edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13051] 
1. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is it correct that the “Future Directions package” in the May 27 Budget is expected to be worth about $2.5 billion and around 300000 households will benefit as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
; if not what are the facts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As I have stated already around 300000 households with dependent children will benefit. The House will be informed of all the other details next Thursday afternoon. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Minister confirm that there are 540000 families with dependent children and 150000 beneficiary families so how can he say that a majority of working families will benefit when simple maths show that the majority of working families will get nothing from the Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will have to wait until next Thursday afternoon. He will be surprised at how many families get and how much they get. 
Hon David Carter 
: What proportion of the Future Directions package will be directed to beneficiaries and what proportion will be directed to lower-income working New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The package will be directed to something like 60 percent of all families with dependent children. Those who are not on benefits will gain substantially more than those who are. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Can he deny that of the $2.5 billion for the Future Directions package more than half of those multimillions will go to welfare families not working families; yes or no? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My colleague is incorrect. The answer is yes I can deny it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the Minister also deny or confirm that there are in fact 1.5 million households in New Zealand so if he is intending to assist 300000 households of which half will be beneficiary families then it follows that the only role for the other 1.2 million households will be to pay the taxes that he is so liberally spreading out to welfare families? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Of those other households the member mentioned 300000 are superannuitant families who have gained substantially from this Government in terms of the restoration of the superannuation floor that that member’s party and the National Party voted to reduce. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister comment on the propriety of making all sorts of budgetary comments before the Budget is leaked and if he has no problem with that and he wants to be engaged in a series of mini-leaks could he tell us whether he will do anything about the Labour Party commitment in respect of income and asset testing for the elderly? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Legislation has been introduced that deals with that issue in terms of the phasing out of asset testing. The Labour Party never promised to remove income testing on long-stay care.
Hide Rodney: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
Hide Rodney: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
[Volume:626;Page:21037] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I rise to raise a very serious point for you to consider. I have in my hand your letter that you wrote to me today saying that you believed that on the basis of evidence put forward to you there was no case to answer by David Benson-Pope on the matter of privilege. Of course I have no option but to accept your ruling but it does put me in this House and I think other MPs in something of a quandary. 
The quandary is that David Benson-Pope stood in this House and emphatically denied that he had done anything wrong. In particular he denied that he had ever tied up a pupil’s hands and stuck a tennis ball in his mouth. Under the rules of Parliament I have no option nor does any other member but to accept the Minister’s word which I immediately did. However the following week the man who was the former pupil came forward and so did two witnesses and said that indeed this had happened. Specifically they said that the Minister had lied here in Parliament. That puts us in a difficult situation because a citizen outside this House is saying that in this House a Minister lied. 
Madam Speaker as you know I wrote to you and pointed out that this was very very serious and that there had to be a question of privilege because either Mr Benson-Pope was telling the truth and therefore there was a case against those men who were saying that he was lying in this Parliament or Mr Benson-Pope was not telling the truth. I have done some research on this and I favour the pupils’ story; I do not accept the word of Mr Benson-Pope. But I want some guidance from you as to how I can proceed on that basis in this House. Also how can we have any standard in this Parliament if it is the case that citizens can say on TV that that Minister over there lied? That is intolerable for this House and I think it is fair to say that a fair few in this House feel there is a case to answer. I would like you to explain to this House how a person such as myself is to proceed and how this House can hold its head up when members of the public can say that—and indeed have it accepted by members of Parliament—everywhere in this country except in this House.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17935] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Visitors — Commonwealth of Australia—Minister for the Environment and Heritage Italy—Parliamentary Delegation United Kingdom—Constitutional Affairs Committee House of Commons 
Visitors — Commonwealth of Australia—Minister for the Environment and Heritage Italy—Parliamentary Delegation United Kingdom—Constitutional Affairs Committee House of Commons 
[Volume:621;Page:16593] 
Thursday 4 November 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Commonwealth of Australia—Minister for the Environment and Heritage 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Ian Campbell Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Commonwealth of Australia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon Ian Campbell accompanied by the Hon Pete Hodgson entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Italy—Parliamentary Delegation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in also informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of Italy led by Ms Gabriella Mondello is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
United Kingdom—Constitutional Affairs Committee House of Commons 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Constitutional Affairs Committee from the House of Commons United Kingdom are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that that delegation also be welcomed.
