edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15745] 
5.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What reports has he received on the need to take action on climate change? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports. Both the Opposition leader and the Prime Minister of the UK say that climate change will have catastrophic consequences. Both of them back the science and both realise that tackling climate change is good for business. However another report doubts the science and states that taking action would be bad for business. Who is out of step with prevailing world opinion yet again? The National Party of New Zealand. 
David Parker 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the validity of climate change science and the impacts on business of addressing climate change? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen two reports on that. One states that the problem is enormous and eventually will “stuff life on Earth”. The other states that there is huge uncertainty about this. Whose statements are as erratic as the climate? Why those of Nick Smith and the National Party. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why is the Government’s proposal to levy a carbon charge on fossil fuels in order to incorporate the costs of the climate change they cause dependent on President Putin’s decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol; and does he think that if Putin does not ratify the problem of climate change will go away? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer to the first question is so that the Government can approximate the likely international cost of carbon. The second answer is no I do not think it will go away—I am sure it will not.
Copeland Gordon: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6179] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee now that we are about to proceed to vote that we cease voting at 10 p.m. I seek that leave simply because I think it would be good to do that rather than to have a very late night this evening.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
The question now is that Parts 1 to 3 and the schedules stand part and we have a number of amendments. The first is in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert a new clause 2A which provides that the Act expires 5 years after the day on which it receives the royal assent unless a majority of the House resolves otherwise.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clause 2A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 2 the following new clause: 
2A 
This Act expires 5 years after the day on which it receives the royal assent unless a majority of the House of Representatives resolves otherwise.
Tanczos Nandor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14318] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 While I am obviously sympathetic to the view being put forward by Mr Peters I am looking at Standing Order 141 which states: “The Speaker asks members to answer ‘Aye’ or ‘No’ to the question and states the result of the voice vote. Any member present may then call for a further vote to be held.” However Standing Order 142 states: “Where a further vote is called for a party vote is held unless the subject of the vote is to be treated as a conscience issue.” If I had held my mouth perhaps the point would be correct but unfortunately I actually called for a party vote and it appears to me that under the Standing Orders a party vote is then required to be held.
Hughes Darren: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19616] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call at the end of the debate on the second reading of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. The bill was introduced into Parliament in October 2004 and gives effect to the deed of settlement that was signed in June 2003 as my colleagues the member for Tainui and the member for Waiariki have pointed out to the House. It aims to settle all the historical claims of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty covering the area from Kawerau to Matata. The iwi we are talking about has about 3000 members. The core treaty grievances relate to the Crown’s confiscation of land at a point in our past which covers about 87000 acres in the Bay of Plenty. So it is a reasonably large area of land for the 3000 New Zealanders of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty descent. 
The package includes a formal Crown apology free public right of access for recreational use of the lake and its waters the transfer of four commercial properties and five cultural redress properties and a financial redress of $10.5 million. There are a number of items in the package that I think will be welcomed. It is for those reasons that I support the second reading of this bill. 
Bill read a second time.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:20474] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I presume that if the House does give leave for this the Government—recognising that the circumstances have changed somewhat—might be prepared to give members the time that is taken up with these reports on the Order Paper some other time. 
With all due respect to New Zealand First if we cut this out today then we cut out our own opportunities by a couple of hours for whatever remains of members’ day for the rest of the year. I know that the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill is pretty important to New Zealand First. I have publicly acknowledged on numerous occasions that the bill is in the name of Winston Peters and that we are supporting it. But I wonder whether we might get some explanation of why the bill ended up on the Order Paper today when there are members’ bills below the line that could have come up had we known sooner. It just seems to me a strange quirk of the parliamentary system that at the last minute we cost ourselves some time. I know that members have to give approval but I would suggest in granting this leave the House might consider moving the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill back on to the Order Paper. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution but that is actually a matter for the Government to decide not for the Speaker. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No it is members’ day it is for the House to decide. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson: 
 It is a member’s bill and therefore it is a matter for the member in charge. Would Mr Brown seek leave again please.
