edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:611;Page:8236] 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in each of her Ministers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can she have confidence in a Minister of Immigration and a Minister of Health who have allowed to come into this country and now to clog up the wards in North Shore and Auckland hospitals hundreds of people with Third World diseases including tuberculosis cases where the wards are busting to overflowing—and 70 percent are immigrants—and how can that be a responsible way of defending the health of the New Zealand people? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I understand it there is screening for a disease like tuberculosis. However it is always possible that some people present false fraudulent X-rays. I can say to the member that the Government does not tolerate that at all and if there is any evidence that people have done such they will certainly be prosecuted. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister make that claim when she knows full well that a great number of the Somalis for example never had any test given to them in the first place and were let out early prior to having testing on the basis that they had to be reunited with their own people? Given that there are hundreds of cases and that we now have Third World diseases that we thought we had defeated how is that a responsible way for a Minister of Immigration and a Minister of Health to conduct the affairs of looking after the health of this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Whether the rules are different for refugees I do not know. The member should ask that of the Minister of Immigration. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I’m asking you. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member wants an answer from me to a detailed question he should put it on specific notice. What I can say is that TB in this country unfortunately has not been restricted to those coming in from other countries in the years of poverty arising from the 1991 changes that appeared in our own community. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister make that allegation in respect of 1991 yet have no up-to-date information on the current crisis in North Shore and Auckland or is it like “paintergate”—she makes it up as she goes along? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that TB did appear in our own community in the 1990s when levels of poverty rose. As I said to the member if he wishes to ask questions about whether there are specific rules for refugees he should put them down. I do not have that information in front of me.
Burton Mark: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Burton Mark: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16927] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The ACT party has not been given a call on the title. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I seek leave for the ACT party to take one call and for us then to proceed to the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is not.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5105] 
1.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Commerce Committee 
: How much time does the committee consider it will need to allocate to its inquiry into the electricity industry? 
MARK PECK (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): 
 That is a matter for the committee.
Carter John: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Carter John: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4951] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I move 
 That the Committee report progress. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 32 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17184] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Report adopted.
Motions — Scottish Parliament Building—Opening 
Motions — Scottish Parliament Building—Opening 
[Volume:620;Page:15948] 
Motions 
Scottish Parliament Building—Opening 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That this House extend its congratulations to the people of Scotland as they mark the opening of their new Parliament Building at Holyrood on Saturday 9 October 2004 and offer its best wishes to all of our Scottish parliamentary counterparts for a successful opening and ongoing representation of constituents into the future. 
Motion agreed to.
Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8217] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak in support of this legislation. As the previous speaker has said National supports this legislation and its referral to the Regulations Review Committee. I would have to say that it is not exactly a bowel-gripping topic. It certainly does not have the same emotion associated with it as the previous legislation that the House has been dealing with. It is legislation in a simple form comprising three parts. Part 2 is the critical part that confirms and validates a number of orders and regulations. 
One can legitimately ask whether it is appropriate that the form of words touching confirmation and validation should continue to be used. It is interesting to reflect that the process has been used over quite a considerable time period. The earliest legislation in respect of which validation of orders was sought was the War Pensions Act 1954. The process continues with legislation enacted in 2001. It is also clear that associated with the passage of this legislation will be the repeal of earlier legislation—in this case the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act of the previous year. 
In looking at this legislation I thought that I would refer briefly to two measures that are the subject of validation steps. The first is contained in Statutory Regulation 2003/118 made under the Animal Products Act. That regulation is reasonably significant and deals with a raft of issues such as charges for verification services and the setting of new fees and charges in respect of the export of live animals and germ plasm being animal semen animal embryos or ova or the hatching of eggs of birds. New fees are introduced for the listing of game estates. There are other changes relating to pet food levies and perhaps surprisingly a levy of $5 per head is introduced for the slaughter of ostriches and emus. The second order I seek to refer to briefly is made under the Fisheries Act 1996 and deals with packhorse rock lobster. That particular provision is concerned with removing packhorse rock lobster from a schedule to the Fisheries Act the effect of which is to remove the requirement for commercial fishers to have a minimum holding of three tonnes of annual catch entitlement before they can take packhorse rock lobster. 