Tamihere John: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Tamihere John: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8783] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to commend this bill to the House. I was greatly enamoured of the speech by Gerry Brownlee. He has obviously been brushing up on a number of skills—his encyclopedic memory of what goes on in the Robert McDougall Gallery—in order to get ready for the new job that he will need come 2005. On behalf of the Auckland MPs I congratulate the Christchurch MPs on promoting this legislation. As they will appreciate Auckland has several of these wonderful edifices and we are grateful that the Cantabrians are now on the catch-up. I commend the bill to the House.
Duynhoven Harry: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations of Telephone Taping 
Duynhoven Harry: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations of Telephone Taping 
[Volume:619;Page:14677] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter to the Speaker on this matter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8470] 
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 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 109 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to insert definitions of  
public notice 
 and  
Rotorua application in 
 clause 4 be agreed to.
Turner Judy: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Turner Judy: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18858] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I congratulate the previous speaker on his visionary last statement. As we finish up the Committee stage on this bill and as I stand on behalf of United Future I want to cut past all the technical issues that we have dealt with this evening and to look at some of the very basic questions that have been very simply and succinctly outlined in the summary paper. 
Listeners people interested in this bill and the general public want to ask a few basic questions about what this settlement is costing us. The answer is $42.39 million plus some cultural sites that are being returned and a few gifts that are being made. Is any private land being transferred? No. Are public rights in any way affected by the Ngati Awa settlement? No apart from some camping licences given for a set number of days a year and that does not deny public access to those waterways. Are any national parks affected? No. Does the settlement create any special rights for Ngati Awa? Apart from a new legal mechanism called the Awanuiarangi II title no the situation is pretty much the same as it was before. Does Ngati Awa have the right to come back to Parliament to make further claims about the behaviour of the Crown in the 19th and 20th centuries? No. Who benefits from all of this? All members of Ngati Awa benefit wherever they may now live. 
The bill is pretty simple and as we complete this Committee stage it is important to see that it has been worked through sensibly and cooperatively. There are those who would have us fear future repercussions from this bill and I think they are being mischievous. United Future would like to commend Ngati Awa those from the Crown’s working committee and the Maori Affairs Committee for the work that they have done.
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13381] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:620;Page:15735] 
Thursday 16 September 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment period. When the House resumes on Tuesday 5 October priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill to the second readings of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Holidays Amendment Bill and to the first readings of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) and the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. Members’ days will be in the first and third weeks of the next session. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Is it still the intention of the Government to pass the seabed and foreshore legislation prior to Christmas? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes.
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:17082] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 42 and 42Aset out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit these clauses and substitute the following new clause: 
42Determination of applications for customary rights orders 
The Maori Land Court may make a customary rights order only if it is satisfied that— 
(a)the order applies to an established and identifiable group of Maori whose members are whanaunga; and 
(b)the activity use or practice for which the applicant seeks a customary rights order is integral to tikanga Maori and continues to be carried on exercised or followed in the same area of the public foreshore and seabed in accordance with tikanga Maori.
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:21014] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; 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 CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims” Claims Act 2005 and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Financial Windfall Act 2005” is ruled out of order as it is not an objective description of the bill.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:5064] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 63 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20657] 
2.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that access to childcare is no longer a financial hurdle for parents looking to return to work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce today that the Government will invest an extra $55 million over the next 4 years in childcare and employer-support initiatives to enhance the work choices available to parents. The extra funding will see around 70 percent of all families with children eligible for extra assistance including 96 percent of sole parents. The initiatives include increased funding for out-of-school care and recreation providers increased income thresholds for childcare subsidies and an extension of childcare subsidies to home-based care. When we came to office just under $50 million per year was allocated to childcare subsidies; this year’s Budget will double that to just over $100 million. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What else is the Government doing to ensure hard-working Kiwi families get the support they need to achieve a good balance between work and family life? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is too much to mention here. But let me just mention that we are making major investments to support the work choices of Kiwi families. Through the Working for Families package childcare-assistance rates increased by 10 percent last year and will go up a further 10 percent in October this year. In addition families in the $25000 to $45000 income band can now get an average increase of $80 a week in extra support rising to $100 a week by the time the package is fully rolled out.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:614;Page:10375] 
7.  
