edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Goff Phil: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members please keep the noise level down. It is very difficult for members and the Speaker to hear while there are such interjections. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will take the call even though the National Party is down to take it. Obviously it was not organised enough to take the call. We have been watching over the last— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry if that was the case. As I said it is very difficult to hear when members are guffawing in the House. Do you want the call Mr Brownlee? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I want to make a point of order Madam Speaker. We received the new roster and were told that it does not kick in until next week. Until then we are still on the old roster which means that the Labour Party should start the general debate today. We have obliged by allowing that sort of thing to happen and if you want to declare that the general debate is now a free-for-all whereby the first on his or her feet gets to speak then we are happy to oblige that as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. According to the schedule I have it is National that has the call. I looked to see who rose for the call and I responded to that person. I am happy to give the call to National in accordance with what should have happened but if members do not call—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Brownlee would you please sit down. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Certainly Madam Speaker because you asked me—as opposed to your assistants over there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please leave the Chamber. I am really tired of your constant interjections and references to the Chair. I am sorry Mr Brownlee. I was on my feet. I was attempting to clarify the position for you and you were constantly interjecting while I was doing so. 
Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Today in the general debate the order is that National leads. I apologise that I did not hear the member call but I did see the Hon Phil Goff rise. That is why I called him. But the member is right; we are on the old agenda until tomorrow. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This now leaves us with something of a dilemma when one considers the decision you made last week in this Chamber. You pointed out despite my leader Winston Peters’ objection that you had taken a call—that you had awarded a member the call—and that under the Standing Orders you could not change that call. Mr Peters despite his objections had to sit down and accept it disgruntled as he was. Now you have taken a complete reversal. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled on that.
Choudhary Ashraf: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18116] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill which has been put forward by my very good friend George Hawkins. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12313] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to.
Parker David: Third Readings 
Parker David: Third Readings 
[Volume:607;Page:4320] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak about what is probably the most controversial aspect of this legislation and to support the comments of Gordon Copeland because I think he has it on the nail. This is not racist legislation. It cures an injustice that has been there for a long long time. Until this legislation is passed into law Maori authorities experience double taxation. They and their members are taxed at higher rates than any other sector in society notwithstanding that 90 percent of their members have a marginal tax rate of 19.5 percent. To the extent that any individual is in the top 10 percent and gets a tax advantage it is only one of timing because at the end of the year that person has to pay the balance of his or her tax. I commend this bill to the House.
Carter Chris: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter Chris: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20943] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8469] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I note on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins there is an amendment to clause 2 and you have gone to clause 4. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a longstanding convention that we do the Minister’s amendments at the end. [ 
Interruption 
] 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I thought they were done before. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the Minister has the right to aggregate his amendments. 
The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 130 in the name of Sue Bradford to the definition of  
Community Organisation Grants Scheme  
in clause 4 be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 140 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to insert new paragraph (e) in the definition of  
corporate society  
in clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15639] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 7 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 7 as amended agreed to.
Key John: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Key John: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4364] 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 The sad issue I guess is that when one reads the commencement date one learns the bill comes in the day after the day on which it receives the royal assent. The real question is why this bill is being presented to the Committee with a commencement date sometime I would suggest in April or May. As the submissions to the Primary Production Committee pointed out—all 111 of them—this is crucial legislation for the winemakers of New Zealand and the facts are that they will not have this legislation passed now and that its commencement date will be later than the Government promised them. Winemakers were promised that the bill would be passed before Christmas. The bill was to have been a nice little Christmas present for them and its commencement date was to have been before Christmas. Clearly they will not have that as Christmas has come and gone. Indeed the commencement date will now take place as I have suggested in April or May. 
That saddens me because winemaking is a crucial business and industry for New Zealand. It is an industry with a strong upward trend and an industry that in many respects will have its future in the export markets. We simply do not have enough people in New Zealand who will keep consuming wine compared with the number needed to drink the volume of wine we could manufacture in this country because we do it so well. I think that the Government has been a little tardy in introducing this bill and because of that the commencement date will be later than the date that we on the National side of the House had hoped for.
