edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16692] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gordon Copeland to clause 165 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a) of section 10(1) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(a)who is a woman or a man and alleges that a named person is the father of her child.
Barker Rick: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6886] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7637] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I said that privilege matters do not necessarily involve a breach of the law.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7802] 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except the Hon Jim Sutton”.
Robertson H V Ross: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4816] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought to take the bill as one question. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Bradford Sue: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Bradford Sue: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13496] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to allow the Minister to explain why the amendment I put forward has received a fiscal veto. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The problem is that we are already in the voting stage of the bill and under Speakers’ rulings 1/5 and 1/6 the member is unable to seek leave on behalf of someone else. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) the words “1 December 2004” and substitute the words “1 July 2004”.
Robertson H V Ross: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11260] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The reality is that Mr Locke’s amendment is not an amendment to clause 3. The debate on clause 3 must be relevant to that clause; it cannot deal with matters contained in new clauses. Mr Locke’s proposed new clause is not an amendment to clause 3.
Visitors — Germany—Delegation from the German Bundestag 
Visitors — Germany—Delegation from the German Bundestag 
[Volume:623;Page:18447] 
Wednesday 9 February 2005 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Germany—Delegation from the German Bundestag 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that three members of the German Bundestag who are part of a delegation to New Zealand led by the German Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed.
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12141] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Mapp Wayne: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9466] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call to correct what I believe is a mistaken viewpoint put across by the Minister of Justice. Essentially the legislation applies to the taking of DNA samples from people where the charge carries a sentence of 7 years or more. The bulk of offences are in that category. Everyone agrees with that. No one disputes that. That is not the issue. The issue is the taking of samples from all offences subject to imprisonment. The Minister absolutely refuses to answer that question. Will he direct his ministry to examine the proposition that everyone who is charged with an offence who is arrested be required to provide a DNA sample where there is the prospect of a sentence of imprisonment? That is a much wider category of offence than is provided in this bill. 
It comes back to the simple proposition that DNA is the modern fingerprint. We have asked and asked the Minister to address that simple question. Instead he evades it. One can only assume that he evades it because he might be embarrassed by the answer. Alternatively he may be evading it because he is not willing to ask his officials to do the serious work as he knows we are right and he does not want to be shown up. We on this side of the Committee ask the Government to think again take a realistic approach and answer our assertion that it talks tough but acts soft. If the Government does not put that proposition to the ministry then we are entitled to say it is an example of a Government that talks tough but when it comes to the crunch acts soft. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 159 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to section 4(3) in clause 7 has been ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee and the Minister has an amendment to clause 7. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert new clause 7A be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
7A 
This Act applies to all offences which can carry a penalty of imprisonment.
Brown Peter: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20632] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I recall that when the Associate Minister of Justice made his opening announcement he not only tabulated a date but also stipulated a select committee. He also outlined the days and weeks that the committee would work. We now know that the date was wrong and we have heard from the Hon Phil Goff that there is confusion over the committee. Do we take it that we now have to work every hour that God has made to get this bill through or has that changed as well? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that but I think we are quite clear on where we intend to go. Minister Goff has correctly moved that the bill be referred to a select committee.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22332] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13153] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15907] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4277] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As soon as I am able I want the House to go back to the question previously to do with the issue of electricity. I seek leave to table a statement by Mr Gerry Brownlee of 16 March that was referred to in comments made by Rod Donald when Rod Donald quite inaccurately referred to the statement put out by Gerry Brownlee. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:618;Page:13707] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House as prearranged the Government has scheduled the first reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill on Tuesday so that supporters and signers can be present. This will be followed by the joint debate on the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill and further work on the Committee stage of bills being considered later if necessary. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Thursday the first readings of the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will be progressed.
Peters Winston: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Peters Winston: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17026] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The true facts are these. In my last speech before the lunch break I was interrupted five times. In my latest speech I was interrupted three times in the first 20 seconds—once by Nick Smith who was standing at the Table and shouting a barrage of statements from there. I do not know what they meant but he was doing that and he knows it.  
Then a further point of order came from Mr Brownlee. There was no interruption of his point of order until having been asked—for the longest time that I think I can remember—by the Chair of the Committee to sit down he refused to do so. He just went on and on. The members on that side know it; we all saw it. At that point yes there was interruption from our side but Mr Brownlee invited it upon himself in an outrageous act of contempt towards the Chair.