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: What sanctions does the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill provide for rural pubs that flout the law and allow their patrons to smoke indoors? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: 
 There is no differentiation between rural and urban publicans in the bill. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does she really believe that rural pubs such as the Shingle Creek tavern will take one blind bit of notice of this legislation; if so why? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I have not visited those premises but I will when I get down to the South Island. I must point out that not every rural resident smokes. Seventy-five percent of New Zealanders do not smoke and they will appreciate the clean air in that hotel when this bill is passed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I appreciate that the member in charge of the bill may not have ever been to a rural pub but is she telling us that no one in the Labour Party has ever been to a West Coast pub and what on earth makes her think that this law will be enforced? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not the member’s responsibility but she can make a brief comment if she wishes. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I do not like the slur on the West Coast. I cannot give guarantees for my colleagues but I am sure that many of us have enjoyed the hospitality of a rural West Coast pub. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to raise this point of order as I might want to visit the West Coast again. I think that West Coasters are proud of the fact that they keep their pubs open. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I can always remember a predecessor—one of the members from the West Coast—Mr Paddy Blanchfield voting against 10 o’clock closing because he thought that would mean the pubs on the West Coast would have to close 2 hours earlier.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:612;Page:9035] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of next week’s business. I would ask: at this time of the year how many bills not yet showing on the Order Paper might he expect to see completed through all stages; has he set aside some time for the seabed and foreshore legislation to be considered prior to Christmas; and is there any likelihood of urgency in the next 2 weeks?
Turner Judy: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20696] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future for the third reading of the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and I welcome members of NgatiTuwharetoa to the House today. 
I do not want to delay the passage of the bill by taking a long time but I want to reflect on the fact that this settlement begins with an agreed historical account including Crown acknowledgments that form the basis of a Crown apology. The simple fact is that 87000 acres within the traditional rohe of NgatiTuwharetoa were confiscated. Of that acreage 20000 were returned into individual ownership rather than to iwi or hapu so that the tribal estate remained unaffected. Part of the consequence of being dispossessed of their land was the loss of access to traditional foods medicines and housing materials. In the 20th century Rangitaiki swamp lands were drained and access issues were overtaken by a complete loss of those traditional tribal resources. 
Accompanying the acknowledgment of the historical facts is an apology for the past breaches of the treaty and the cumulative effect of those breaches on successive NgatiTuwharetoa generations. Following close on the heels of the acknowledgment and the apology is a series of provisions for cultural redress which includes establishing at Matata a reserve that will restore access to traditional foods for non-commercial purposes. The bill will also secure and provide protection for places and sites of traditional cultural significance to NgatiTuwharetoa. The commercial and financial redress is valued at an extremely modest $10.5 million with first right of refusal on significant sites. 
United Future wishes NgatiTuwharetoa well and congratulates them on this settlement. We acknowledge all those who have negotiated this claim and we acknowledge those generations who never lived to see this day but who shared in the loss and the process that brings us to today. United Future is therefore very happy to support the third reading of this bill.
Mackey Moana: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21420] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16042] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Turner Judy: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11076] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 There is a much-quoted saying: “The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.” We often apply this to children to the sick to mental health consumers and to those with disabilities. Maybe it is time we also applied it to the elderly. 
