edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Collins Judith: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9899] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I thank my colleague for that enthusiastic speech. Part 3 concerns me the most. Apart from the fact that a convicted criminal can now be the Children’s Commissioner there is also a provision that says the commissioner will in fact be able to become a toothless tiger because the Minister will be able to review all the operations and performance of the commissioner at any time. One might wonder whether there should be some sort of accountability. Well is the Minister not the one who is accountable? The commissioner is someone who is appointed for up to 5 years and is able to be reappointed. Personally I think a position of this magnitude should only be for a 5-year term because a commissioner is hearing all the time about problems and difficulties. It is the sort of role in which if continued on for a maximum of 10 years a person is likely to lose his or her objectivity. It is a role in which the person is hearing only of the negative and that is a very tough job. 
I am concerned that the Minister has not yet chosen to take a call in relation to this part. I am concerned that the independence of the role of commissioner is being prejudiced by the Minister in this Supplementary Order Paper—which has been tabled at the last moment. It has not gone through the select committee process and we do not know what the current commissioner Ms Cindy Kiro thinks of this. We do not know in Parliament what her views are about having her role reviewed by the Minister when she has already—and I think it is great—come out as a forthright defender of the rights of children. 
I will slightly digress and mention that I know Ms Kiro. We were both on the Casino Control Authority before I came into Parliament—I as the chairperson and she as a Government appointee. She is pretty left of centre but a very decent person in my view and someone who I believe will do a good job for children. She is the mother of two boys and it is good to see someone with some practical knowledge of children being able to comment on children. I think personally it should be a requirement in the House that only people with practical knowledge should give advice on parenthood. In this particular respect however the fact that Ms Kiro is not going to be trusted by the Minister to be able to be a forthright advocate for children is concerning because the main thrust of her comments will of course be about the Minister and his department. That is something that is very concerning to the National Party. We are not supporting this particular provision. We believe that the children of this country need a commissioner who is utterly independent and who is able to be as forthright as possible. Otherwise what is the point? We might as well save the money and not even bother to have one if we are going to have one who is tied unable to advocate strongly and without any concern for her position on the rights of children.
Hereora Dave: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7333] 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Copeland Gordon: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Copeland Gordon: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7677] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not ask you to rule here and now on this matter but I would like you to consider it and come back to the House with a ruling. I refer to the decision that has been made to alter the speaking order in the House today. My point is that it is quite clear that at yesterday’s Business Committee the designated representative of the ACT party entered into an agreement—and I stress it was an agreement—with all the other parties in this House. If it is acceptable for the leader of that party to come here today and set that agreement aside then it seems to me it is an inevitable conclusion that that will affect the orderly conduct of this House. I would like you to reflect on that and give us a ruling in due course.
Hobbs Marian: Energy Safety Review Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Energy Safety Review Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21806] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am stunned by the last speech. There was such self-assurance and so little to be self-assured about. There was such incredible confidence and very little self-awareness. That was the member for Whangarei Phil Heatley— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The temporary one. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: He is a very temporary one because I understand that a young man called Paul Chalmers is doing extraordinary work up there as this member demonstrates why he should not be in Parliament. 
The interesting thing about that speech was that for a period of time there the National Party’s spokesperson demonstrated one of the absolutely fundamental errors of the National Party at this moment on these sorts of issues. If I heard rightly Phil Heatley argued that this bill was so badly prepared that members of the select committee will have to spend hours and hours doing the detail. Aside from that being absolute bunkum I say to him that if he wants a really well-prepared bill—as I know this one to be—then what is required is an intelligent dedicated and well-resourced public service. These are the same public servants whom the National Party wants to cut. These are the same public servants who are out there ensuring our safety by developing regulations and standards whom that party wants to cut. This is the same public service that has put up a bill that does not need to be absolutely taken apart by the select committee because it has been well delivered with well-versed well-thought-through arguments provided by the public service. 
This is a bill about safety. It is a bill to protect workers. It is a bill to protect the public. It enables the public to recognise a licensed worker easily by establishing publicly available registers. Is not that about accountability to the community? The bill provides for coordinated fair and transparent processes for handling complaints. Is not that about transparency fairness and safety for the community? The bill requires every owner of an electricity or gas supply system to implement and maintain a safety management system. 