Cullen Michael: Income Tax Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Income Tax Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12098] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Income Tax Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The debate is interrupted and set down as an agreement from the Business Committee for resumption on Thursday 8 April 2004. 
Debate interrupted.
Turner Judy: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Turner Judy: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10315] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call on this part and also schedule 4. Certainly the intention is that the legislation would be able to dovetail into other appropriate legislative frameworks that exist and that is what this part reflects. It has always been the intention that the commission will be accountable for its actions and a framework is in place for it to be accountable for the work it puts out. 
People have talked about the fact that the commission is not given the mandate to investigate individual cases. There has been much accusation from the Opposition that this commission will duplicate the work of other agencies and that is the very reason why this clause has been put in. The predominant work of the commission will be to advocate for families in that general sense. However we certainly checked with the drafters at the time that submitters talked to us about that and it was very clear that there was nothing in the legislation that stops or forbids the commission from using a particular case where it illustrates a particular trend in families. It may illustrate that by referring to a particular family situation and advocate for a particular cause based around a particular circumstance that illustrates where that is happening to other people. In that case the Ombudsman may want to be involved or may want to be referred to. 
The commission will be obliged to refer to any other agencies where a case or a situation is presented to it that is not the direct mandate of the commission. Therefore again it may be appropriate for the commission to refer to the Ombudsman anything that comes across its path that is not its direct mandate to deal with. 
That is the obligation within the Act and it is strengthened absolutely within the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. That is really all I wanted to say on that. This dovetails this legislation appropriately with the supporting legislation around it and we welcome it.
McCully Murray: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
McCully Murray: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5363] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Since you first awarded the call to Judy Turner from United Future there have been several points of order and I want to clarify that in terms of your earlier ruling that time will come off her speaking time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it will not because she has not started her speech.
Hereora Dave: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hereora Dave: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8423] 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I stand to congratulate the Minister on a fine job on this bill. I think she struck the right formula and I support the speedy passage of this bill through the House.
Barker Rick: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20727] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Oaths Modernisation Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
referred to Government Administration Committee
Vote: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20604] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put.  
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
[Volume:617;Page:12540] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: For the benefit of members if Tariana Turia is voting the way she has proposed the Labour Party should have called 52 not 51. Is 52 the call? Right.
Clark Helen: Motions — Sir Edmund Hillary—50th Anniversary of Ascent of Mount Everest 
Clark Helen: Motions — Sir Edmund Hillary—50th Anniversary of Ascent of Mount Everest 
[Volume:608;Page:5815] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House acknowledge the 50th anniversary on 29 May of the first ascent of Mount Everest by Sir Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay and congratulate Sir Edmund on this significant achievement and the unique contribution he has made in both New Zealand and Nepal. 
 In speaking briefly to the motion I want to say that at the weekend Sir Edmund and Lady Hillary left for Nepal for celebration of this 50th anniversary of the historic climb. A few weeks ago we honoured Sir Edmund here in this Parliament with a State luncheon. 
For the last 50 years he has been the most famous living New Zealander and has brought great honour to this country through his alpine and other physical achievements and his humanity and practical work in Nepal. Above all he is a great New Zealander. As the House will not be sitting next week on the date of the anniversary it is appropriate to recognise this significant anniversary now and to wish Sir Edmund and Lady Hillary well in their journey to and stay in Nepal.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14166] 
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 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to insert new clause 4A be agreed to.
Mackey Janet: Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Janet: Taxation (Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2004-05) Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17838. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 Hearing National Party members talk about hard-working New Zealand families sort of sends a shiver down one’s spine. It is a little bit like hearing the Grinch talk about Christmas especially as those members are from a party whose leader within hours of being elected leader of the National Party announced on television that his personal commitment was to reduce the tax burden on high-income New Zealanders. This is another excellent piece of legislation from this Government. It is targeted at reducing compliance costs for business in New Zealand and at making business easier for those people who are keeping our economy ticking over. I am very happy to support it. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 One of the rich ironies of the debate this afternoon is that the Opposition right-wing parties of National and ACT have been going on for years and years about how they are the party that is friendly towards business. This bill is very business friendly and very helpful towards business in a wide range of ways. I am very pleased to support this bill. This Government is very supportive of large small and medium-sized businesses. This is a good bill that will help them.