At the end of March 2002 we had 463000 people aged over 65. This number is set to rise to 551000 by 2010 and to 1 million by 2030. United Future along with Age Concern believes that asset testing is an era of social policy best forgotten. But important human rights lessons need to be learnt. In an age when we value the dignity of those with disabilities and no other group has had to pay for long-term residential care it is unbelievable that it has taken us 6 years to remove this policy. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8488] 
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 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to omit clause 154B be agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7282] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Madam Chair first I understood that when leave is sought there is a requirement for the Chair to put it forthwith and not entertain further points of order as you just did. I am also concerned about the bad interpretation that we just heard from Mr Burton. ACT had accepted that there had been a genuine misunderstanding. I had been happy to restrict my speech to 5 minutes but it was the intemperate and nasty language from the senior Government whip that caused the extra minutes. The Government will have to learn that it cannot be provocative—that if it dishes it out it will get it back. That is the point. ACT will always retaliate when we get that sort of nonsense from Mr David Benson-Pope. However it is my earlier point that I want to impress upon you. When leave is sought I understand it is a requirement of the Chair to put it forthwith. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will come to that in a minute.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16006] 
6.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What steps has New Zealand taken to extend the scope of working holiday schemes for New Zealanders travelling overseas and for young overseas visitors coming to New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Today the Czech Republic becomes the 23rd country with which New Zealand has signed a working holiday agreement. That brings to 27800 the number of places available to young New Zealanders to work and holiday overseas and there are a similar number of places here for young overseas visitors. Because of the success of the schemes and the demand for places New Zealand has also recently increased the quota for Germany by 700 for France by 400 and for Sweden and the Netherlands by 200 each. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What are the advantages to New Zealand of negotiating such agreements? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two direct benefits. Research that has been done by the Department of Labour shows that working holiday schemes actually create additional jobs rather than displacing local workers and also meet the demand for seasonable labour which employers have been having trouble finding. They also of course provide opportunities for young New Zealanders to live and work overseas. The indirect benefit is perhaps the best benefit—that is to strengthen our people-to-people linkages internationally and to build awareness and a positive image of New Zealand overseas.
Samuels Dover: General Debates 
Samuels Dover: General Debates 
[Volume:618;Page:13866] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the 1992 deed of settlement that was entered into by the Crown and Maori. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Sutton Jim: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Sutton Jim: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21406] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 I will deal with Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s question first. The answer is that my colleague and I are both right and he is wrong. I want to address the serious issue that Keith Locke raised on behalf of the Green Party. He wants us to pass an amendment that would force Thailand to comply with all the ILO core conventions on labour. I point out to the member that even we ourselves do not adhere to all the ILO core conventions here in New Zealand. The member is not attempting to address that. It is quite obvious that what the member is trying to do is to use the ILO conventions as a pretext for protectionism. He is just flat-out anti-trade. He does not want it allowed unless everybody meets a completely unattainable standard of compliance with conventions that we have not even signed up to. I think the member ought to consider the situation again and ask whether it is what he really wants. Does he want us all to be self-sufficient peasants who do not trade anything internationally? Does he seriously think New Zealanders could eat 20 times as much dairy product as we eat now in order to keep it revolving in the economy without exporting any of it? 
Richard Worth asked whether this is a high-quality agreement. The answer is that it certainly is a high-quality agreement. It is completely comprehensive in respect of goods. All goods will go to a zero tariff either straight away or over an agreed period of years. So that puts this agreement amongst the top 1 percent of bilateral trade agreements in the world. What is more we have a commitment to undertake a negotiation on trade in services within 3 years. Anybody who pretends to have any understanding of international trade and who does not understand why this agreement was done instead of trying to force Thailand to negotiate now ahead of its negotiations with much larger APEC trading partners does not have the wit to get involved in the game himself or herself. I am absolutely astonished that any member in this House needs to have it explained to him or her why we have taken this opportunity to defend our position in the Thai market for our goods and to achieve advantage over most of Thailand’s trading partners while we had the chance to do so now rather than waiting until we could have a perfect agreement with free trade in all goods and services. I can advise the member that there would likely be a very long wait for that.
Worth Richard: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Worth Richard: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9344] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Clause 2 is the commencement provision of the Counter-Terrorism Bill and National supports this bill and its enactment in the divided way that Supplementary Order Paper 163 proposes. But I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to what seems to be a clear anomaly in respect of clause 2 and to invite the Minister who has a very detailed knowledge of this bill and all its intricacies to make some short and relevant comment on what I now say. 