Benson-Pope David: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9430] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brash Don: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
Brash Don: Motions — School Hostage Crisis—Beslan Russia 
[Volume:620;Page:15361] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 As we get older we inevitably get somewhat inured to death. Our grandparents die our parents die and sometimes our siblings and children die. That is almost always sad it is sometimes tragic but it is rarely evil. Nothing can prepare us for the unspeakable horror of what happened in Beslan a few days ago. Children sometimes die in accidents. Far too many children die from preventable diseases and isolated acts of domestic violence often committed in a drunken rage or under the influence of some drug. Some children die as the tragic consequence of military operations but they are never targeted as a deliberate act by any but the most evil people. 
The National Party joins others in this House in expressing our total disgust at the atrocity committed by the terrorists in Russia. Their action in deliberately setting out to use innocent children as pawns is totally deplorable. Nothing can justify such behaviour. Tragically it is very clear we have not seen the last of these terrible acts. It is very clear that the world will continue to see such moral outrages continuing a series of terrorist acts stretching back some decades and building to a crescendo in the last few years in New York in Washington in Madrid in Bali and now in Beslan. We in New Zealand must make our total opposition to those who would commit such atrocities absolutely and unambiguously clear.
Sowry Roger: Urgent Debates Declined — Energy Crisis—Management 
Sowry Roger: Urgent Debates Declined — Energy Crisis—Management 
[Volume:608;Page:5106] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have confused me. You are now saying this is not a case of recent occurrence. Certainly the fact that we are entering into a power crisis has been speculated on for some time but the decision to move the savings substantially up to 10 and 15 percent certainly was recent. That was announced just yesterday. I turned the radio on this morning and heard a whole range of people debating the new announcements and debating whether the 15 percent was achievable in the public sector with regard to the health and safety aspects. Indeed in this very building I have had staff express concern to me that the back stairwells emergency exits etc. have had their lights turned off. They have raised that as a health and safety issue. So I would have thought the decision that was made yesterday was certainly a recent occurrence and I cannot see how you can rule that it was not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I shall read the first sentence of Mr English’s letter: “I request an urgent debate under Standing Order 376 on the management of the energy crises facing New Zealand this coming winter.” I would suggest to the member that that is not the appropriate way to word that particular letter. It does not specify a matter of recent occurrence and on that ground I rule it out.
Hughes Darren: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11746] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise in support of the third reading of this bill. It has the technical effect of extending the moratorium as has been debated from the end of March until the end of December this year. The Government has been quite honest and open in acknowledging that it would have preferred to have the issue resolved sooner but what is more important to us is to get this issue right. The Minister has said that and the other Government speakers the Hon John Tamihere and Mahara Okeroa have said that. It is important that we get the legislation right so that it does deliver for ordinary New Zealanders. The only thing I regret is the continued use of race by National Party members. It reflects very poorly on them.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 28 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Simich Clem: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14032] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This debate includes schedules 5 and 6.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17104] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clauses 66A and 66B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit these clauses.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16920] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to the heading before clause 51 be agreed to.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8880] 
7.  
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What steps has the Government taken to improve access to subsidised medicines? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government has increased Pharmac’s budget for community pharmaceuticals to $566.6 million. This represents a 10 percent increase over last year and recognises the growth and demand for medicines particularly for improved access for people in primary health organisations. 
Dave Hereora 
: What other initiatives has Pharmac taken to ensure that getting the medicines that doctors prescribe is easier for patients? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac has reintroduced all-at-once dispensing as from 1 October. For most patients especially those with chronic conditions such as heart disease or diabetes it will be easier for them to get their medicines. Overall all-at-once dispensing will mean that 71 percent of prescriptions will be dispensed in one go and this will be more convenient for many people. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What is the Minister doing to address the rest home dementia and geriatric hospital patient issue knowing that every one of those patients has his or her medications changed frequently and 3-monthly dispensing will cause huge wastage of medications increased costs for the rest homes and their clients and major storage compliance and safety issues? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The changes that were made to the stat dispensing proposal enable individual patients to have medicines dispensed either 3-monthly or monthly. I welcome that member’s support of the changes that were made to the proposal when she wrote to Pharmac and congratulated it. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked specifically about rest homes geriatric hospitals and dementia units. The Minister did not address that issue in any way. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I point out that people who live in rest homes and other institutions mentioned by that member are individuals. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point was made. The Minister addressed the question.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8330] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a statement from Mike Moore former psychiatric social worker and Prime Minister: “We have closed down hospitals now planning to rebuild similar wards inside prisons”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is. 