Catchpole Brent: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11455] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The name of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is a little bit misleading because it is more than just a civil aviation bill—it is more about a mutual cooperation with the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority. This bill has developed over time because of the closeness of the two airline parties. Qantas has been travelling in and out of New Zealand for many years in association with Air New Zealand. For a long time the airlines code-shared aircraft across the Tasman in a mutual situation and cooperated in many other ways on international routes further afield—to the United States and to other destinations. This bill has come about by a mutual desire to cooperate. 
I have spoken to the Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven about the mutual cooperation and about a similar bill that is going through Parliament in Australia. It appears that that bill has been delayed and is a little bit behind our bill. My concern is that we may be getting ahead of ourselves in putting this bill in place. The Minister assures me that it is not the case but I would hate to see this bill get out of step with the Australian bill because we have not seen the final details of that bill. The name of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill is a little bit misleading and perhaps John Key’s suggestion of the “Civil Aviation (Mutual Recognition) Bill” might have been a better title for it. So the title could be the “Mutual Recognition (Civil Aviation) Bill”. 
Then again the bill goes further than that. It deals with a lot more of the safety aspects of travelling on aircraft and therefore perhaps the “Civil Aviation (Mutual Safety and Cooperation with Australia) Bill” might be a closer match. So with the Minister assuring me that this bill is not getting out of step with the Australian one—and I hope he is keeping a very close eye on our Australian partners so that they will not do the dirty on us and pull the wool over our eyes by changing the final aspect of their bill—I summarise by saying that New Zealand First supports the bill in its current form and we hope that it stays in step with Australia and the whole idea of mutual cooperation.
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8035] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 In view of the absence of the Minister of Maori Affairs on urgent public business I seek leave to defer this question till next sitting day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer it. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:617;Page:13144] 
Voting 
Correction 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave at the first available opportunity to ask the House to allow the ACT party to correct its vote last night on the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill from 7 votes to 6 votes. I apologise to the House for the error. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure no one will object to that being done. The vote will be so changed and I thank the member.
Hughes Darren: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9447] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise in support of the second reading of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill which has been returned from the Law and Order Committee. As the Minister said the bill has three main objectives: to allow the use of mouth samples to obtain DNA profiles because technology allows us to do that now; to give the police the power to apply to the court to obtain DNA samples from those who are suspected of having committed burglaries— 
Edwin Perry 
: We know that. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: That is a very good provision in the bill as well and I know that Mr Perry from New Zealand First will want to expand on it. The bill also extends compulsory DNA testing to serious offenders in prison for databank purposes if they were committed for an offence before 1986. This is very good legislation. We should pass it through the House so we can continue the very good grip on law and order that the Labour-led Government is proud to have.
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14291] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debates 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debates 
[Volume:614;Page:10386] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document from Meltzer Mason Heath of June 2003 which is the receiver’s final report of the state of affairs of Roger Jamieson Ltd listing a default payment of $26975.03. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20981] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
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 16 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (6).
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Donna Awatere Huata 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:613;Page:9621] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received the following letter from the Director of the Serious Fraud Office: “Dear Mr Speaker In accordance with the conventions applied to the application of the criminal justice system to members of Parliament I must advise you that I have laid a number of charges under the Crimes Act 1961 against Donna Awatere Huata a list member of Parliament with the ACT party. Ms Huata was arrested this morning and appeared in the District Court at Napier where she was remanded on bail. The court did not make any orders suppressing any of the details of the court appearance. Twelve charges have been brought against Donna Awatere Huata. Eleven of these allege the use of a document to defraud—namely the use of cheques to defraud the Pipi Foundation. The remaining charge alleges that Donna Awatere Huata perverted the course of justice in relation to investigations being undertaken into the affairs of the Pipi Foundation. D J Bradshaw Director.”
Hartley Ann: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9002] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on this matter. 
Dail Jones 
: But you have not ruled on my matter.
