edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Clark Helen: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Clark Helen: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11857] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Why do the National members not bring on their leader? What an extraordinary situation this is! Here we have before the Committee today the financial review debate on the Prime Minister’s department and votes. We are told that the Leader of the Opposition is desperate to debate with the Prime Minister. Where is he? I again pay a compliment to the deputy leader of the National Party Mr Brownlee who is prepared to front up. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is out of order to refer to the absence of any member from the Chamber. The Prime Minister should desist from doing so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is correct. It is a Speaker’s ruling not to refer to the absence of members. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Condemned by their own point of order! 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Condemned by their own point of order—that is indeed a fair point. It is an extraordinary situation when we have these departments open for scrutiny in the financial review debate today that the firing is done by the bombastic deputy leader of the National Party. He is very capable too I may add but is not a particularly serious deputy leader. [ 
Interruption 
] Well National has had so many deputy leaders that I can hardly remember which members have stood up to be deputy leader. In fact I am not sure whether the Hon Nick Smith ever made a speech in the House as deputy leader. He went so quickly that he never even had a pay cheque probably. 
What I want to say to the Committee today is that the Government began with the position that the foreshore and seabed is the birthright of every New Zealander. That was the position at the beginning; it will be the position at the end. It has also been very clear that on issues like this we must endeavour to reconcile the interests of the whole public with customary rights and we will do that. Some people may not care about customary rights. We do recognise that the common law internationally would recognise such rights and we would not want our country to be out of step on that. So we will go for a solution that upholds both sets of interests. We think they are complementary. They are not in competition; they can be reconciled. We are interested in a country that endeavours to bring about not only reconciliation for past wrongs but also a present and a future that bring Kiwis together and does not drive them apart. We are not interested in the sorts of politics that split New Zealand down the middle. We want a future where people go forward together. The basis of what will be presented to the House in the form of legislation which those members will just have to wait for will be those principles.
Peters Winston: Urgency 
Peters Winston: Urgency 
[Volume:622;Page:17685] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Before you put that motion Mr Speaker on behalf of New Zealand First I seek leave for an addition to the urgency motion—to add the Immigration Amendment Bill in my name to the urgent business of the House it being a matter of critical importance to this country’s security. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to add that. Is there any objection? There is.
Duncan Helen: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Duncan Helen: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4093] 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Resignation—Member for TamakiMakaurau 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Resignation—Member for TamakiMakaurau 
[Volume:621;Page:16528] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the resignation of John Tamihere. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. I did permit an urgent debate on 19 October when Mr Tamihere stood down from his ministerial portfolios and an inquiry was set up. I have therefore had to consider very carefully whether a further debate on this matter is justified given that recent debate having been held particularly as not every ministerial resignation leads to an urgent debate being accepted. I have decided to err on the side of allowing this debate given the interest in the matter but I point out that the fact that two urgent debates have now been allowed on it will weigh very heavily in the balance with any future application on this subject. The Leader of the Opposition’s application was the first one I received and therefore I call on him to move the motion.
Yates Dianne: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Yates Dianne: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20406] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I rise to support the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. I point out as the Minister has done that it deals with two issues. The first one is the amendment of the Climate Change Response Act in respect of the function of New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol registry. I am sure that Simon Upton a former Minister for the Environment would be very pleased with this legislation. His work on it is coming to fruition. The second thing the bill does is to enable the establishment of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. I would like to reiterate a very good part of the Minister’s speech. He said that under the current law the tax treatment of Permanent Forest Sink Initiative income and expenditure is uncertain. To remove that uncertainty the Government proposes to amend the tax legislation to deem any business which includes farms that primarily involves earning forest sink credits under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative to be a forestry business. That is what Federated Farmers have been lobbying for and I am pleased to see that the Minister has acknowledged that. It will ensure that the existing forestry tax provisions also apply in that situation. Those amendments as the Minister said are expected to be included in the first tax bill following the tax bill scheduled for introduction in May. 
I commend this legislation to the House. I think it is forward-thinking and it does show what New Zealand is all about. I also commend farmers who as has been mentioned are planting riparian strips and who are responding to measures such as the ones Environment Waikato has encouraged through the sustainable farming awards—the carrots rather than the sticks that are working in that regard. There is also the amount of money that the Minister of Local Government has allocated for clean water. Those matters are linked as the previous speaker mentioned. In particular I think the initiative around the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative is a good one and I look forward to farmers being involved in that area.