RON MARK 
: In respect of my question to the Prime Minister I seek leave to table a report in which the Prime Minister Helen Clark promises to take a hard line on accountability—all the way to including the sacking of incompetent and bungling Ministers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? There is.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19109] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Did the Labour Party members just refuse to allow Dr Cullen’s press release to be tabled? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No but it is hugely funny. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It may well be but it is not a point of order.
Jones Dail: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22085] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that Mr Tisch will undertake to place on the Table the way in which National Party members have voted—naming those who have voted for the bill and those who have voted against it. I ask him to confirm that that will be the case.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20524] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The withdrawal and apology are without any qualification at all. [ 
Interruption 
] I just make this comment Mr Hide. We are now getting into debatable matters through the raising of points of order. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Mr Mallard to be seated. We are now getting into debatable matters under the guise of a point of order. The original point that was raised was about the absence of a Minister. I have addressed that point of order in accordance with the Standing Orders. I now invite Mr Brownlee to ask question No. 1.
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Noise in the Chamber Business Committee Discussion: Iraq 
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Noise in the Chamber Business Committee Discussion: Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3685] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Last week at the Business Committee the ACT party raised an issue of importance. I wonder whether the Leader of the House has had a chance to reflect on that and report to us—that is in keeping with all other Parliaments around the world that this Parliament should debate the situation of Iraq. Can the Leader of the House give us a response to that request from the ACT party? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. That matter can be raised at further meetings in the Business Committee.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Release of Report 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates — Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Release of Report 
[Volume:627;Page:21758] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received applications under Standing Order 373 from Dr Brash and from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate the release of a report from the Ministry for the Environment on net greenhouse gas emissions. The release is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and after careful consideration I have determined that it is important enough to justify an urgent debate being held on it today. Dr Brash’s application was received first and in any case Mr Shirley’s application did not provide me with any authenticating material. Therefore I have given priority to the application I have received from Dr Brash and I call on him to move the motion.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12546] 
6.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Has he received any reports regarding changes to New Zealand’s nuclear-free status? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Yes. I have seen an unequivocal statement from the Prime Minister that a Labour-led Government will maintain New Zealand’s nuclear-free status a statement by National leader Don Brash claiming that he had made no personal decision on the issue and another contradictory report that an American congressional delegation in January was told that if National became the Government the ban on nuclear ships would be gone by lunchtime. That statement was made by Dr Brash who now claims he has made no decision on the issue. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What is the reason for New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Government’s position reflects a longstanding commitment shared by a majority of New Zealanders that this country should remain nuclear-free and that decisions on this issue should be made by New Zealanders according to what we think is right rather than by conceding to pressure from some other country. Dr Brash’s statement suggests he has a policy but will not come clean on it because of political expediency. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Minister tell the House why this Government persists with the ban on nuclear propulsion when the Somers report of 1992 stated there was no environmental risk or public safety factor justifying that continued ban and in light of the fact that Auckland Hospital emits to the environment daily twice the radiation that the entire United States naval fleet and its support services do in a year? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Somers report was of course commissioned by National which had promised in 1987 that it would abandon the nuclear policy and had then changed its mind just before the election. It commissioned the Somers report to have an excuse to change its mind back again looked at the public opinion polls and chickened out. Why would I pay any attention to that report?
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9749] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to schedule 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 14.