I do not doubt that the Regulations Review Committee will perform competently and will faithfully discharge its obligations to the House in considering this particular legislation.
Cunliffe David: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18112] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 It appears the House is on its way to giving the support of all parties to this bill at least as far as its referral to the select committee and I would like to thank members all around the Chamber for that statement of support for this bill. If it is good enough for racing clubs and chartered clubs to be exempt from the venue persons rule under the Gambling Act on the basis of democratic elections then it is under this bill equally desirable for licensing trusts to be exempt. I support the bill.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15930] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to add new subclause (7A) to clause 26 be agreed to.
Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11768] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 As I speak to the title of this bill it does give my heart considerable quivers to hear the Minister say that there may be possible amendments to this bill in the future. I think that is absolutely right. Indeed it does sort of back up the view of my colleague that this bill could be called the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Labour Government This Will Go on Forever and Ever) Bill” and that is a worry. [ 
Interruption 
] No the Labour Government will not; I am talking about the bill. I make that absolutely clear. The Government has got less than 18 months. 
Indeed the thing that was hugely concerning about this bill was the fact that the process was so rushed. I was quite surprised to hear the Minister say that this was costing the Government in New Zealand a fair amount of money every day. That is true. Why on earth did the Government not bring it in considerably earlier so that indeed it could have been deliberated on in an appropriate way? There was a conscientious chairman Brian Donnelly of the Education and Science Committee ready to ensure that the deliberations would be appropriate but oh no the Labour Government had to rush it in after 3 days of the House coming back from the break. 
Perhaps the major reason that the National Party did support this bill was the fact that we certainly perceived and believe that it is business-friendly. So perhaps the name should be the “Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Labour Government’s Attempt at Long Last to Minimise Costs and Cut Down on Bureaucracy) Bill.” Undoubtedly the major thrust is to minimise costs and reduce barriers to innovation which is so hugely important for New Zealand. 
In fact when one considers the previous hazardous substances and new organisms bills that this Labour Government has brought in and the difficulties that the biotechnology research sector is having with them then one considers that it will be unfortunately necessary to review the whole Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that has eventuated particularly from the amendments of the Labour Government. There was an opportunity after some years of the Act being in existence to make it more effective and efficient but so far the Government has not done that apart from this bill which we support. 
So that is why my heart does go down with trepidation when I hear the Minister saying: “More amendments” and I would urge the Minister to keep in mind if she is going to put in amendments to take advice from or consideration of the Biotechnology Taskforce which said we should at least in making those regulations observe international best practice and make them transparent make them predictable and ensure that there is cost-minimisation and that indeed the legislation reduces barriers to innovation.
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12127] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 As the last speaker mentioned this bill emerged from the Education and Science Committee with minimal changes that do not alter the whole discourse too much. United Future notes that both the National and ACT parties have signalled their opposition to this bill saying that it represents “an aggregation and centralisation of function into the education bureaucracy”. To me this is a statement of the obvious when one of the stated goals of the Review of the Centre was as I recall to try to reduce fragmentation of public service agencies when they are essentially performing synonymous functions. 
As we all know the State sector reforms of the 1980s and 1990s led to a multiplication of agencies and the actual State sector shrank as part of a desire to decouple the whole area of funding from providers. I am told that in practice we have ended up with more than 30 ministries and more than 100 Crown entities as a result of all that reform. A very real problem is that we fail to get any coordination when ministry policy shops are split from their satellite provider entities. For that very reason United Future supports the amalgamation provided for in this bill. Early childhood education is too important not to be addressed as part of a coordinated strategy. 
In addition to the Review of the Centre it could be argued that this merger is warranted by the Government’s 10-year plan for early childhood education called  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
. According to a speech the Minister made to the early childhood symposium last July the goals of the plan required a cohesive streamlined approach with all the relevant early childhood education experts in the public sector under the same roof. In the context of the State reform sector United Future does not see much sense in continuing to run two or more agencies that operate in the same field with the possibility that policy work and provision are being duplicated and certainly the costs multiplied. 