 That is why I support the first reading of the Energy Safety Review Bill and I deal with it with seriousness not with flippancy and jokes about the Minister who put it forward. This is serious legislation about public safety. It is legislation that has been prepared with integrity hard work and stamina by public servants—the public servants that National wants to cut.
Robertson H V Ross: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16052] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in the name of Paul Adams to clause 8 be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4751] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Urgent Debates Declined — Prime Minister’s Motorcade—Police Charges 
Urgent Debates Declined — Prime Minister’s Motorcade—Police Charges 
[Volume:621;Page:16894] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Prime Minister’s Motorcade—Police Charges 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 an alleged speeding motorcade carrying the Prime Minister in light of the decision by the police to bring charges in connection with it. This is not a very precise identification of the matter to be debated under Standing Order 373 which must be a particular matter of recent occurrence. In so far as the matter of the motorcade itself it is not a matter of recent occurrence because that took place in July. In so far as the matter is the decision to bring charges that matter is now sub judice so cannot form the basis for a debate under Standing Order 373—see Speakers’ ruling 151/1. Thus however the matter is formulated it cannot give grounds for a debate under Standing Order 373. The application is declined.
Adams Paul: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14290] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this first reading and I stand in amazement as here we have the two extreme parties in this Parliament—the ACT party on the extreme right and the Green Party on the extreme left—in agreement over a ridiculous issue. It is unbelievable. Here we have somebody talking about an amendment that my good colleague Larry Baldock is intending to put in this legislation to deal with noise from motor vehicles. Now that is 100 percent sensible because just picking up on a point that Peter Brown made we do have to have laws in this nation—first because otherwise we would not have a job and that would be a very serious problem to us all! But the other side of that is that the people who interpret the laws must have a brain and that is often where we have a problem. 
Coming back to the noise issue let us take for example the boy-racer legislation where we stated that a car can only have an exhaust system that is no noisier than the standard exhaust of a normal motorcar. There is a major problem here because we have an after-market exhaust industry and as many of the V8 lovers in this House would know there are people who would just like to fit that little after-market muffler that gives a beautiful sports roar. All of a sudden the legalistic side of the Land Transport Safety Authority comes down hard and all of these people who have sports exhaust systems fitted to their cars are breaking the law. 
In my personal opinion that is not necessarily because there was anything wrong with the law but the people interpreting the law do not have a brain. So there is a need to have a look at exhausts in cars. My colleagues who have spoken against this measure may not have had the experience of living in a small suburban Auckland neighbourhood where young people will often wind up their stereos late at night and they cannot be dealt with. 
I come back to the Green Party and its attack on United Future. I can assure members as Peter Brown has stated that if they put out a press release that people are to gather in a park to smoke cannabis and then drive home then they should get a life. Most New Zealanders would find that totally unacceptable and United Future finds that totally unacceptable. To me it is almost criminal to put out reports like that. What sort of message is the Green Party trying to give to the young people—or to the older people as we can see—of this nation? It is not a message that United Future wants to put out. The Greens will have problems with United Future as long as they continue to promote that sort of ridiculous legislation because we are a party of common sense. 
United Future supports this legislation and we look forward to discussing it as it goes through the select committee. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6322] 
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 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to add to clause 2 after the word “public” the words “consistent with clause 1 of this schedule”.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3981] 
4.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent reports has he received on New Zealand’s performance on international literacy standards? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I received a report last year on the Programme for International Student Assessment “PISA” which shows that New Zealand’s 15-year-olds are on average among the top OECD achievers in literacy. However while New Zealand is third in the world in literacy we do have unacceptable disparities. I have also received a suggestion that the careful coherent policy approach that has been put in place—and is making in-roads into disparities—should be replaced by bulk funding and “cherry picking”—the failed policies of the 1990s. That came from the “new fresh” approach of Don Brash in his recent leadership bid. 