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4311] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Just in response it is totally understood by the Leader of the House and myself and by the chairperson of the select committee that meetings would not happen during urgency. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a statement by the Minister in the House. Her word must be accepted. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3730] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14719] 
1. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent initiatives has the Government taken to help achieve the shared goal it has with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs that by 2007 all 15 to 19-year-olds will be engaged in education training work or other options? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Today I—and local MPs including the member who asked the question—announced that the areas for the first five of 14 Youth Transitions Services to be established over the next 3 years at a cost of $26.9 million in New Plymouth Porirua Rotorua Waitakere and Whangarei will go ahead. The Youth Transitions Service will assist those school leavers who are at greatest risk of not making a transition from school to work by linking them to work training or further education. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: How will the Youth Transitions Service relate to other employment initiatives the Government has taken? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has been hugely successful in the area of employment with the unemployment rate now down to 4 percent—the second-lowest in the OECD. We need to ensure that young people can move into existing job vacancies. We will do this by linking young people through programmes such as Modern Apprenticeships industry training careers information the new Gateway programme and regional initiatives with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs. I invite members to contrast that with the 1990s when transition pathways were cancelled by the National Party such as cancelling apprenticeships. 
Sue Bradford 
: What steps is the Government taking if any to encourage both local authorities and Government departments to introduce youth recruitment policies and cadet programmes given current skill shortages that we are facing and the fact that some 18000 young people are still out of work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the time-honoured fashion heaps! If I can just point to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment Mr Rick Barker. As the member will know the Associate Minister has launched a programme particularly around Government departments and their recruitment of young people. On top of that can I say that one of the issues we canvassed in for example Northland the other day was exactly how to recruit those young people into the many jobs in the Government and in the private sector that are appearing in the Northland area.
Perry Edwin: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Perry Edwin: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4574] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge my fellow MPs Peter Brown and Ron Mark for their comments. As we all know New Zealand First supports this bill. Before coming into Parliament and obviously when reading about the problems with boy racers I sat back in my house in the Wairarapa and thought: “Why the hang is nobody doing anything about this?”. I would like to thank Clayton Cosgrove for putting this bill together and taking it to the Law and Order Committee to receive submissions. I as a new member also thank Martin Gallagher for the way he conducted the select committee and I thank other members of the committee fellow MPs and advisers. New Zealand First supports the commencement clause—that the Act comes into force on the 28th day after the date on which it will receive the royal assent. 
I would like to move straight to the purpose of the bill which is clause 3 in Part 1. Comments have been made with regard to certain activities described in the purpose clause. I am an ex-supporter or promoter of rally driving and I acknowledge Mr Paul Adams in respect of his ability to drive fast cars under an authorised regime. Listening to some of the comments from some of our fellow MPs and from our fellow MP from ACT I hear that wheel spinning is not seen to be a dangerous activity. But I can reaffirm to all members that wheel spinning with bald tyres once the tread parts from the main part of the tyre can be dangerous and tyre parts can hit people. So I would bring that member back to the point that wheel spinning is dangerous. 
 The use of lubricants was also mentioned as a dangerous activity in respect of the different types used such as petrol diesel brake fluid and dishwashing liquid. A number of lubricants are being used illegally. A number of people are participating in this activity: in Auckland at times over 300 vehicles have been participating in drag racing. 