Since it was established Early Childhood Development has been challenged through policy changes that introduced contestable service delivery. It has been faced with issues of financial viability and has used a number of third party contracts to support its infrastructure. Hopefully this bill will put it on a firmer financial footing. As I outlined United Future supports the second reading of the bill and its passage to the Committee stage.
Benson-Pope David: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Benson-Pope David: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:614;Page:10562] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I referred to the whole party as a bunch of shysters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member is now very close to being asked to leave. He will withdraw and apologise again. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Jones Dail: Visiting Forces Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Visiting Forces Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14097] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Visiting Forces Bill. This is legislation that brings up to date and amends the law relating to visiting forces to reflect recognised international practice and enables New Zealand to give effect to status of forces agreements concluded with other states. It is a straightforward matter and we do not intend to delay it any further. New Zealand First supports the bill.
Tamihere John: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tamihere John: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17789. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 I commend the bills’ third readings to the House and in so doing I will make three or four quick observations. 
The first is that once again we have legislation that is a litmus test in terms of the difference between this Government and the Opposition. We have provided once again all the deliverables and once again we are unleashing the latent economic potential and prowess of Kiwis—regardless of community regardless of colour and regardless of stakeholdership—and I commend the bills to the House accordingly. 
The second point I want to make is that a couple of members opposite continue to get up and bang on about race. The Hon Nick Smith will always talk about race because he understands colour bars but he does not understand rights. The reality is that this is rights-based legislation. It is bonded right into the heartland of the constitution of this country and it should be adhered to and accepted accordingly. If Dr Smith wants to bang on about race—as usual—and to play divide and rule I say to him that it is a very very dangerous game to be playing. This Government is the only Government that can bring this country together because it actually represents the face of this country. It actually understands tolerates and respects everyone in it. 
The reason why the Maori Party is voting against this legislation I alert members is that 20 percent is not good enough. That party says it has got to be 100 percent and it should have been done yesterday! We should have put Phil Heatley on the endangered species list as well. But Tariana Turia was not able to move those amendments. A vote for the Maori Party as a consequence is a vote for a great past; a vote for the Maori members of the Labour Party is a vote for a great future. 
I commend the bills to the House.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8167] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 7 be agreed to.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 
[Volume:609;Page:6677] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That transfer may well have been finally agreed to by Dr Cullen but if the Minister of Police is not here then the question will be answered by the person about whom Mr Prebble complained in the first place. It is a device at that point in time a trick and a ruse and treating the House like a joke. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is Acting Minister of Police. I can assure the member of that. The Minister of Police is overseas.
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8220] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Peters Jim: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Peters Jim: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12909] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I am wondering where the member for Te Tai Tonga is in the debate on the title of this bill. Where is the Maori voice with regard to that member’s constituents? As I said from the start on behalf of New Zealand First I do not see this as a Treaty of Waitangi bill—that is Waitangi claim 158 which has been partly resolved and will be further resolved yet. Having said that one would expect during the course of the Committee stage that at least the member for Te Tai Tonga who represents the area would have shown a profound interest in and deep understanding of the real concerns of his people over the South Island. I am waiting to hear whether he will stand and speak in this debate. If not him why not the other six members of Parliament who represent Maori interests? In recent days they have said so strongly what they feel and understand about their Maori constituents in this city and elsewhere who are also part of the widespread number of people who have affinity to the South Island Landless Maoris Act. 
Again though with regard to the commencement date of the Forests Amendment Bill which comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent I bring to the Committee the fact that after almost a century of indifference at times and inattention to the ability to realise the benefit of the lands in this day and age there is an opportunity for the Government of the day as in the case of the West Coast to recognise that in its restriction of the individual landowning right of owners to best manage their economic resources there should come a charge upon the Government—namely that of compensation. If I were to retitle this bill I would call it the “Forests Amendment Compensation Bill” because that would more fit what should be the mode of the Government at the present time. I look particularly at the member for West Coast - Tasman who worked so sorely and hard for his constituents on what was formerly the West Coast Accord. I know that he for one would support any attempt by the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson to give better remedy and more relief to the SILNA landowners. 