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11334] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jim Peters to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend clause 5(1)(ba) by adding the words “where this is practicable”.
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11339] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15926] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I have made no secret of the fact that in some areas of this bill I would prefer a regulatory system rather than guidelines. As members know guidelines cannot be enforced but regulations can and they have a checks and balances process through the Regulations Review Committee. 
Some areas in the bill that are internationally highly controversial are open to the guideline process—such as as we have seen taking gametes from a deceased person. The consent process in terms of both the technology and the patient is also left up to guidelines. In most other countries that have this legislation the consent process is also subject to regulation and is quite clearly spelt out. That is particularly the case as has been said already in Canada. 
The other thing I wish to speak about is Judy Turner’s amendment to clause 33. I think it is a very good amendment. Clause 33 refers to the ministerial advisory committee and who should be on it. The select committee agreed there would be one member with expertise in reproductive technology one member with expertise in human reproductive research one or more members with expertise in ethics one or more Maori members with expertise in Maori custom and values one or more members with the ability to articulate issues from a consumer perspective and one or more members with expertise in relevant areas of law. 
This amendment also states that there should be one member with the ability to articulate the interests of children and refers to the appointee being someone from the Office of the Commissioner for Children. Taking note of the opinions of in vitro fertilisation children who submitted on the bill and of what Dr Hutchison said I think it is an extremely good idea and a very good amendment. The paramountcy of the rights of the child have not been included in the bill and I think it would be a very very good idea for someone on the ministerial advisory committee to be given the responsibility to represent the rights of children and to be able to look at the future interests of those who are born from this process. It is part of the principles of the bill and by including the clause 33 amendment in the name of Judy Turner we will have the interests of children at heart. That will also include and take into account some of the concerns Mr English has about this bill. I think it is a very good amendment and we will be supporting it.
Hunt Jonathan: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — First Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7495] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. I have said I have called for an investigation into this. It will be reported to me at 9 a.m. I am very very angry indeed. This is a fault that should not have occurred but the member is perfectly correct. From now on there will be no interjection whatsoever because every member has the right to be heard.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:15093] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. The member’s leader is free to carry on normally.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14388] 
10.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What is the Government doing to save Lake Wanaka from the infestation of lagarosiphon lakeweed? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 David Parker the MP for Otago has recently been instrumental in brokering an agreement for a new lakeweed control programme in Lake Wanaka. The arrangement involves Land Information New Zealand—the department responsible for the administration of the lake bed—Queenstown Lakes District Council Otago Regional Council and the Guardians of Lake Wanaka. The work programme will include diving suction dredging and spraying. Land Information New Zealand has agreed to more than double its funding for Wanaka to $120000 per annum. The vast majority of the cost of that work will be covered accordingly. 
David Parker 
: Why has Land Information New Zealand not contributed as much money as that to solving this problem before now? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: From 1999 to the end of June 2004 Land Information New Zealand has spent $315000 on the control of Wanaka lakeweed. Recently Land Information New Zealand has been granted in this Budget an additional $1.7 million over 4 years on top of existing funding for the control of weeds and pests on Crown-administered land. This Government is committed to addressing the problems of lakeweed and water quality in iconic lakes.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Delegation from Australia 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Delegation from Australia 
[Volume:610;Page:7131] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from Australia representing the Australia - New Zealand Political Exchange led by Jeremy Rockliff a member of the House of Assembly Tasmania is present. I am sure members would wish to welcome the delegation.
Tanczos Nandor: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12363] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are pleased to support this bill through its third reading. We are pleased to be able to support the passage of the bill to this stage. I will not go into great length about the different clauses of the bill. I have already canvassed those issues during my second-reading speech and other members of the House have spoken at some length about them already and I am sure other speakers will continue to do so. 