Pettis Jill: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3536] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
:  
Nobody doubts the good intentions of the member who has just resumed his seat but I just wonder what Mr Locke is really describing. He worries me. My own personal belief—and God willing it will never happen—is that if this nation of ours was under serious threat I would want the most sophisticated form of technology available to protect our own interests. This bill is about maintaining law enforcement and our national security capabilities in an environment of rapid changes in technology. Now I am no techno-whiz but technology changes almost by the hour and our country needs to be as up with technology as possible. We are doing that in a highly targeted way eroding neither privacy nor basic individual rights and it is totally in tune with the Government’s aims for an innovative society. I am pleased to support this bill because it continues to protect people rather than to destroy any rights they might have at present.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12367] 
1. CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any proposals for an increase in defence spending? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: New funding has been approved to address market relativity in pay for defence personnel. Yesterday my colleague the Hon Mark Burton announced the preferred tenderer for the $500 million project to equip the Navy and civilian agents with the new ships. Those proposals can be met from within prudent budgetary provisions.  
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has the Minister received any further reports on increases in the defence budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I am aware of a statement made by Mr Simon Power that we should match Australia’s defence spending as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). That would be an increase of about $1.5 billion per year which would certainly leave no room for cuts to the corporate or to the top tax rate. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that defence spending as a percentage of GDP is tracking downwards under this Government from 0.9 percent of GDP this year to a projected 0.72 percent of GDP in 2008 compared with 1.99 percent of GDP in Australia? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will have to learn more about how Budget projections are done. There is a large annual contingency element in out-years that is not allocated to specific votes. Therefore we cannot possibly make those kinds of projections for any individual vote. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister recall that in 1988 the then Minister of Defence Mr Tizard promised that the transactions in which the Government was engaged would see contracts go to New Zealand; if so how come the Burton announcement is that the $500 million contract is to go to Tenix an Australian-owned company? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I understand it it is anticipated that some of the work under the contract will be done in New Zealand. As I recollect in terms of the 1988 contract more was done in New Zealand than under the original agreement. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister consider that the existing procedure for funding defence capital purchases is adequate or is he prepared to look at new and innovative ways of funding such purchases such as lease arrangements taking items off balance sheets etc. on the assumption that unless such a change is considered schools and hospitals will beat defence requirements every time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: However one goes about it at the end of the day the Government is going to be paying the money. I am not terribly keen on any form of creative accounting that takes things off balance sheets by and large. One usually wakes up a few years down the track when it comes back and bites one in some form or another.
Beyer Georgina: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19579] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4231] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Craig McNair to clause 24(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Subpart 1—Maori authorities” and substitute the words “Subpart 1—Maori authorities and applicants”.
Hunt Jonathan: Business Statement 
Hunt Jonathan: Business Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11365] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not allow that to be answered. This is the time for a business statement. Conventionally over the last 20 years a member of the Opposition can ask a question but to ask about that order of the day would be inviting any member to ask about any order of the day. There is a way to do that by correspondence.
Tanczos Nandor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22220] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Instead of nine votes it should be eight? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is not.
Hide Rodney: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — Consideration of Report of Law and Order Committee 
Hide Rodney: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — Consideration of Report of Law and Order Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6246] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Was it not great hearing from Keith Locke who spent his entire adult life supporting and giving comfort to the KGB Soviet expansionism— 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Besides being totally false and not a debating point it does not help to maintain good order in this House to say that a member has spent his or her entire adult life supporting the KGB. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I’m sorry the time has come to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.
Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9392] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I suggest that we recall the Speaker and have him reassess the situation. We have been denied a second reading of this bill. I have not spoken on the second reading. Tony Ryall was given the call on the second reading and he did not have a chance to even deliver his speech. The only person to speak on the second reading was the Minister and the rest of the House has not had an opportunity. If we need to have the Speaker recalled then I will move in that way.
Gallagher Martin: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14038] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Vote: Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13909] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Final Settlement of Claims) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to.