I confess that I have a mokopuna who will be a beneficiary in days to come of any of this largesse but that is not the reason why I speak. I speak because in actual fact as I said at the beginning of the debate a statute of the House from 1906 needs to be honoured still. The promises made by James Carroll and endorsed by Premier Ward remain unfulfilled. If the Government looked seriously at the remaining land and its value in terms of the forest cover and what it could mean to our future it would find there is only issue: adequate and timely compensation under a “Forests Amendment Compensation Act”. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Sowry Roger: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7635] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise the issue as to why you would wait for the House to decide that. It is clear from the report that was tabled today that the majority of the members of the Privileges Committee believe that a vacancy has occurred. There could be two reasons to wait for the House to discuss that. One would be that the Government may well scrape up the numbers to overturn the Privileges Committee’s determination. If that is the case are you telling us that you would be guided by that vote rather than by the determination of the Privileges Committee? The other reason to wait would be that you—like everybody else here—know the Government will introduce retrospective legislation so that by the time Privileges Committee’s report comes to be discussed it will be redundant. If it is the second reason it starts to look dangerously as though the Speaker is being drawn into the political manoeuvrings of the Cabinet. I think that it is a very bad place for the Speaker and for this Parliament to be. You were not required to refer this case to the Privileges Committee. Having done so and having received its report and made it public it is beyond comprehension that you would wait and risk being seen to be complicit in Government manoeuvrings.
Simich Clem: General Debate 
Simich Clem: General Debate 
[Volume:620;Page:15684] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: After I have said something you may raise another. That was not a point of order. It is a debating issue. What was said or not said about yourself or any other member is purely a debating issue.
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:20988] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; 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 44 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (4).
Tamihere John: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
Tamihere John: Visiting Forces Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12815] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I commend the second reading of the Visiting Forces Bill to the House. In doing so I want to observe a number of points made by the previous speaker. We on this side of the House are absolutely intrigued as to why the failed defence spokesperson—no longer the defence spokesperson for National—led a debate started by the Minister of Defence. We on this side of the House are going to invite “Mr Simon Nuclear Powers” to stand and take a call with regard to— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to raise. 
Simon Power 
: I believe there is a Standing Order about referring to members by their proper titles or names. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is not a Standing Order. It is Speakers’ rulings 26/7 and 26/8. May I suggest that the member have a look at them. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: We will invite the member Simon Power the real defence spokesperson for the National Party—not Dr Wayne Mapp—to take a call. We have just heard a speech from Dr Wayne Mapp and we now know why he is the failed defence spokesperson. But we would like to hear from the real National Party defence spokesperson as to whether visiting forces will be allowed into this country; if so under what category and criteria. 
The failed defence spokesperson failed to tell the House that this Government has not been in business for 6 years although most of the country would desperately desire that. It has actually been 4½ years—leading on to 4½ years—so we have to get the facts right as well. We will invite the real defence spokesperson for the National Party to take the next call to clarify its position and tell us exactly what it would do with regard to this bill. Would the National Party change the bill? Would it do anything to make it better? Let us have a proper conversation and a proper debate. 
Will he acknowledge that the Minister of Defence will be acknowledged as one of the best defence Ministers in recalibrating our defence requirements as a very necessary part of the whole role we must play in our region? Will he note quite clearly that we do not have the fiscal capability to buy the type of equipment he might invite us to buy? I would like to ask him where the National Party might get the money from. 
So we need some clarity. We need some people to get real about exactly what we are doing in the defence area. We would like to know what visiting forces would be allowed here. We would like to know exactly what the National Party’s defence settings are. We would like to know; the country would like to know. We would like to commend the second reading of this bill to the House.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9024] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendments agreed to.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18528] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 A major part of the answer to this question is a piece of legislation that is immediately my responsibility before the House—that is on the proceeds of crime. Also the question traverses areas that cover probably four portfolios but I am the senior Minister in the area.
Brownlee Gerry: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9491] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I realise that this Minister does not spend much time in New Zealand but for the sake of the debate I refer him to clause 66 which makes it very clear that his law—his law—requires wine policemen. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. That is not a point of order. He will have plenty of time to debate that matter. I remind members that while points of order are being heard there will be silence.