There is no doubt that in the select committee process which saw the bill looked at by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and reported on by it it was seen as appropriate to significantly change clause 2. Subclauses (1) and (2) of the bill as introduced—which provided that clauses 13 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 and 23 of the principal Act and clause 13B of the Terrorism Suppression Act were to come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council—were struck out. I ask the Minister why it was seen as appropriate to make the significant changes that the committee did and why it is that the Minister supports and the Government presumably supports the changes that have been made. The select committee has now proposed that clauses 3 to 34 and the schedule come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General but there is also a note that one or more Orders in Council may appoint different dates for different provisions and also a second provision that deals with other possibilities. 
So if one looks at clauses 3 to 34 in the context of this bill it is to be seen that they certainly spread across a large number of parts. For example they are spread across Part 1 where amendments to the Crimes Actare numbered in clauses 3 to 8. Then in Part 2 we see a similar spread with amendments being made to the Terrorism Suppression Act. In Part 3 there is a similar spread with amendments being made to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act the Sentencing Act and finally parts of the Summary Proceedings Act before we come to clause 34 which inserts a raft of provisions relating to the important subject of tracking devices. I would like to ask the Minister why it has been seen as appropriate to have this significant change made in the bill.
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17263] 
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 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 4A be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
1ASection 8(4) of the principal Act is amended by repealing paragraph (b).
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5150] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 82 
Noes 32 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 245 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to clause 2 be agreed to.
Simich Clem: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4046] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: An amendment has been received from Dr Michael Cullen to omit the words “Transport and Industrial Relations Committee” and substitute the words “Commerce Committee”. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21477] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I will take just a very brief call on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) because I think it is a common-sense and sensible bill just like this Labour-led Government and I commend it to the House.
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9184. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Services Committee 
: When will the committee report back on the Families Commission Bill? 
GEORGINA BEYER (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee):  
I am pleased to inform the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee that the bill is due to be reported by 12 November. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Will the Families Commission Bill be reported back to the House earlier than originally scheduled; if so why? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: I understand that that would be a decision for the committee to make. However in my view that is entirely possible. 
Katherine Rich 
: How many submissions objected to the wide definition of a family group used in the bill? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: I am unable to answer that question precisely; I do not have that information here. However I can inform the member that the Social Services Committee received 58 written submissions on the Families Commission Bill. Submitters that we heard gave most support to the Families Commission’s role of advocacy and increasing public awareness of matters relating to the interests of families. Some submitters liked the bill’s inclusive approach to New Zealand families in recognition of the diversity of families. Submitters also supported the research role of the Families Commission. To answer that member’s question I would be happy to enlighten her on that at a meeting of the Social Services Committee of which she is a member tomorrow.
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5432] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not take this point of order during the member’s speech because I did not want to interrupt him. I am sure your hearing is as good as mine and words were uttered by one of the members opposite and I request that he be asked to withdraw and apologise.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16016] 
1.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: 
What difficulties have arisen with the counting of STV ballots from the weekend’s local government elections and how long will this delay final results being announced? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 There are issues of real concern. Just this morning I learned that elections.com and Datamail companies contracted by councils to process single transferable votes in a number of local elections have found an inconsistency in the number of votes entered into the calculator that counts the single transferable votes. This will delay the final election results even further for seven councils and 18 district health boards. I believe there needs to be a full inquiry by the Justice and Electoral Committee into these problems to ensure that they do not happen again. They are simply unacceptable. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is not this local election debacle—the sort we expect in a Third World country and not New Zealand—the responsibility of this Government which rewrote the Local Electoral Act providing for a complex and confusing mix of first past the post MMP and single transferable vote and then compelled district health boards to conduct their elections under the single transferable vote system; so is not the responsibility for this mess firmly and squarely with this Government? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The 10 councils that have chosen to adopt the single transferable vote system did so through their own choice. The responsibility of funding and organising the local government election is in the hands of local government. I compliment the member for raising this issue though because it is a very serious issue. It is unacceptable that we have waited this long for a result and it must not happen again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to indicate that I had misunderstood. There is just the one supplementary question allowed on an urgent question. 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is only fair that if one party gets a supplementary question on an urgent question other parties should have the opportunity to ask a supplementary. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should read Standing Order 372(3): “The Speaker may permit the member asking an urgent question to ask one supplementary question.” I am bound by the Standing Orders. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave of the House to table a statement that I put out very early this afternoon regarding this problem. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rod Donald 
: I seek leave to ask a further supplementary question on the urgent question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask a further supplementary question. Is there any objection? There is.