We are pleased to see that a couple of sensible amendments have come out of the Committee stage. The first concerns reciprocal visiting rights around clubs put up by the Hon. Peter Dunne. It was good to see something sensible come from Mr Dunne in that regard so I thank him for that amendment. The other issue concerned culinary wines rice wines and so forth. Amendments were put up by different members but the one put up by the Minister had been properly drafted and should proceed. It is good to see that finally cleared up. We think the bill is better for those amendments and we are pleased to see it go through its final passage.
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16581] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6457. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I am a proud member of this Labour-led Government. I have much pleasure in standing to support the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. This is an omnibus bill designed to improve the effectiveness of the Department for Courts’ fines and civil enforcement activities through interrelated amendments to a number of Acts. I support the bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
[Volume:619;Page:14594] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is fair enough that we do get some sort of precedent set around how these matters are dealt with. I would have thought that if the Minister had accurately given an answer to the House then there was no need for him either to correct or embellish. In fact there is a procedure that he has available to him to remedy the situation where a member accuses him of some sort of misleading of the House or indeed dishonesty. So I think it would be good to hear from Mr Duynhoven as to whether he would be correcting an answer that he previously gave incorrectly or simply wishes to rebut an allegation when we all know that he has another course of action available in that regard.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:609;Page:6238] 
Voting 
Correction 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to change the Green Party’s vote on the previous matter—the performance of Crown entities. I gather that by mistake we voted against the receiving of those reports and I seek leave for nine votes against to be changed to nine votes in favour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there anybody opposed to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none so the records will be altered.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13025] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 69 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (j) from subclause (1).
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20954] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(d)made by Victim Support wherein the identified victim either has not or cannot lodge a claim or transfer authority over a claim within a specified period of one month after an award of compensation.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4955] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Initially this question was set down for the Prime Minister and worded accordingly but it was referred to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade by the Clerk’s Office. I seek leave or whatever I have to do to have it addressed to the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can seek leave. He is perfectly entitled to do that. He seeks leave to have the question addressed to the Prime Minister. Is there any objection? There is.
Benson-Pope David: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6299] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Privilege — Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
Privilege — Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
[Volume:617;Page:13051] 
Wednesday 19 May 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Privilege 
Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received notice of an application for orders and declaration sought by Mr Darryl Bruce Queen in the High Court Christchurch. The application amongst other things seeks orders against the Justice and Electoral Committee in its consideration of the Care of Children Bill. The application involves a question of privilege in that it asks a court to direct a select committee with regard to its consideration of business. The question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee. In the meantime I will be applying to the court to have those parts of the application struck out.
Hughes Darren: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
Hughes Darren: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill — Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9566] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call in support of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill. I pay a special tribute to Judy Keall my predecessor as member for Otaki who chaired the Health Committee very ably through the process. I am very pleased to see the bill back on the floor of the House. I know that Ruth Dyson will take it through its final passage—and very ably too.
Brown Peter: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Brown Peter: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4452] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. In your earlier remarks and I did not quite catch them you said that people who have indicated a special interest in this bill might get more than one call—they might get several calls. I wonder how you will determine whether anybody has a special interest because I would like to register mine now. I am certain there are other members who have an equally concerned interest. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I assure the member that the information I have is from the first reading and from the select committee. I do not have any other inside information.
Beyer Georgina: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7746] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I will take a brief call really to say only this: it is disappointing to hear some of the churlish remarks that have come from around the House. It is the right of members to say how they feel about this matter but perhaps members might like to think for one moment that there but for the grace of God go I as that could be applicable to a number of members who are sitting in this House. Section 55 as it is currently drafted has inappropriate surprising and unexpected consequences. A member in Mr Duynhoven’s situation should not lose his seat. Dual citizenship is not unusual in New Zealand. There is no reason to believe that members of Parliament with dual citizenship cannot put New Zealand’s interests foremost. I commend this bill to the House and I hope it progresses swiftly.