Jill Pettis 
: What initiatives have been put in place to raise literacy levels for all students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We do have a comprehensive strategy in place for all students and I want to thank Wyatt Creech for getting some of the policy work done. It includes the Early Childhood Primary Link Via Literacy Project a Labour one; the Pasifika English language literacy initiatives; and new and expanded literacy assessment tools. The answer lies in this coherent approach not in the Roger Kerr circa 1993 approach to bulk funding apparently plagiarised by Don Brash. That policy failed. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is the Minister at all concerned that in the international adult literacy survey—the only substantial international survey done to date on adult literacy—over 40 percent of New Zealanders were below the minimum level required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge society; if so why is he just receiving all these reports and doing nothing about it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I am very concerned. That is why the Government has taken the following measures: first literacy leadership for principals so that schools can get proper programmes throughout the schools; whole school or syndicate professional development; assessment tools for teachers to use; an enormous amount of materials to support teaching practice; a lot of materials for learners; materials for home-school partnerships; and even adult education courses which I can recommend to some members. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Given the Government’s agreement in its response to the Education and Science Committee’s report on the teaching of reading that policy work on the specific problem of transience which is associated with that tale would be put into the 2002 policy programme what progress has been made on that policy work? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In some areas some progress has been made but not enough yet.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:614;Page:10569] 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report on the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003 to be extended to 13 February 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the date by which the Commerce Committee must finally report the Shop Trading Hours (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill to be extended to 27 February 2004 and for the date by which the Education and Science Committee must finally report the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill to be extended to 27 February 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Cullen Michael: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7894] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We have made excellent progress so I seek leave Madam Chairperson that you report progress. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none. 
Progress reported.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20578] 
5.  
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes is the Government proposing so that access to legal representation and therefore to justice is not restricted to those with the ability to pay? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) overhauls the financial thresholds and tests for legal aid for the first time in 36 years. That will allow access by a much wider cross section of New Zealanders to legal aid if required. It will also be fairer to lower-income working families who are currently disadvantaged in relation to those dependent on benefits. They are important changes so that access to justice is not restricted to those simply with the ability to pay. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What other changes are being made to ensure that the best use of public funding is being made in the interests of justice? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: A range of improvements are being made. They include regard being had in Family Court cases to any previous proceedings identifying whether the applicant has been excessively litigious. Existing provisions are amended to ensure that costs may be awarded against legal aid recipients for deceitful or misleading behaviour or misconduct. Criminal legal aid recipients will be treated in the same way as civil legal aid recipients for repayment purposes and an extension of repayment requirements will ensure that aid recipients are more mindful of the cost of proceeding. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table an article from today’s Christchurch  
Press 
 in which the questioner Lianne Dalziel set out to defend those people who have been defrauding the taxpayers of this country. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled.
Fairbrother Russell: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7027] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: I rise in support of the bill. There are about 15000 units in New Zealand housing 26000 people. These numbers are increasing by 5 percent a year so we have over 350 retirement villages. Over 5 percent of our people aged over 65 years live in retirement villages. This bill skilfully because of the select committee that worked on it balances the difficulties of the elderly with the avariciousness often of the capital interests in retirement villages. This bill reflects the good work of the Office for Senior Citizens whose staff worked tirelessly to come back with the correct answers to a very trying committee that demanded the best from them and in fact has got the best which is now reflected in this bill. In supporting this bill I congratulate the officials.
Visitors — Kenya—Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly of Kenya 
Visitors — Kenya—Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly of Kenya 
[Volume:625;Page:20655] 
Wednesday 18 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Kenya—Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly of Kenya 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly of Kenya led by the Hon Joseph KipchumbaLagat are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6478] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 As this question is pertinent to the Minister himself and as he is not here I seek leave for the question to be held over to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to hold the question over. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Stewart Barbara: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Stewart Barbara: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13516] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the title of this bill. The title is appropriate. It is short and concise and it lets people know exactly what the bill is about. This bill will work for families. The worthy goals outlined at the very start of this bill should help families in New Zealand. 
This bill is about future direction. We want people to work and to be able to go back into the workforce. The childcare subsidies that we read about in the bill are absolutely critical to ensure that work is made more attractive for people. 
New Zealand First is tired of reading negative reports about families and their children in New Zealand and how they miss out. This legislation actually helps to ensure that those children do not miss out. We see children missing out on the basics and that is not what a First World country should allow. We do not want to be a Third World country at all. This bill really is one for families and New Zealand First will be supporting it. 
I am amazed that we continually hear about the  
Holmes 
 poll last night. I know for a fact that most low and middle income people in New Zealand do not spend their money on ringing the  
Holmes 
 poll; they save their money for something for their children. It is not low and middle income people who ring the  
Holmes  
show. Those people at the top end who can afford it ring in; low and middle income people spend their money elsewhere. 