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:21577] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 43 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (b) of subclause (2) after the expression “$300000” the words “or 10% of the value of the asset whichever is greater”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (a) of subclause (2) after the expression “$300000” the words “or 10% of the value of the asset whichever is greater”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (b) of subclause (2) after the expression “$300000” the words “or 10% of the value of the asset whichever is greater”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 45 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (a) of subclause (2) after the expression “$300000” the words “or 10% of the value of the asset whichever is greater”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 45 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (b) of subclause (2) after the expression “$300000” the words “or 10% of the value of the asset whichever is greater”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 47 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) after the expression “$300000” the words “or 10% of the value of the asset whichever is greater”. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19567] 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Police; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Did the Prime Minister have discussions with Mr Hawkins over the past few days on his future role or did she fear that she was not good with emotion and might go to pieces and not turn up? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No and no. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of any difficulties or tensions between police headquarters and the Minister of Police? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why considering that Mr Hawkins was kept in the police portfolio reportedly because Mr Tamihere among others threatened to resign does she now regret not sacking Mr Hawkins last year and killing two birds with one stone? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The assumption in the member’s question is quite incorrect. I had no intention of sacking Mr Hawkins. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister of Police who was asked a simple written question: “What is the authorised staffing level at the Auckland Communications Centre and what is the actual staffing level at today’s date?” and who replied to such a simple question: “I have been advised that Police set target levels for the National Communications Service Centre not for individual Communications Centres.”?; and does that sound like a believable answer from a competent Minister or the load of codswallop that everybody else thinks it is? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Ministers rely on staff liaising with the principal department to provide information for answers and I imagine that that was the best that was received.
Tizard Judith: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Tizard Judith: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10309] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Alexander Marc: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21686] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I could not hear very well and I was wondering whether the member who has just resumed her seat said “a $1 billion Kyoto stuff-up” somewhere in there. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
Bill read a second time.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19114] 
6.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Has he received any reports on the effect of Government moves to reduce the amount of money spent on classification 5.1 community education courses; if so what do they say? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I have seen statements issued throughout the regions yesterday objecting to the Government’s decision to cut category 5.1 funding this year. Those statements were issued by the same person who spent much of last year advocating for 5.1 funding to be cut. Not only do those statements reflect yet another flip-flop by the National Party they contain figures that are just plain wrong. Bill English should front up tell the truth get his facts right and his story straight. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other steps is he taking to ensure greater value for money in tertiary education spending? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government and the Tertiary Education Commission will not contemplate paying for courses over the 5.1 limit as has been advocated by Bill English for his local polytech. He has to get it straight. Either they should be cut or they should not be. When rules are put in place they should be enforced. [ 
Interruption 
] The old woodwork teacher is at it again. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that under his watch as Minister of Education funding for sub-degree and community education courses went through the roof and that polytechnics were forced to enrol students in those courses to cross-subsidise underfunded trade courses? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I cannot confirm that because the vast majority of polytechnics acted responsibly. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Will the provision of trades training be impacted on by the Government’s push to get better value for money out of tertiary education provision? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it will not. In fact there is likely to be significantly more funding for trades training as a result of that value for money approach. There could well be a job for Gerry Brownlee after the election—teaching.
Connell Brian: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17901] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Good morning! It is nice to be back here in the Chamber digging in for another 3 or 4 days of hard yacker until Monday at least—and that is exactly what the conservatives intend to do. Last night when I was taking a call I talked about clause 157 “Crown entity to be good employer”. I looked at subclause (2)(g) which provides for “recognition of the employment requirements of women;” and I had to think of Judy Bailey. Now there is a Crown entity that is an outstanding employer for women—Television New Zealand.
Beyer Georgina: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Beyer Georgina: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3885] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Sutton Jim: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Sutton Jim: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9498] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat was quite right. The reason for having wine officers and the reason they are given powers of entry is so that we can demonstrate to the world that we have a rigorous law governing the quality and standards of wine and that we have the means to enforce it. That is it; it is very simple. The National Party members should have been able to grasp that over the many months that the Primary Production Committee was working on the bill. I would have thought they would get it by now. 
There was also a lot of discussion while the National and New Zealand First members squabbled over who was most put out when the tax was increased on sherry and port. I know they will take this personally but I do have to ask myself whether this is the same National Party and the same New Zealand First Party that were in cahoots when they promised that the wine excise would be removed and the only tax on alcoholic liquors would be GST. Yes they are is the selfsame parties. That just goes to show that when members are so assiduous in their researching of a topic they damage their grey cells and cannot remember things. 