Peck Mark: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Peck Mark: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16683] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21880] 
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 45 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Ward Mike: Motions — Olympic Games—Congratulations to New Zealand Team 
Ward Mike: Motions — Olympic Games—Congratulations to New Zealand Team 
[Volume:619;Page:15144] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are delighted to add their congratulations to the team and its supporters. If ever there was an indication that good news goes down at least as well as bad news it was to see most New Zealanders glued to Television One for a couple of weeks. It provided a great deal of inspiration for the rest of us to get off our backsides and exercise. I recall that when I took up running shortly after a former Olympic Games trying to buy running shoes in New Zealand was impossible because many people were getting into it. Other people had inspired them. It was people like John Walker in those days and it was inspirational.
Vote: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Vote: Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19791] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.
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:17123] 
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 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; 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 clause 93 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit from proposed new section 107A(2) of the principal Act the words “ or is likely to have a significant” and substitute the words “have an”.
Barker Rick: Appointments — Electoral Commission—Membership 
Barker Rick: Appointments — Electoral Commission—Membership 
[Volume:624;Page:18995] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 8(4)(b) of the Electoral Act 1993 this House nominate David Francis Caygill of Christchurch to represent the Government and John Kenneth Warcup Isles of Wellington to represent the Opposition parties each to be appointed by Her Excellency the Governor-General as a member of the Electoral Commission for the purposes of its jurisdiction under Part VI of the Broadcasting Act 1989. 
Just to recap the announcement today the Government has agreed with the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendation to increase the amount of money to be allocated to the Broadcasting Commission as recommended unanimously by the parties in this House on the select committee and that is a good decision. The committee is therefore under the existing legislation to determine how that money is to be allocated.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand 
[Volume:618;Page:14295] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I thank the other member of his party who raised this issue for the advice that I received from him. I will give this matter serious consideration and report back as the member has requested.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6871] 
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 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “(Definitions of Goods and Services)” and substitute the words “(Extension of Provisions)”.
Vote: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15074] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill do now proceed. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 3; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 18 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8116] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a way through this. Accepting Dr Cullen’s point that the Minister is unwell and that he is not sure when he will be fit enough to return it may save Opposition parties their questions—given that there are some serious questions for the Minister—if the Labour Party whip could undertake say by 9.30 to alert the other parties’ whips that the Minister of Maori Affairs will be well and in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has nothing to do with me; it has to do with members.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:14459] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 4 August following a parliamentary luncheon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Paraone Pita: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7456] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe. As I mentioned earlier in this debate the New Zealand First caucus has allowed its members to have a free vote on this bill. I have chosen to exercise my own vote in support of this bill the reasons for which I have already declared to this House. 
It would be useful at this point to look at the opinions of those who encounter the effects of tobacco use on a daily basis. I am not talking about those who work in the hospitality industry but those who encounter the effects of tobacco use every day. I am talking about those who work in the medical profession who have come out strongly in favour of this bill. In fact 99.9 percent of those approached in a recent survey amounting to over 1000 doctors supported the concept of smoke-free workplaces including bars and clubs. I suggest that the reason they are in favour of smoke-free legislation is that they know through their experience the realities of the eventual effects of smoking on health. Every day in clinics and hospitals they see and treat people who have respiratory problems cancers heart disease strokes and so on all of which are linked to smoking. 
 Passive smoking is now recognised as a causal factor in the onset of smoke-related illness. It is one thing to be told all these statistics; it is another thing to witness them in reality. Health professionals do so on a daily basis and that is why one would be hard-pressed to find a health worker who is not in favour of limiting the opportunities for smoking and exposure to smoke and of sending out a clear message that smoking is not conducive to good health. 
The medical profession is not the only professional group that has come out in favour of this bill. Scientists are well aware of the harmful quantities of toxins in cigarette smoke. The hard evidence of the presence of such substances which to most of us evoke lethal poisoning in detective stories is a scientific fact. A scientific report on tests carried out on non-smoking bar staff after a normal shift revealed that their bodies had taken in cigarette smoke. So why when most other workers are protected is this group overlooked? Well they will not be for much longer and that is only fair and just. 