In regard to unauthorised activity the challenge to most of these drivers is not having an authorised pad but carrying out the activity in an unauthorised area to challenge the police to try to catch them in the particular stunts that they are involved in. In some cases these vehicles with their specialised seating and specialised braking are worth in excess of $30000. The fact that some of these vehicles do not have the proper equipment to allow them to stop after wheel spinning is a real problem. New Zealand First supports the bill and supports the non-authorisation of drag racing.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Tabling of Document—Question No. 8 to Minister; Tuesday 24 August 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Tabling of Document—Question No. 8 to Minister; Tuesday 24 August 
[Volume:619;Page:15013] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This raises an interesting question. Frequently when members seek leave to table a document they make certain claims about its content. They say: “This document shows that X Y and Z …”. If the member then fails to table the document it becomes rather difficult to check whether “X Y and Z” was true; whether in fact the member either intentionally or unintentionally was misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It might become difficult but that is just too bad. As I said it might be a moral obligation but it is not a legal obligation according to the Standing Orders.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3768] 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Can she explain the difference between comments made in the 2001 budget speech by the Minister of Finance that “We need to set ourselves a goal of being back in the top half of the developed world in terms of per capita GDP.” with her own criticisms of speakers at the Knowledge Wave conference that reaching the first half of the OECD per capita GDP rankings is “totally unrealistic”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes easily. The member should quote me correctly. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Prime Minister considers that reaching that goal by the year 2011 is “totally unrealistic” then when does she think we could reach that goal and is it soon enough to make it worthwhile her Government even talking about it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Like the National Party’s spokesperson on finance I do not consider that is a short-term goal. Over time it can be achieved. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have had two examples now of answers that you must rule as unacceptable. How can a Prime Minister say that a member should quote—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. I will have silence during points of order and that applies to everybody. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Prime Minister answer that someone needs to quote her correctly when the Clerk’s Office has verified that the quote is correct in the first place? That is disrespectful to the whole House for a start. Secondly how can the Prime Minister begin an answer to a question that only she can answer by referring to the National Party spokesperson on finance? Quite certainly the country would be better off if he were the Minister of Finance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last comment was not in order. In relation to the first question the Prime Minister was perfectly entitled to address the question like that. It might not have satisfied people but supplementary questions are allowed. As far as the second question is concerned I would like the Prime Minister to come to the point of the question.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5261] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to say to the House that that is an interesting suggestion but the deputy chairman is actually Mr Graham Kelly who we all know is ill. I am not criticising him in any way but I seek leave for any member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—because the question is to the committee—to tell the House the answer to my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us put it this way: I would be reluctant to do that today because no other member of the committee was aware that that question would be asked in that way and therefore probably would not have the information so would be unable to answer. But does the member want leave to be put today?
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:13707] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 22 June because of the parliamentary luncheon for the delegation from Trinidad and Tobago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7231] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to illustrate how frustrated we are on the Opposition side of the House when we ask questions. I asked a question of the Minister for ACC about the effect of workplace stress—an Accident Compensation Corporation opinion. She referred me to the Minister of Labour— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. The member has a slot in the general debate and he can certainly talk about that matter then. It is a debating issue and not a matter for a point of order. 
PETER BROWN 
: I ask you to reflect on our concern— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have reflected often on that matter. All I can say is that question time in this Parliament is a very vigorous and open one and it flows very smoothly. Occasionally we do have too many points of order. However the matter is a debating one and the member can raise it in the general debate.
Fairbrother Russell: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19586] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13164] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (Control of Inmates and Other Matters) Act”.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12993] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 3 is out of order because it is inconsistent with the previous decision.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) of the definition of  
Visiting Justice 
 after the word “prison” the words “and is a Justice of the Peace.”.
Prebble Richard: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18920] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 The Minister and the New Zealand First MP may think it is clever to be able to get up as the New Zealand First MP did and say that they have not told anyone whether the English text is a translation of the Maori text but that is exactly the point. The member may be making what he thinks is a clever point—that there are members in this Parliament who were not on the Maori Affairs Committee. He is right; we were not. However leaving aside the question of whether the text is a Maori translation I point out that the select committee is a servant of this Parliament and it should report accurately to it. 
The question that was asked was a perfectly reasonable one. I say to the Minister that he may think that he answered it but what he actually said to the Committee was that the texts reflect the views of the committee. Well of course they do! They had to be passed but that does not mean to say that the views in the Maori text and the English text are the same. He might think I am splitting hairs but I am a lawyer and I tell him that what he just said to us could actually mean that the two texts are completely different. Now he may not have meant to say that to the Committee but that is an interpretation we could take from his words. 