Hartley Ann: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21558] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate on Part 2 clauses 10 to 79 includes debate on schedules 1 and 2.
Swain Paul: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Swain Paul: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4090] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Perhaps a little history lesson for that member might be in order. The first point I want to make is that there have been separate tax rules for Maori authorities since 1939. I wonder how many National Governments have been around since then. Far too many for my liking I should say. 
Darren Hughes 
: Four. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Only four. [ 
Interruption 
] That is a good point Mr Chairman. I want to address the issues of the title because the member was saying that the bill should be called other things. I think it is important to note that there have been separate tax rules for Maori authorities since 1939. The second point is that the review of this entire area which has led to clause 1 “Title” was started by the previous National Government in 1997—by the Hon Bill Birch. The third point is that during all this time Maori authorities have been double-taxed. No one ever said that that was a racist issue. They were double-taxed and that situation needed to be fixed. But the important thing the Finance and Expenditure Committee has done which justifies the title of the bill is tighten the definition of “Maori authority” which ensures that the new rules are limited to a specific group of organisations that meet the Government’s strict policy criteria for being a Maori authority. Very very good work has been done. I think it is important to know that where we are today was started by the previous National Government.
Hartley Ann: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9535] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: When the sitting was interrupted last night Dr Paul Hutchison was speaking and has 2 minutes 52 seconds remaining.
Horomia Parekura: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20174] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to support this well-endowed bill. It certainly is an improvement in relation to access to accident compensation. We have heard people wax lyrical at length about how people who have been attending counselling sessions at the Accident Compensation Corporation get frustrated. The bill speeds up cover decisions and encourages a culture of learning and improvement amongst health professionals. It reduces delays—not that there are many—and it improves patients’ safety. But I think the key issue I want to bring to members’ notice is that this is the third accident compensation bill since this great Labour Government has been in Parliament.
Pettis Jill: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12342] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I shall make a brief contribution on this bill. As always the quicker we get this bill through the House the better it will be for the people involved in the sale of liquor in our country. The bill will provide more certainty for many of those within the sector. As has been stated the main purpose is to provide licensing trusts with the option of reconstituting themselves as community trusts if they so wish. 
I shall comment very briefly on Mr Connell’s comments about identification for people wanting to purchase alcohol. If I were on the other side of the counter and unsure of somebody’s age—and I agree that sometimes it is very hard to tell exactly how old people are—my policy would be: “No ID no alcohol.” It is as simple as that. 
As I said at the beginning let us get on and get this bill passed so that we can provide some certainty for those who are involved in the sale of liquor.
Peters Winston: General Debates 
Peters Winston: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6156] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ron Mark is quite right but I did not let the interjecting worry me for this reason: nobody in the whole country takes any notice of what Mr Cunliffe says.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need to hear any more on the matter. I realise there were many interjections. I thought I had quietened them down but in fact I rather thought that the person speaking was being driven on by them.
Newman Muriel: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9701] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on Part 3 which spells out the administrative provisions of Transfund New Zealand and Transit New Zealand. I seek some clarification about this part of the bill from the Minister because following on from the contribution made by John Key the previous speaker one has to realise that more and more New Zealanders are now saying that the boards of Transfund and Transit are stacked with Labour Party cronies and that the decisions that are made are no longer about the good of New Zealand but about what will help buy Labour votes in Labour Party seats. 
I see no other example that highlights that as much as what happened with the completion of the northern motorway. It was always known to be a No. 1 priority as soon as the consents were through in the Environment Court. But what happened under this Government? The project got dumped right to the bottom and the money was put into other areas. The real reason is that basically the whole of the north is held by the National Party. Those seats are all National Party seats so Labour does not care a stuff about that project. All the money has now gone into Labour Party electorates. 
I ask the Minister to take a call and explain how he reconciles clause 71—which talks about the statutory independent functions of Transfund New Zealand—with clause 74 which says that the board will be appointed by the Minister. The problem is that the National Government when it had to appoint members to the board had a focus on growth and productivity and on trying to lift the prosperity of this country. Labour has one focus and one focus only—that is winning power by buying votes. 