This legislation is good news for New Zealand families. We have looked at it overnight and we still support it so New Zealand First supports this part as well.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18793] 
4.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his description of the student loan scheme as “very generous”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 In the context of fees that are approximately two-thirds of those in Australia an expansion of allowances so that even more students are eligible no interest on student loans while studying and at least half of all repayments going towards the principal of a student loan yes. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister therefore confirm that since 2000 the amount of student loan interest collected by the Government has quadrupled from $43 million to $161 million and that it will increase almost tenfold to $395 million by 2007; and does that not really mean that the student loan scheme is very generous to the Government rather than to students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to make it quite clear that the Government loses money on the loan scheme. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What are the benefits of the student loan scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Access to education for students who could not otherwise get there. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Could the Minister further confirm that if the student loan scheme interest rate for the coming year was set to cover the rate of inflation and the administration costs of the scheme including costs arising from deaths and bankruptcies the rate would actually be 3.7 percent per annum rather than 7 percent as it is at present; if so why is the rate as high as that when the Government’s tills certainly seems to be ringing with interest payments? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because it is designed to at least approach the cost of the borrowing on the Government’s part. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister then explain to the House how the Government sets the rate at that level to cover the cost of the Government financing the scheme when the Government has actually borrowed in only 1 year out of the last 10? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member who is reasonably financially literate knows that there is a cost of capital involved. The Government has to keep its borrowings higher in order to on-lend to the students.
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4901] 
7.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Why is the Building Industry Authority to be disestablished when the spokesman of the Construction Industry Council and Contractors Federation has said that there has been “virtually no consultation” on an issue of such importance to the industry? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Although there has not been specific consultation with the Construction Industry Council shifting the functions of the Building Industry Authority from a Crown entity to a Government department was foreshadowed to the building industry task force of which the Construction Industry Council spokesperson is a member. A departmental structure as opposed to a Crown entity will strengthen the accountability of the regulator to the Minister to Parliament and to the people of New Zealand. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: In the light of the comments made by lawyer Paul Grimshaw who said: “The Government’s move shows that the Building Industry Authority wasn’t doing its job.’’ does the Minister consider that the Government’s actions today may be an admission of liability to the 800 claimants who have included the Building Industry Authority as one of the defendants in their claims to the weathertightness tribunal? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What matters were taken into account in deciding to transfer the functions of the Building Industry Authority? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was decided that the functions of the Building Industry Authority would be more appropriately undertaken by a Government department because of public expectations of direct political oversight; the need for regular and ongoing contact with the responsible Minister; the exercise of significant regulatory powers; appropriate parliamentary accountability; and the need for flexibility in policy and objectives. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Is the dismantling of the Building Industry Authority yet another example of the Minister wishing to blame others for her failings and for those of her colleagues; if not why has the Minister ignored the recommendations of the select committee inquiry into leaky buildings—or should I take it that the Minister has not read that report? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. The Minister can answer two of them. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The answer to the first two questions is no. The conclusions of the select committee report are yet to be reported back on as part of the review of the Building Act. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister agree that the Building Industry Authority’s credibility was irreparably damaged as a result of the weathertightness debacle and is that not a large part of the reason for its restructuring? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I do not accept that. However I believe that the weathertightness issue has led to the general public calling for accountability that simply does not exist between a Minister and a Crown entity.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19200] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Life Insurance Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time.
Yates Dianne: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7620] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Observations — 11 September 2001 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Observations — 11 September 2001 
[Volume:611;Page:8603] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite members to rise and observe a moment’s silence before business commences in memory of the events of 11 September 2001. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15201] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will take a short call to address the title of the bill. Given the amount of discussion around the subject of kahawai perhaps the title should be changed to “Kahawai Fisheries Bill” because kahawai has certainly become a focal point of our debate this evening. Some members suggested that kahawai was not covered in this bill at all. It certainly is now and that fact will be remembered for a long time. Another appropriate title could be “End Of Recreational Fishing Interests In Kahawai Bill”. Given the defeat of my Supplementary Order Paper which was a last-ditch attempt to roll back the total allowable commercial catch levels set by the Minister I know that recreational fishing people all over this country will be very very upset and disturbed. We will see court action against the Minister and the ministry to try to overturn those decisions. 