Power Simon: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Power Simon: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6505] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just seeking some guidance from you. When we were debating this issue the part of the bill that specifically referred to section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act was identified as having been repealed. When I went to that section in this volume of the statute book from the Noes lobby which has been annotated until 1 January 2003 it became clear that no reference to a section 75A was contained in that volume. I then sought assistance from the Minister who sought assistance from the officials and she was then able to separately table section 75A relating to the clause in question. The difficulty that my colleagues and I now find ourselves in is in respect of the reliability of those statutes held in the lobbies when we are debating quite detailed issues—such as the clauses brought about by way of repeal and amendment in the bills before the House. Your assistance on resolving that issue would be greatly appreciated.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3786] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a different point of order. It was very helpful for you to tell the House that you have given an indication in the Business Committee that if there is a development in the Iraq situation you will allow it for debate. I would like to ask through you as that is your view as Speaker whether the Government itself has considered putting aside time to enable us to have a debate about the Iraq situation. I understand that we are now one of the very few Parliaments in the world that has not debated the issue.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16641] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Muriel Newman to clause 4(1) be agreed to: 
to insert the following new paragraph: 
(c)that the principle of rebuttable shared parenting be considered as the starting point for day-to-day care determinations.
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15884] 
12.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Can he confirm his statement yesterday that the Social Entrepreneur Fund was his initiative; if so why did he decide to terminate the fund? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I did put it into the Labour manifesto. It is an idea of course that is commonly applied in many jurisdictions around the world. A decision was made to terminate the Social Entrepreneur Fund for two broad reasons. Firstly it was not consistent with the Department of Labour's new strategic direction that is focused on labour market information and regulation and secondly the Community Employment Group was clearly struggling with some aspects of the programme in the current low unemployment environment. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister stand by his 2001 speech about his now defunct social entrepreneur scheme where he boasted: “Social entrepreneurship does suggest a healthy disregard for rules for the sake of rules and a disregard for illegitimate authority” and that social entrepreneurs sometimes had a “breathtaking disregard for authority” and finally does he still stand by his statement that LosaTamati was a “truly exciting social entrepreneur”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I certainly stand by the need for some new ideas and I would love to hear one from that member. I certainly stand by the notion that we will move away from a traditional welfare State to something new and I would love to see that member come up with a single idea. Yes I do stand by many of the people who were in this programme. This programme has changed because circumstances have changed and because the organisation administering the programme was clearly struggling trying to apply that money when we had been so successful in lowering the level of unemployment. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the Minister’s answers that social entrepreneur schemes are common and successful throughout the world including in countries with low unemployment rates exactly why is it that his scheme under his stewardship has failed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the concept of being a social entrepreneur will stay on in this country. Many people do it under many different guises. This particular scheme administered in this particular way was no longer relevant to the Department of Labour but is relevant as a general concept. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does he stand by his statement that LosaTamati was a truly exciting social entrepreneur? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the light of recent developments no. 
Katherine Rich 
: Did he agree with the Prime Minister when she said that some aspects of the scheme were “loopy and silliness”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said before the House can take it for granted that we always agree with the Prime Minister.
Beyer Georgina: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15717] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Adams Paul: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Adams Paul: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4763] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is pleased to support this legislation. As the holder of two motor vehicle dealer’s licences I am affected by it. I notice in the part we are dealing with the question of who is treated as a motor vehicle trader. Each of the licences that I currently hold has cost me between $15000 and $20000 to obtain under the present regime. 
Much has been said about the levy on traders. As I understand it the levy will be $127 per trader. I find that most motor vehicle dealers are very pleased to get any dispute sorted out quickly because we have found in our industry that the longer something goes on the more it will cost us. Therefore if I have to contribute $127 per year per licence towards a tribunal that will sort out disputes fairly quickly I personally am very happy to do that. To say that provision has just been thrown into this legislation is not correct. As I understand it that proposal was in a discussion document that was before the industry in January 2001 which the majority of the industry supported. The motor vehicle dealers have had to operate for many years on what is a very unequal playing field. 
I have concerns about various parts of this bill that I will discuss at the appropriate points but maybe this bill should be called the “Thank Goodness it’s Here” bill.