I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us how he can explain that to New Zealanders who at the present time are very worried about the Labour cronies on those boards. The people are getting sick of the Labour Party trying to buy votes. I can say that a lot of us as members of Parliament yesterday visited mayoral forums around the country and heard that local authorities are sick to the teeth of the hundreds of millions of dollars they are paying in compliance costs and consultations imposed on them by the Labour Government. It is all money that has to come out of their ratepayer-funding base following the passing of the Local Government Bill the Responsible Gambling Bill and the Prostitution Reform Bill. Local authorities are terrified of the Land Transport Management Bill and what it will cost them. 
Progress reported.
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18847] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I stand briefly to respond to some of the matters that have arisen. I hope that the National Party’s senior whip Simon Power is satisfied with the explanation given by the Chairperson. In relation to the issue raised by Georgina te Heuheu earlier on during her speech with regard to clause 160 I think that the matter did come up at the Maori Affairs Committee but she may have forgotten the explanation that was given at the time. The provision about the sites referred to in the bill in terms of the Crown Minerals Act applies only to those areas of very very high significance to Ngati Awa and it sets in place a protocol for discussion and consultation before any exploratory work takes place. That was explained in detail to us at the select committee in Whakatane. 
In response to Mr Paraone’s issue regarding Awanuiarangi II Ngati Awa have strong whakapapa as do Ngapuhi Ngati Wai Ngati Hine and all iwi around the country. Ngati Awa make particular reference to Awanuiarangi II because much of the area around central Whakatane subject to the claim is where his estate was. This bill does not set a precedent for any future claims because its title the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill applies only to Ngati Awa. If there are some variances in other bills particularly in relation to a claimant group I am sure that Mr Brownlee would be more than happy to explain how that works. I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation in response to the issues raised.
Hawkins George: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hawkins George: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8473] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I have just listened to the speech from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I have to say that Rotorua has missed the boat and it has missed it by a long way. I do not think that I need to remind her of the anguish the people of Hamilton were put through after the moratorium came in. Hamilton was different because it had its plan before the time of the Casino Control Authority but Rotorua did not. The moratorium has been in place and there will be no more casinos in New Zealand when this bill is passed. People talk about trying to restrict them while other machines are going in. It seems to me a bit odd that people want to oppose the amount of gaming going on but they do not want to oppose casinos. I find that logic a little fuzzy. We want to make sure that there are no more casinos. We have done that and we are doing it. [ 
Interruption 
] In the end people cannot sit on both sides of the fence. This bill aims to limit the number of pokie machines around— 
Peter Brown 
: How does it do that? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It gives local government bodies the power to plan for their own areas. There are restrictions that go back to 17 October 2001. We have wide public support for no more casinos. The support is absolutely wide; people do not like them. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Who says? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The public have been telling us for a long while and I am surprised that the member over there on the Opposition side has not been listening to what the public are saying. A small group of people in Rotorua want a casino but the majority does not. I tell the member to have a look at what happened to the Queenstown casinos when people thought that tourism would be the answer and that it would be tourists who would go and use those casinos. The reality is that most tourists get out there enjoy themselves work hard at having fun all day and become too tired to go to casinos. Casinos in New Zealand depend on local people and in order to help casinos we are making sure that no one steals their name—“casinos”. That is very very important—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes Judith Collins has said that and I agree with her. There is not a lot we agree on but I agree with her on that. The bill does say very clearly—and these people have known this since 17 October 2001—that as a Government we will not allow any more casinos. We cannot be plainer than that.
Brown Peter: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brown Peter: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13273] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome following a speaker from the Greens because if ever I heard a party talk about transport issues from the bottom up it was that party. I am astounded by some of the things the Greens stand for when it comes to transport matters. 
Transport in this country is in a mess. It is either just getting out of a mess or just coming into a mess—and we can look at every mode of transport. Let us look at our airline industry. A few years ago we sold it because marketeers were going to make it into the best airline in the world. But the Government had to rescue it—and it cost $800 million to rescue it. What about our railways? My leader only the other day apparently put some railway brakes on the table. I was not here; I missed that. The railways are in a mess and there is a Railways Bill going through a select committee right at this moment to sort out the safety issue. Then there is the shipping industry. I know that the Minister has inherited a problem with that. The Government has sat on its hands and done nothing for 3 years although it has had a shipping industry review since December 2000. 