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9211. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Certainly the Speaker has given a very clear ruling that there will be a wide-ranging debate and that is how it will be.
Newman Muriel: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Newman Muriel: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10293] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise that you have had a number of closure motions. I know that you are not a member of the Social Service Committee but I point out that some members who were on the committee including Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First have not taken a call yet. I am aware that the Green Party has not taken a call yet either. I just wanted to get in before you might have accepted a closure.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5545] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question that appears as No. 2 in my name bears little relation to the question I submitted which was: “Is the Government satisfied with the current level of democracy in Tonga?”. Firstly I would like to know how that question does not meet the Standing Orders because I believe it is in order and secondly I would like the leave of the House to ask the question I submitted not the one some prissy pedant has altered it to read. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can tell the member that the “prissy pedant” concerned was a member of his own party who negotiated that question with the Clerk’s Office. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: That is not so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been informed of that but if that is not the case I will investigate it. I will hold the question over and come back to it later.
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17815. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A new schedule 2 has been proposed by Rod Donald as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 295 in his name. That amendment is inconsistent with the decision of the Committee on Part 1 which confirmed the rates of taxation set out in schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act 1994. The amendment is therefore out of order.
McNair Craig: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
McNair Craig: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15847] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 3 I want to focus on new section 57GF inserted by clause 32. New Zealand First thinks the bill should strive for three principal aims for the industry—that is guaranteed security of supply fair and reasonable prices and encouragement for investment to ensure ever-increasing capacity. The section deals with the requirement to consult but New Zealand First says that though there may be all the consultation in the world this bill will not achieve those three main aims if kept in its entirety. The very foundation of the bill is wrong. In terms of obtaining fair and reasonable prices we doubt whether it will have the desired effect. I believe that New Zealanders—and this goes to the very heart of the requirement to consult—are sick and tired of political games involving electricity. They are told they will be consulted and so on but really they are not consulted. 
I have talked to different people in my office in Albany and in other places I have visited around Rodney and in other places in New Zealand and the average New Zealander is of the strong view that electricity is not a luxury but an essential service which should be available at the flick of a switch and at a reasonable price. From what they have seen in the electricity industry over the last 10 to 20 years they think it is a diabolical disgrace and they feel ripped off in terms of price. 
New clause 57GF states that the chairman must make copies of the material available for inspection during working hours for a reasonable period free of charge at the head office of the Electricity Commission; must make copies of the proposed material available for purchase at a reasonable price at the head office of the commission; must make copies of the available material free of charge on an Internet website maintained by or on behalf of the commission; and must give notice in the  
Gazette 
 stating that the proposed material is available for inspection during working hours free of charge and so on. 
My point is that although all of those things may be done I do not think the bill strives to achieve the three main aims I mentioned earlier. It probably takes guaranteed security of supply one step further but it will not achieve fair and reasonable prices or encourage investment to ensure ever-increasing capacity for the industry. 
At a time when Australian companies are moving more towards coal-fuelled power stations we should be talking about that issue in terms of our electricity generation problems.
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14271] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a third time.
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:624;Page:19353] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns the handling of questions for written answer in this House and particularly the performance of the Minister of Police. I have had a question with the Minister of Police for some time. The answer was due on 17 March. Through constant emails and questions my office has been asking the Minister’s office for a reply. To date there has been no response to that request. I notice that on today’s Order Paper there is the publishing of some questions from Marc Alexander. He furnished those questions back on 21 February and the answers from the Minister of Police’s office are being published just today. I think members of this House have a right to expect the time frame that is set down for questions for written answer to be adhered to and I would ask that your office intervene. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member will give me the details of his complaint about questions for written answer I will look into it and get back to him as quickly as I can.
Vote: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Maritime Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8583] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.