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:616;Page:12330] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise members that the vote on Mike Ward’s amendment to clause 12(2) of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 78 Noes 41.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21968] 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What would be the annual fiscal cost both at present and in 20 years’ time of paying New Zealand superannuation to Maori at age 60 instead of 65? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am advised by Treasury that it cannot cost that accurately because it has no breakdown by ethnicity of New Zealand superannuation payments. As the Government has no intention of introducing such a policy I do not intend to get Treasury to engage in further work on that. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister not see the Maori Party’s policy of having a differential age for Maori and non-Maori eligibility for superannuation as just a logical extension of this Government’s closing the gaps strategy which sees race-based differences in funding right across the board; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No not at all. The same logic would imply that men should get New Zealand superannuation at roughly 60 compared with women at age 65. It would imply that the unemployment benefit should be higher for Pakeha than Maori since there are fewer Pakeha proportionately on the unemployment benefit than there are Maori. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could the Minister explain the difference between extra funding for doctors’ visits university places and broadcasting—all based on race under this Government—and eligibility for superannuation based on race? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The ethnicity element has been removed from health funding although there are clear differences in terms of ethnicity in relation to both morbidity and mortality. The other issue is raised because of the differential life expectancy between Maori and Pakeha. The answer to that is to improve Maori health status over the long term not to concede defeat and lower the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation.
Connell Brian: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Connell Brian: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16213] 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I reserve the right to put my point of order. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4542] 
9.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What progress has been made in the multi-agency investigation into the Columbus Academy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 All students have had their immigration permits revoked or their permits have expired. The students under 17 years of age who do not have parents in New Zealand and several older students have returned to Japan. Those students have gone home voluntarily acting on advice and assistance from the broad range of New Zealand agencies involved with the academy. 
Jill Pettis 
: What communication has there been with the parents of the students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The New Zealand Embassy in Japan has been in contact with parents through the Japanese Government and directly at meetings so that the parents can understand why our Government considers it is in the students’ best interests for them to return home. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Government do nothing in response to serious concerns about the Columbus Academy when they were first raised with the Immigration Service in November 2001 by Waitakere College and when they were again raised late last year by the Waitemata District Health Board which noted “major human rights concerns at the academy” and why did it take the death of a young person before any Government agency decided to do anything at all? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that if the Waitakere City Council had referred the concerns to the Government rather than to the Human Rights Commission we would have made some progress. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister consider that additional weekly payments to State school teachers who have foreign fee-paying students in their classes is appropriate in our public education system; if not what will he do about it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is very wide of the original question but the Minister may comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I certainly do not. I think it is a most inappropriate and probably illegal method of paying students. It is being investigated and I think that a number of agencies are looking at that one as well.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4501] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I seek leave for question No. 11 to be asked of the Minister of Internal Affairs now that he is in the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is.
Turner Judy: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Turner Judy: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18840] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call to talk about cultural redress. I make the point that cultural redress provisions recognise that the damage done historically was not merely economic. Requiring by law all New Zealanders to “have regard” for the cultural interests of another is a very sad indictment on us all. The lack of regard that necessitates these provisions is entrenched to such an extent that the law must become insistent. What we have is a law saying: “Stop wait. Check out what is appropriate before you act.” to a nation that has previously blindly stumbled ahead making decisions that affect people whom we never intended to hurt or damage or continuing practices that were offensive to people whom we never intended to offend. All that the law does is to start to put in place that brake. 
I would like to believe that as we as a nation could become so familiar with putting on the brakes with checking with each other about the way to move ahead on given issues that such law would appear almost “foolish” common sense; and that we could become so familiar with working with each other that we would no longer need to check the law books to decide on how to proceed. So we are very supportive of cultural redress. It acknowledges the damage that was done and it takes some proactive steps to make sure we control ourselves more in that regard. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 329 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Pettis Jill: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3605] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I stand to oppose the bill.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:612;Page:9035] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Supreme Court Bill and the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill and progress will also be made on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
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? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes the House can anticipate urgency the week after next. As usual that will finish by 6 o’clock Friday. In relation to the seabed and foreshore legislation when it is ready time will be made available. There are a limited number of bills to be passed that are not yet on the Order Paper. I think there are probably seven or eight bills to be passed. Of course there will be a number of other bills for first reading—quite a few of those.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4243] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
National New Zealand 27; New Zealand First 11; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Lead Contamination in Corn—Government's Response 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Lead Contamination in Corn—Government's Response 
[Volume:618;Page:14312] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Sue Kedgley seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the Government’s response to lead contamination in corn imported into New Zealand. The actual importation of the corn is of course not a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Government’s response to it does involve ministerial responsibility but I cannot accept that its response to one reported incident requires that an urgent debate be held especially as the House is about to embark on an estimates debate that will enable the matters of concern to the member to be raised. I therefore decline the application.
