or limitation in fact it is the wish of the Wellington Regional Council the initiator of the bill.
Samuels Dover: General Debates 
Samuels Dover: General Debates 
[Volume:618;Page:14400] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 Ko te meatuatahimaku kei te mihi atu ki a koe te WhaeaKaiwhakahaere o te Whare a me nga mema katoa. I acknowledge Madam Speaker and also members of the House.
Tisch Lindsay: General Debates 
Tisch Lindsay: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8552] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Order 117 relates to personal reflections. My colleague Dr Smith has taken exception to the comments made by the Minister during his speech and Standing Order 117 relates to personal reflections against a member. My colleague took exception to what was being said. Mr Duynhoven did indicate he would table a document. I asked that he table the document as he suggested in his speech he would willingly do.
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4792] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 48 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Motions — Floods—Eastern Bay of Plenty 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Motions — Floods—Eastern Bay of Plenty 
[Volume:618;Page:14294] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I add our sympathies and very good wishes to the people affected by these terrible floods. It was a great shock for me to recognise on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
a house that was teetering on the brink. I had stayed there not so long ago. It is occupied by a couple of prominent members of the Greens and we have been in email communication with them. Certainly the situation has been very very difficult for people there. I think the time has come when we need to work with local government to put in place preventative measures against this kind of climatic event which is going to become more frequent.
Barker Rick: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8172] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9358] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment to clause 8 in the name of Keith Locke to omit that clause is now out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10724] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know how the Government can hold a debate on a particular case when there is no case and no policy has been announced. It is a question of when an announcement is made. I refer the member to the Supplement to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 25/2: “An urgent debate cannot be granted on the basis of newspaper speculation. An event occurs at the point in time when a decision is publicly announced.”
Peters Winston: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Peters Winston: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21184] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I feel that it would be very very ill-mannered of me if I did not thank all those members who voted for this bill and put their country first before their narrow selfish political selves. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order.