I want to say to members that we know this debate will not go for much longer because the National members want to get away and have their secret caucus meeting before they go home for the weekend. We are all dying to learn what the outcome will be and who will be—oh I should not say those words although this is a wide-ranging debate as one of the members who spoke has pointed out. This is a wide-ranging debate so I dare say it is entirely relevant that we consider who may be the next “back-down Bill”—or the next leader of the National Party. Some of the National members who may be hiding behind their benches are plotting. They must be somewhere doing something. They may be hiding behind their benches planning their secret caucus meeting and who their next leader will be. It is obvious that their attention has not been fully engaged by this bill so there must be something else on their minds.
Robertson H V Ross: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5571] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendment is to clause 3 and is in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is an amendment to insert a new subclause (17) dealing with the definition of “environment”. As many as who are of that opinion will say “Aye” of the contrary will say “No”. The Ayes have it? A party vote called for? The Clerk will conduct a party vote. A party vote is called for? It is agreed? No? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I said “No”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Did you say “No”? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Yes I did. Quite clearly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Noes have it. Party vote called for? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I said “No” and I was quite clear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister has called “No”.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16774] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Please could I register a vote? I did not hear the call to vote because I was speaking to the Minister about the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. Please exercise your vote.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:607;Page:4189] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Maori Affairs Committee must finally report the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Amendment Bill to be extended to 30 April 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21213] 
Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a first time.
Carter John: General Debates 
Carter John: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11931] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a fresh point of order arising not in relation to the matter we have just discussed but from the circumstances we have just dealt with. With regard to Margaret Wilson’s statement you ruled that it was not a point of order. Having ruled that you then evicted Gerry Brownlee on the basis that he interjected during a point of order when it was not a point of order. We now have a very serious situation that—
Carter John: General Debates 
Carter John: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11931] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Yes you have. I now seek a point of clarification. How do we get through the issue then of members raising points of order that are not points of order? We get ourselves into all sorts of difficulties. Indeed I think it is a matter we may well have to deal with at the Standing Orders Committee. We are starting to see a practice of members raising points of order that have no substance and in this particular case you ruled that the point of order had no substance and was a debating point. The Minister has been here in the House long enough to know that it was a debating point and should not have been raised. The consequence of doing that is that it tends to incite people to make comments even though you quite correctly ruled—and it has been ruled on many times—that members should not interject during points of order. Nevertheless raising such points of order tends to incite people to make comments because they know themselves that the matters being raised are not points of order. We have a difficulty. I accept that you will rule in one way but I believe that it may be a matter you may want to consider and refer to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind the member again that I ruled that the Attorney-General did not raise a valid point of order. However Mr Brownlee interrupted her while she was raising it. That is the point and he had been previously warned.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Urgent Debate 19 October—Allegations by Acting Prime Minister 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Urgent Debate 19 October—Allegations by Acting Prime Minister 
[Volume:621;Page:16302] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker if you look at Standing Order 160 which concerns something we recently allowed to happen in this Parliament and if you have regard to the previous speaker’s comments you will see that there is no requirement for a member of Parliament to accept a response to the House in the way that that member says. I will give my reason for saying that and the reason why it is wise not to accept it. You will recall that Fay Richwhite had a long explanation submitted to this Parliament—with the support of many of my colleagues I might add—and it was not worth the paper it was written on as was proven by the wine-box inquiry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that in this House there is the right of free speech during proceedings. It is one of the things that I as a newly elected Speaker go to the Governor-General to ask for. Members have that right. A member’s word must be accepted but not a response from outside the House.
Hughes Darren: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12239] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave that the Committee stage of this bill be taken as one wide-ranging debate and that clauses 1 2 and 3 be put as separate votes at the end of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Jones Dail: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7118] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I think it should be recorded at this stage of the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill that as indicated by the New Zealand First agriculture spokesman Doug Woolerton we have put together some amendments. Bearing in mind that they are of a legal nature and will be put at the end of the debate on the various parts we are looking at putting the amendments to Part 2 individually but the amendments to Part 3—amendments 5 to 16—together. New Zealand First is looking at the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We can do those amendments when we come to Part 2 if the member wants. 