Peters Jim: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5012] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 “Relevance” is the real issue in this title—the relevance of time the relevance of intention and the relevance of where we are now in 2003. This bill looks at a period of optimism right back in 2000 when there was a brave new world out there for those sitting on the other side of the Chamber. In their ignorance they thought that all things were possible and in a buoyant economy it seemed that all things were possible. Most of all they thought they could remedy the previous Government’s inability to translate the 1993 decision into action. The title of the Maori Television Service Bill reflects that exactly It reflects the optimism of members over there and the expectations they had of somehow accomplishing the intention that the Privy Council had put before them—which was also the feeling amongst Maori television people and the industry. 
Sadly although there were 10 submissions—nine of which were heard—and 3 hours of committee consideration a year later we sit here with an unfulfilled intention with regard to the title of the Maori Television Service Bill. Therefore in view of the discussions that have already gone before I rise to support my colleagues’ very firm intention that—unlike the members opposite who somehow got it wrong—we on this side of the Chamber now have two alternatives. Each one of them recognises in its language and spirit what those members should have recognised—that this title deserved to be not the Maori Television Service Bill but something that would truly reflect the aspirations of those who look to have the language in a secure place and in terms of their original desire—one that would be placed in the perspective of our airwaves and before our eyes visually which is one of the marks of modern television. I support my colleagues’ intention in terms of the pathway or roadway to the whole world that this visual demonstration which is our modern television service can and ought to open up. 
I am mindful of the fact that where I come from 18 percent of people will never see this television station because that is the reality with regard to the choice of frequency that this bill will put into place should present plans go ahead. In our district 18 percent will never see this channel and that is a shame. That is a real issue for the Minister to consider.
Power Simon: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20132] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is just a point of clarification. Now that the bill has been divided into two separate bills I take it that the third reading debate will cover amendments to both bills or do we have separate debates? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debates will be taken together and the questions of course will be put separately.
Motions — Black Caps—Test Win Over South Africa 
Motions — Black Caps—Test Win Over South Africa 
[Volume:616;Page:11825] 
Tuesday 23 March 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Black Caps—Test Win Over South Africa 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That this House congratulate the Black Caps on its historic nine-wicket second test win over South Africa on Monday and further that this House congratulate Chris Cairns in particular on his achievement in making it into the 3000-run 200-wicket club during the same match. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 On behalf of the Labour Party and the Government I wish to endorse the comments that the Hon Peter Dunne has made. This is a historic victory. It is one that you Mr Speaker have been waiting for for a very long time and I know you will make sure that this message is personally passed on to the Black Caps over the next few days. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On Friday morning! 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I would like to add the congratulations of the National Party to both the Black Caps and Chris Cairns. I think Chris Cairns is only the sixth cricketer in test history to achieve 3000 runs and 200 wickets in test cricket. I cannot resist pointing out to the Minister of Finance that the two New Zealanders who make up the six both came from the same very good Christchurch school. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was not going to add my voice to this motion but I have to correct the previous speaker; it was 3000 runs not 2000—[ 
Interruption 
] I think it is very important. I do endorse the comments of the Hon Peter Dunne but I do wish that members of Parliament would leave it to just one person—the one who thought of it—to move such a motion rather than all rising to try to get some vicarious benefit. 
Motion agreed to.
Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Procedure 
Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9966] 
Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the order of the day for the second reading of the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill be postponed until after members’ order of the day No. 1. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 3 to Minister 30 March 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 3 to Minister 30 March 
[Volume:616;Page:12515] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 3 to Minister 30 March 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 On 30 March in answer to a question from the Hon Tony Ryall I advised the House that a number of people including “that man”—referring to Mr Haydn Solomon—were employed as Department of Corrections staff in order to get the consultation going. I have since been advised that none of the individuals listed in the schedule that I tabled on 23 March have been employees of the department including Haydn Solomon. They were in fact engaged by the department on a contract for services. I apologise to the House for the error.
Peters Winston: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Peters Winston: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:17190] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member has just made a statement that he knows full well is not true. I ask you to get him to prove it now.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are in a debating situation. That was not a point of order. The member can have a call in the debate.