Every time I have an opportunity—and the member over there knows it full well—I ask a question about our shipping industry. I should give the Minister a piece of advice. In my view he has two options: go with cabotage which is what the seafarers want; or go with a favourable tax regime like a tonnage tax which the British have. Cabotage will cost more. Undoubtedly it will cost more for exporters and more for the users of ships. A tonnage tax like the one the British have adopted will encourage the development of shipping and it will cost the users less. That is the way to put our shipping industry on par with international shipping. We owe it to the people of New Zealand an island nation down in the bottom of the South Pacific and miles from anywhere to have a reasonable efficient shipping fleet. I have stood by that view as long as I have been in this Parliament and I am hopeful that this new Minister of Transport will do something in the not too distant future. 
Let us now look at roading. Roading has been so heavily influenced by the Green Party that we will go backwards. If the Greens had their way they would tear up the roads. They are anti-roads and anti-car. 
Reports noted.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6211] 
12.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What evidence is there of positive education training and employment outcomes for participants in the youth development programmes funded by the Ministry of Youth Affairs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Excellent outcomes were achieved for a range of young people participating in Youth Affairs youth development programmes. Sixty percent of participants in such programmes go on to further education training or employment. 
Darren Hughes 
: What proportion of young people on those programmes actually find their way into real jobs rather than further education and training? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Well over one-third of participants end up in employment based on the 6-monthly outcome indicators for the period to June 2002. For Conservation Corps participants 39 percent ended up in employment 11 percent in training and 7 percent in education. For Youth Service Corps participants 35 percent ended up in employment 14 percent in training and 11 percent in education. 
Paul Adams 
: In the light of the fact that even the last National Government spent more on youth development programmes—20 percent more in fact—than this present one how does the Minister justify spending an extra $1 million this year on policy advice whilst valuable youth development programmes are left starving for cash? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The figures read out by that member do not square with the knowledge that I have. I would more than welcome the opportunity to engage with him at a later date with regard to the true dollar values being spent in the youth sector.
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5503] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Clause 2 refers to the commencement date and in Supplementary Order Paper 86 we have made a distinction between the dates. Members will notice that clause 2 has two subclauses. In the bill as introduced subclause (1) had a commencement date of 1 May in respect of clauses 18 to 23. The Supplementary Order Paper amends subclause (1) so that those clauses will come into force the day after the date on which the royal assent is given. The reason for the distinction between those two dates is that clauses 18 to 23 refer to the national environmental standards. I can just hear Opposition members bemoaning how long this has taken. They are not the only ones to be concerned about that. 
Opposition Members 
: Well we know that. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Absolutely. I have been doing work on a national policy statement on biodiversity that has been totally held up by this process and waiting for this bill to come through. The only comment I really want to make about the length of time it has taken is that this bill is very much a creature of a minority Government and a mixed-member proportional representation Parliament. It is a bill that is a child of democracy. I have never had to horse-trade so much as on this bill over the last 3 years. To just give one example it is not only the trade that goes on inside. Simon Upton did a great job and came in with a number of ideas and as Jeanette Fitzsimons has pointed out many of them are still in the bill before us. That legislation itself then had a business compliance cost panel look at it. So the bill came back from the select committee the panel looked at it and from there came a Supplementary Order Paper. I then had to win support in the House for horse-trading for that Supplementary Order Paper. That is why this bill has taken some time. 
I could not help but notice that the National Party was always absent in coming forward when it came to trying to move this bill forward. So when I hear National members complain about delay I know it is the parties to the left and to the centre that have done the work to get this bill on the move.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:615;Page:11495] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Law and Order Committee to meet in Australia from 7 to 13 March and to adopt such procedures and practices as are considered suitable for the conduct of its business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be not.
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10296] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The bill does not contain anything suggesting that solo parents with seven children will have a much tougher time than people with two parents and seven children. It does not say that because this is just a rubbish bill for rubbish people. Parents need to know that the best thing for their children is almost inevitably that they be active parents and wherever possible stick together. Nothing in this bill states that. That is one of the awful things about it. It is a fraudulent bill because nowhere does it tell the truth that wherever possible two parents—two good and great parents—will do better than one good and great parent because that is what kids need. Children need fathers and they need their mothers. 