I say to the New Zealand First MP who I think will now take a call and who criticised me for asking those questions that I am perfectly entitled to ask them. In that sense I do criticise the select committee because I think its commentary is not as clear as it ought to be. 
I would like to know exactly before I vote the answers to the questions that have now been asked by two parties. Are the two texts a translation of each other? If they are it would be interesting to know which way around they occurred: did the select committee first agree on an English text and then do a Maori text; was it the other way around; or do we have two separate texts? 
If we have two separate texts then I understand from the Speaker’s ruling that under our Standing Orders it is possible to have that. Yes we can put in a Maori text that is not translated. We can put into a Maori text statements that are not in the English text. However when we look at the two texts in their paragraphing we see that that situation seems to be unlikely so I think I am entitled to have that assurance. 
We should really have that assurance from the promoter of the bill because a private bill is a special privilege: an organisation is given the privilege of having the law written specially for it and the law does not apply to anyone else. I think a promoter of a bill in that position has an added obligation to the Committee to answer those questions. I would like to know the answers. I make it clear that my party did not intend to vote against this bill but I will not vote for something that I have not had properly explained.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5602] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 This question was put down to the Prime Minister because it was based on a public comment she had made. I seek leave of the House to ask the question of the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Tizard Judith: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4794] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill introduces a new regime for motor vehicle trading and replaces the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act of 1975. Many things have changed since 1975. This bill has been widely welcomed and extremely widely consulted on with motor vehicle dealers and people interested in the trade. This legislation protects and promotes the interests of consumers. It creates a new registration regime for persons involved in the business of motor vehicle trading and allows for the removal of unsuitable participants from the trade. It revamps the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal provides for car information through a revised window card and provides for much stronger enforcement which will be undertaken by the enforcement team at the Ministry of Economic Development. 
The Commerce Committee has scrutinised this bill and recommended a number of changes to improve the workings of the bill. Most notable have been the changes to improve the operation of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal and the strengthening of the banning provisions. I have introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that has made technical changes to the bill including making provision for a levy to pay for the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal in part. Those changes include new clauses 18A and 18B which create a duty on motor vehicle traders who sell a vehicle on behalf of someone to account for the proceeds of the sale. The Supplementary Order Paper also clarifies the regulation-making powers enabling a levy to provide additional funding for the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. The tribunal benefits traders as well as consumers and it is unquestionable that all parties should contribute to its running. I am also very grateful for the full support for that levy that I have had from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute and the Motor Trade Association following the extensive consultation on this matter starting with the discussion paper in 2001. 
I thank all of those who have contributed to this legislation—the people in the organisations who made submissions the members of the select committee and in particular the former chair David Cunliffe who carefully considered the bill and recommended changes to fine tune it. I acknowledge my predecessor Laila Harré who introduced this legislation and all members of the House particularly Paul Adams from United Future New Zealand who has contributed in an extremely positive and energetic way on behalf of the interests of car dealers but I acknowledge him much more for his concern for consumers for whom a car is often a very major purchase. I commend this bill to the House.
Barker Rick: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21381] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I rise to support the Land Transport Amendment Bill and to say that it is excellent legislation whose introduction was also supported by United Future the Greens and of course our coalition partner the Progressive Party. The bill enhances the safety aspects of transport legislation. It improves the law concerning the responsibility of road users. It is tough on serious offences particularly those in relation to alcohol and speed. It enhances the power to take effective action against repeat drunk-drivers. It also offers security to the travelling public in that those people who have convictions for serious violent and sexual offences will be prohibited from being a taxi-driver. This is good legislation and I am pleased to see that it has the almost unanimous support of the House. 
Bill read a third time.
Robertson H V Ross: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4706] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I looked there and I am satisfied that a vote was called for. [ 
Interruption 
] All members in this House are honourable members; their word is unreservedly accepted. If members are not satisfied with that the  
Hansard 
 can always be checked.
Maori Fisheries Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Maori Fisheries Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15405] 
Maori Fisheries Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Maori Fisheries Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13025] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 69 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 69.
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21701] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 27 
New Zealand National 22; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to.