 The Hon Ken Shirley said that ACT had opposed the Supplementary Order Paper because it was about property rights. Well there are also property rights for recreational fishermen in this country and their rights have been ignored by the parties that voted against that Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage. Section 21(2) of the principal Act clearly tells the Minister that he must first take account of recreational and customary interests and then allocate commercial interests but in this regard commercial interests have been allocated first and foremost. Unfortunately that will be the situation. 
Much has been said about the Onerahi recreational fishing council annual general meeting. I was present at that meeting when the Hon Winston Peters made a “seagull” appearance. By that I mean he sort of flew in squawked all around the place dropped on everybody and then left very suddenly after taking exception to someone else being given an opportunity to speak. I am sure that recreational fishing people throughout New Zealand will remember for a very long time that New Zealand First dropped on them in terms of its abstention on the vote on that Supplementary Order Paper. 
The Primary Production Committee made many amendments to this amendment bill sorting out difficulties that have arisen from decisions made in the past by the Ministry of Fisheries. That is why it was important for us to try to resolve the difficulty regarding kahawai. I spent a great deal of time at the invitation of the Minister trying to work through some of the issues the select committee had raised during the long and arduous process. It is rather unfortunate that United Future has to oppose this legislation even though we negotiated to make a great number of beneficial changes to it. Unfortunately that is the way the situation must be.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16150] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to to subsection (1)(c)(ii) of new section 69H in clause 30 be agreed to: 
to omit this subsection.
Brown Peter: Motions — Crop and Food Research—Air Accident 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brown Peter: Motions — Crop and Food Research—Air Accident 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6038. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I endorse the Minister’s motion. This is a sad time for New Zealand but it is more of a sad time for the families of those people who died. Our prayers and hearts go out to the families of those folk and to the two accident victims who are in hospital. We wish them a speedy recovery. We endorse the Government’s motion.
Dyson Ruth: Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill — Third Readings 
Dyson Ruth: Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6400] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bills read a third time.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Standing Order 366 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Standing Order 366 
[Volume:627;Page:22163] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to Standing Order 366 “Lodging and publication of written questions and replies”. Throughout the last 3 years we have had problems—and we have raised these matters with you and sought your assistance on them—in getting in a timely manner replies to questions for written answer in particular from the Minister of Police. I am not happy that the replies to questions for written answer Nos 8400 8401 8402 and 8408 all submitted on 20 July and due for reply on 28 July arrived at the New Zealand First office only this morning—ironically or interestingly enough after the time in which we could formally have lodged questions for oral answer so as to follow up on the information that was presented. That Minister has consistently through his entire era of incompetence refused your instructions and refused to comply with the Standing Orders. Once again New Zealand First finds itself disadvantaged by his failure. I ask you on behalf of all Opposition MPs to bring the Minister into line and make him do his job in accordance with the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment. I will check on the matter and report back.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8665] 
7.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What reports has he received about New Zealand’s standing as an international tourism destination? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 A recent Harris poll—a long-running and respected American public opinion survey—shows that New Zealand has jumped from No. 13 to No. 7 in the ranking of countries where American visitors would most like to go on holiday. That marks the most significant gain in the poll. In addition the authoritative  
Andrew Harper’s Hideaway Report 
 for 2003 has named four of New Zealand’s luxury lodges in the top 10 of the world’s best luxury hideaways. Those reports like many others illustrate the success of this Government’s partnership with the industry which is increasingly attracting high-value high-yield visitors to New Zealand. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports to indicate progress in achieving the tourism strategy objective of promoting New Zealand as a high-quality high-yield destination? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Indeed the Tourism Research Council’s latest forecast shows visitor numbers increasing at a very healthy rate of 5.7 percent per annum but perhaps more important visitor expenditure is increasing at nearly double that rate. 
Ron Mark 
: What about poor people? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I point out to the member that that industry represents 150000 jobs for New Zealanders. That is why it is important.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19630] 
4.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received about Work and Income’s industry partnerships programme? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have received advice that in their first 9 months of operation these partnerships with industries as diverse as hospitality roading track maintenance bus and coach retail plumbing national road carrier and meat have now helped 500 people to get off benefits and into skilled jobs in those areas. Initial projections for the industry partnerships programme set a goal of getting 45 percent of participants off a benefit within 9 months. That goal has been surpassed; after 9 months 60 percent of participants are now exiting the benefit system. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister confirm what else is being done to meet the demand for labour that has been identified by employers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We are now seeking to gear our work towards meeting the demand set by employers through initiatives such as the regional work that Work and Income is undertaking in conjunction with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs seasonal initiatives to better manage the demand for labour in seasonal industries the Mobile Employment Service in rural areas mature focus case management the Modern Apprenticeships scheme the huge increases in industry training and the very successful Gateway programme in schools. Around industry partnerships I intend to announce two further partnerships in the immediate future.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15276] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Peck Mark: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16920] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:624;Page:19303] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on 29 March priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill a 4-hour debate and the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Priority will also be given to any first readings on the Order Paper.