They definitely need their fathers. One of the things we need in this country is active fathers—fathers who are embraced as part of the family not as some sperm donor who happens to pop along every now and again or send a Christmas card. That is not what we need. This bill should be telling people the truth and if it cannot do that it is a complete waste of money. This bill is $28 million of taxpayers’ money being thrown down the drain and it will be going into the pockets of people who should know better. If they do not know what makes a good family then I and others in the Opposition—the real Opposition—will tell them.
Yates Dianne: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7869] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I speak as the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee the select committee that looked at this bill. I am really sad that the previous speaker has not read the submissions as there were over 250 of them.
Duncan Helen: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Duncan Helen: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17886. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Woolerton R Doug: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11771] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First likewise is happy to support the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) in its third reading. There is no question that overcharging of levies took place. In spite of the arguing over semantics this bill is designed to redress that situation—to return a large part of the overcharged levy to people who are still within the fishing industry and offset it against future levies. We believe that not only is that the fairest way it could be done it is the only way it could be done. New Zealand First is very very happy to support this bill.
Maharey Steve: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Maharey Steve: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3802] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I just could not help rising at this point to follow on from a member who indeed has a reputation in this Committee for blameless excellence. It is nice to have a member of that kind to follow on from.  
I want to reflect just for a moment on Part 3 which largely deals with reporting. In reflecting on the member’s speech I suggest to members who are taking part in this debate that the Government is very happy to answer questions that are put to it and that need to be answered during this debate. However it is very hard to do so when a member spends most of his time labouring the issue of why we would have quantitative and qualitative measures of a charter when of course that is standard practice for every country that has a public service television channel and a charter. This is what the BBC NHK in Japan and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation do. Those organisations have a charter and they have quantitative and qualitative measures that the organisations themselves are required by law to be able to put out there and to measure in terms of what the public think about what they are doing and of measuring the effect of changes in their programming and so on. It is very difficult to take part in the debate when members insist on asking questions that are so blindingly obvious. But I repeat that it was such a pleasure to talk after a man with such a reputation that I could not resist the opportunity to do so.
Peters Jim: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Peters Jim: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4823] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee is about to begin the “Corngate” inquiry but I think the cloning process has already started because on my left over here I heard someone speak for the Government. I was wondering what the Minister thinks of that. I do not accept any comment made by a person who earlier stated in the debate that resolution was more important than natural justice as an all-encompassing authority. I therefore stand to ask the Minister to clarify the exact intention of the second schedule. If it is as the member stated in his personal interpretation of it then some parts are superfluous—notably clause 5AC(3). 
Last of all I repeat the question raised by the ACT party in asking what the exact intention of clause 5AC(4) is. Is it retrospectively about a subjective comment made by a full member of the tribunal? Is it in regard to an officer of the tribunal? I want to know exactly what it is. Before the debate on the Committee stage ceases the Minister should clearly state what he thought this bill means in regard to the future of the tribunal.
Sutton Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sutton Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15358] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I rise to support Part 4. I want to respond to comments from the Hon Nick Smith who said that the message of this bill is: “Don’t trust Government.” He should have said that the message of this bill is: “Don’t trust National Governments.” Remember it was a National Government in 1969 that promised to set aside water for irrigators for future irrigation needs. Another National Government between 1990 and 1993 changed the rules and allocated all the water to others—mostly for an unprecedented 35 years. Nick Smith now pretends to be the champion of those whom that later National Government dispossessed. Very soon a court will be having something to say about the bankability of all those water rights. What this bill will do is allow for the first time ever for competing applications for a limited resource to be considered on their respective merits rather than simply dished out to the first people to apply—probably hot off the first four ships. The applications will be judged on their merits. 
I refer to national costs and benefits and regional costs and benefits. National costs and benefits and regional costs and benefits are not necessarily the same thing. It may well be that they will be in conflict in this case because a study commissioned and published on the national costs and benefits determines that in the upper part of the catchment which is the part where the crunch really comes the water is worth more to the national economy and the national welfare by running through all the turbines down the river than it is going on to the pastures. 
However down at the bottom end of the river the opposite is true. When the water has already run through most of the generators it can be taken for irrigation. Irrigation undoubtedly has high value especially for the region. It also has a very substantial value for the national economy. 
All I can say is that this is a very complex issue. It will pose a very difficult job for the board members appointed pursuant to this legislation. It will demand wisdom not the sort of political opportunism we have been hearing this afternoon from members opposite.