Under the Health and Safety in Employment Act employers are obliged to protect their staff and the public from hazards. It has been clearly established that cigarette smoke is a hazard capable of killing people. Therefore we need to act in a manner that is consistent with other legislation whether or not we might agree with such legislation. Evidence from other countries where smoke-free legislation has been introduced shows that smoke bans have not adversely affected the hospitality industry. Having said that I still have a number of concerns about the bill not least of all being the freedom of choice for people to smoke when and where they choose.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3763] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) the expression “5” and substitute the expression “1”.
O'Connor Damien: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4644] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
 It is intended that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. The bill amends 39 Acts administered by 11 different departments and is a yearly vehicle for making technical non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It is important tidying-up legislation that allows for amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. That is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament. This year’s bill includes amendments to legislation governing a wide range of areas such as coroner’s coinage and even courts-martial. 
Two of the more interesting amendments include those to the Ngati Turangitukua Claims Settlement Act and the Tokelau Act. Very briefly the amendments to the Ngati Turangitukua Claims Settlement Act seek to remove the marginal strip from a piece of land gifted back to Ngati Turangitukua as a part of the deed of settlement and replace it with a statutory public pedestrian right of way. The amendment to the Tokelau Act arises as a result of similarly unusual circumstances—the making and issuing of commemorative coins as a significant economic opportunity for Tokelau. But in moving to recognise and implement that as a result of an oversight two coins have been made and issued prior to authorisation being granted. The amendment will have retrospective effect to validate the making and issuing of those coins. 
I conclude by reiterating that although the amendments proposed in this bill may be technical and non-controversial they are also important responses to international and domestic developments. This year’s bill like others before it illustrates the value of the Statutes Amendment Bill as a vehicle to advance those types of amendments. I commend this bill to the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12882] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to members that I am sure whoever might be in the Chair at the recommencement of the Committee after the dinner break will take all those things into consideration and will I am sure be liberal with the interpretation.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:609;Page:6121] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Education and Science Committee to meet outside New Zealand with the committees of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia from 15 to 19 June 2003 and to adopt such practices and procedures as are considered suitable for the conduct of the business of the meeting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
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:17122] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; 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 the amendment to clause 79 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “reserve” the words “holder of a customary rights order or territorial customary rights order iwi hapu “.
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12153] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 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 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:607;Page:4344] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2002-03) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time.
Adams Paul: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20519] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this bill of Matt Robson’s. United Future also is treating this issue as a conscience issue. First of all I will pick up on one of the points made by Phil Goff that a 15-year-old can get a driver’s licence a 16-year-old can have sex and an 18-year-old can vote etc. Those are all very relevant arguments when one is arguing that a young person should be able to drink at the age of 18. There is one difference with drink—it changes our behaviour and the brain begins to alter. So I do not believe that that is a fair argument. 
In respect of the drinking age I personally believe that the maturity to drink does not necessarily come with an age but rather with an ability to behave in an acceptable manner in society. If we were to restrict the ability to drink solely to age I do not know what age I would like to place on it. Many people my age—the mid-fifties—to me do not have the responsibility to be able to drink. I do not have a problem with anybody drinking. But I do have a major problem with people getting drunk—off their face—and causing damage to others and to society. 
I also have a member’s bill in the ballot that is probably a little different from Matt Robson’s bill. I will be supporting his bill to a select committee because I believe that it is time for this issue to be discussed and put forward to the public again. However my bill allows 18-year-olds to continue to drink in licensed establishments because I believe that supervised drinking is helpful in the process of gaining maturity in respect of drinking. 
I feel for a lot of the young ones in this country. I believe that a vast number of young people are at 18 years of age well capable of drinking in a licensed establishment at parties and with their friends. But sadly many have also grown up in home environments where the example from their parents and adults has been very poor and therefore they have never been taught responsibility and how to drink. 
Likewise the driving age was mentioned and the drinking age was associated with the reasons to increase the driver’s licence age. Personally I would not go along with that. I think that 15 is a very good age to get a driver’s licence before one comes under the peer pressure that to a greater extent comes when one is with 17 and 18-year-olds. I was pleased that my children got their driver’s licence virtually on the day they turned 15. At least they had a year or two of driving under their belt before the pressures came on later. United Future has two members who will be voting against this bill and the rest will be voting for it to go to a select committee. 
Debate interrupted.