Locke Keith: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14045] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 As we are in the tradition of English lessons started by Maurice Williamson this evening there is one word that perhaps Maurice Williamson and his National colleagues should learn and that is “choice”. That is what this bill is all about. It is about giving people in Auckland through an improved transport planning and funding structure the choice about how they get from A to B—how they get to work how they get to recreational activities so that not only do they have the choice of a motorcar caught in a traffic jam but they also have the choice of going along a road on a bus or on a bicycle walking along the footpath on the road having a cycle track or a walkway to go along or having a ferry to use; that is so that they have real choice. 
It is obvious to anyone who looks closely at Auckland and compares it with any other major city in the world that Auckland’s public transport infrastructure is much weaker than that of any other city such as Sydney or Melbourne or any of the European cities one cares to name. In those cities they have choice. We have to get Auckland to be a modern city and to remove the overheads which I referred to in a previous contribution of $736 million lost. That is the external downside of car travel. Those costs are going up as the oil price rises. It is just blindness if we do not look at making our transport more efficient in terms of the carriage of people by providing a proper rail backbone to Auckland with buses linked off it linked up to ferries and giving people the opportunity to walk and cycle. 
If we look at the goals in this bill for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority for Auckland Regional Holdings and for the Auckland Regional Council they do very much relate to developing Auckland. Schedule 4A talks about the task as proceeding in a multimodal way. I think if Mr Mapp had gone to a North Shore event last year and listened to the head of Transfund talking about Transfund’s approach under the new legislation he would know that Transfund is very much oriented now towards looking at all transport in terms of a multimodal approach—not just looking at car transport. That is the way we want to go. We want to be able to integrate the various modes of transport and in that integration give people true choice. 
As Mr Key said Auckland’s rail usage particularly compared with the past when rail usage was several times greater than it is now is very low when compared with any other similar-sized city in Europe or Australia. We have to get that usage up through improvements and putting in the planning and the investment which this bill under this new system will do. 
Progress reported.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10020] 
5.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What progress is being made in expanding opportunities for learning in the workplace? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 In a continuing sign of New Zealand’s increasing commitment to work-based training the Government’s Modern Apprenticeships programme has reached its end of 2003 target of 6000 trainees 3 months early. Modern Apprenticeship numbers have grown rapidly over the last year and by September 2003 6073 Modern Apprenticeships were in place. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister advise any details of who the 6000th Modern Apprentice was? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No specific person has been identified as the 6000th Modern Apprentice. However one of New Zealand’s oldest apprentices who has just started on-the-job training is clearly struggling with his first unit standard. The  
Waikato Times 
 reports that listeners needed a strong cup of coffee to avoid nodding off during the first public outing from trainee Brash. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that was out of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise for that comment. It had no relation to the original question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Sowry Roger: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Sowry Roger: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5389] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During Mr Mark’s speech you intervened at one stage and reminded him that he should come to the bill. I note that when the senior Government whip spoke there seemed to be a different standard. You did not interrupt him and when challenged you said that it was appropriate to give a speech that did not make reference to the bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The senior Government whip spoke for 30 seconds. Mr Mark spoke for almost his full 10 minutes. Mr Mark was not raising a valid point of order.
Parker David: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12274] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill. This bill does not make it any easier for the police or the Security Intelligence Service etc. to get interception warrants. But it does mean that when those authorities get their warrants telecommunication providers will have a duty to assist them and will have the technical capability to intercept calls that are passing over their networks. I commend this bill to the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Debate on Iraq 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3941] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to set aside time tomorrow for a debate on the situation in Iraq and for that debate to take place immediately after question time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be objection.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:622;Page:17373] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House advise which bills he intends to advance in the final sitting week of this year?
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18854] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 15 be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16195] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 agreed to.