DAIL JONES 
: I just want to speak very briefly on the title which talks about wool industry restructuring. New Zealand First is concerned about the extent of everything that has taken place as was indicated by Doug Woolerton. We are quite happy to take the full role of an Opposition in this matter. The Greens appear to be supporting the amendments we are putting forward so that there can be better protection and wider consideration of this matter on the part of all the farmers of New Zealand who possibly do not fully understand what is being undertaken in the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill as it is called. It is not just a case of restructuring; someone said it is euthanasia. The bill puts the existing Wool Board to death and puts something else in its place; one might say it is a renewal as well. New Zealand First will put various amendments on Part 2 and Part 3. 
Clause 1 agreed to and Part 1 agreed to.
Tamihere John: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tamihere John: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6957] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: I have three quick points in response to members’ queries. Firstly I acknowledge and commend members for supporting the bill to the extent that it aligns our legislation with our international conventions. Secondly the export controls can relate only to the international obligations as defined in the bill. The simple answer to the question raised by the Hon Nick Smith and colleagues is no. The final point I make is that there is a very strong protection mechanism notwithstanding and that is with regard to the Order in Council process.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16008] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I apologise for the delay in raising this matter. There seems to be a bit of confusion by the Minister of Finance about his own statement. I seek leave to table the Minister’s own statement to Dow Jones where he quite clearly says that the Reserve Bank has indicated the near-certainty of one more move in interest rates then one or two after that. I assume he agrees with me that one plus two equals three. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that statement. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The statement has already been tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The statement has already been tabled but the member has asked for leave and I have put it. Is there any objection? There is.
Benson-Pope David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6500] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Prime Minister’s Motorcade—Police Charges 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Prime Minister’s Motorcade—Police Charges 
[Volume:621;Page:16894] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 an alleged speeding motorcade carrying the Prime Minister in light of the decision by the police to bring charges in connection with it. This is not a very precise identification of the matter to be debated under Standing Order 373 which must be a particular matter of recent occurrence. In so far as the matter of the motorcade itself it is not a matter of recent occurrence because that took place in July. In so far as the matter is the decision to bring charges that matter is now sub judice so cannot form the basis for a debate under Standing Order 373—see Speakers’ ruling 151/1. Thus however the matter is formulated it cannot give grounds for a debate under Standing Order 373. The application is declined.
Hereora Dave: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hereora Dave: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16690] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7347] 
3.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What assistance has the Government put in place to help tertiary education organisations to achieve the aims of the tertiary education strategy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I am announcing today the criteria and timetable for a $78 million package of funding to support innovation and e-learning in tertiary education. There are three elements to this. The first is $40 million over 4 years for a contestable innovation and development fund; $28 million over 4 years for an e-learning collaborative development fund; and $9.8 million to support an e-learning portal and a tertiary education portal phase 1 of which is now live. Applications for the first $34 million of these funds open on Monday. 
Helen Duncan 
: In what ways will these new funds support the aims of the tertiary education strategy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: These funds ensure that tertiary education organisations will be able to undertake a range of new activities such as a consortia of institutions setting up a shared e-learning infrastructure out of the ordinary costs associated with new course development to meet regional skill needs and start-up support for an industry training organisation new skills forecasting and industry leadership role. This complements the lift in funding that this Government has ensured over the past four Budgets including a 10 percent increase in funding rates and $80 million extra for the performance-based research fund. 
Simon Power 
: What action has the Government taken within the tertiary education strategy to assist students attending tertiary education organisations when the promised review of student support has no release date and the level of student debt has just passed $6 billion? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It does not take a rocket scientist to know that new students come out of school each year; they borrow and therefore their loan debt goes up. 
 Can I just list in response to the question a large number of things this Government has done—namely interest off loans; freezing of fees; freezing of interest; investment in Student Job Search which resulted in the highest number of jobs available to students ever; stand-down period removed for people who are with children during the period between study and so on. That position contrasts with the fact that I have not heard one single policy from that person who represents the National Party.