edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:627;Page:21897] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At the conclusion of business today the House will go into a 4-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 26 July priority will be given to the Appropriations (2005/06 Estimates) Bill. The first Wednesday of that week will be a members’ day.
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15573] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Historic Places Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theGovernment Administration Committee.referred to Government Administration Committee
Robertson H V Ross: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6970] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have heard sufficient. I also listened to the episode prior to lunch. Like the Hon Ken Shirley I wish to refer to Speaker’s ruling 14/1 made by Mr Geoff Braybrooke. It provides that eating or drinking a cup of tea is not permitted in the Chamber. I consider that restriction extends to all beverages other than the water provided in the Chamber. I regard water as a speaker’s aid. If members wish to eat or drink there are areas close to the Chamber such as the lobbies or the cafeteria where they may do so. I believe that the ruling is aimed at ensuring that the Chamber does not become some sort of restaurant room or cafeteria. Members can go elsewhere if they so wish.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9210. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will rule here and now that that issue can be canvassed in the Committee.
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11689] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I would like to begin by conveying my thanks and the thanks of the ministry to the Primary Production Committee for the very positive and productive way in which it addressed this vexed issue. I thank Mr David Carter for his stewardship of that process and equally thank my colleague Janet Mackey who is the deputy chair of that committee. 
I would like to comment on the comments Mr Heatley made earlier. I am a little surprised that I have no reports of those concerns being raised as part of the select committee process. They were not referred to from my rereading of the commentary so I am surprised that the amendments he is proposing this evening have not been previously canvassed. He will be able to enlighten us about the reasons for that. 
I would like also to refer members who have not yet taken the trouble to look at the purpose clause. I think one of the key issues around this resolution and I know it will be reinforced by the select committee chair is that what we have in front of us as a Parliament is a negotiated settlement between the ministry and the industry. I think that will affect our decisions on such issues as those Mr Ewen-Street alluded to earlier. Although I will not traverse the issues on which I understand Mr Ewen-Street will raise some amendments I have to say that I do not think it is helpful now or in the future to refer to such an important industry as the seafood industry as being rapacious or destructive. I think the relationships that are being forged with the industry with the ministry and with the non-governmental organisations and environmental groups in this area are to be encouraged and should not be undercut or damaged by that sort of extravagant statement.
Beyer Georgina: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6820] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: It is a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I begin by acknowledging the Hon Lianne Dalziel for the courage and commitment it has taken for this particular Minister to step up to the mark and deal with the vexed issues of immigration in this country. What she has put out there for us to consider and which has been debated over the past hours has been controversial in the arguments that have been put from across the House. Suffice to say that this bill will bring greater clarity and certainty I might add to migrants coming to New Zealand hoping that their skills and the intelligence that they bring to share with this nation are matched more certainly towards job opportunities in skills shortage areas we have in this country. That is at least one provision in this particular legislation that is good for New Zealanders and good for migrants who are coming here. I conclude by saying again that compliments and credit should be given to this Minister for facing the tough issues.
Peters Winston: General Debates 
Peters Winston: General Debates 
[Volume:614;Page:10378] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister completed her speech with a further series of unparliamentary statements then she sat down. She should be asked to withdraw and apologise. She has offended five times in 5 minutes. She should have been stopped as my colleague Dail Jones suggested if she intended to continue in the way she did. She must withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The Minister’s comments were directed to the member’s side of the House. There was so much noise that I did not actually hear them. Would the member please enlighten me. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can only assume when she referred to lies and other things that she was looking in the mirror—so I will forget it.
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4236] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to speak to Part 3. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the member support my amendment? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: New Zealand First will support the amendment to clause 103. First and foremost I want to talk about the imputation system in clauses 86 to 89. This revolves all around this separate taxation system. I must admit that Rodney Hide was very right. I am very proud of Rodney Hide. He was very selfless. Being a member of the— 
Rodney Hide 
: The Ngai Tahu. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I was going to say Te Mangai Paho but I do not think it is that. He is a member of the Ngai Tahu tribe. He is laying it down— 
Rodney Hide 
: I’ve got no Irish in me though. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: He has no Irish in him! However he said we should all be treated as one people. Even when we are talking specifically about clauses 86 to 89 in relation to the imputation system it still revolves all around this particular issue of a separate tax system and so on. The Hon Dr Lockwood Smith made some very interesting points. It would be good for the Minister in the chair at this point to talk about the reason that this imputation system is in place with this bill. If he is not totally up with the play on it since the bill is not under his name that is not a problem. I will not make fun of him for that but maybe he could get that information for us or he could speak to us. That would be much appreciated by all members on this side of the Chamber. Pansy Wong and I are in agreement. I guess we will enjoy that moment because it is a bit of a worry. We might not see that moment ever again. 
I want to ask a question in relation to this part. Is this bill fair? Are clauses 86 to 89 fair? Rodney Hide asked a good question. Is it a fair process? 
Opposition Members 
: No! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Members all around the Chamber agree with me. They do not feel that it is a fair process. Is this bill just? 
Rodney Hide 
: No. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: It is not just. I do not know what the lion is saying but he is laying down like a lamb. He is roaring again. As we look through this part the question we need to ask is whether it is draconian legislation. 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The answer is yes. It has changed from no to yes. We also have to ask whether it is arbitrary. Yes it is. We have to ask ourselves whether this is a step forward in the right direction for the people of New Zealand. 
Rodney Hide 
: No. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Even the member of Ngai Tahu says “No”. It is not fair for all of us when we talk about clauses 86 to 89.
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:619;Page:15327] 
11.  
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Has he received any reports or advice on replacements for the Royal New Zealand Air Force Iroquois; if so what was the nature of those reports or advice? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes the general thrust of advice in the reports is that the Iroquois and indeed the Sioux training helicopters need to be replaced. Projects to advance both acquisitions are under way. 
John Carter 
: In light of the unsatisfactory performances of the Iroquois—and I quote: “in bad weather at night and in hot and high conditions”—as mentioned in the annual report what processes are being discussed for the disposal of the Iroquois and has the Minister a timetable for their disposal? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I said projects are under way. The registrations of interest for medium-utility helicopters which are principally the replacements for the Iroquois have been advertised. Responses are being evaluated and due diligence is being done on potential offers on the light utility that will replace the Sioux and the lower-end operational requirements are following. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: How are projects such as the Iroquois and Sioux replacements managed? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Government has put in place a cogent planned policy-driven acquisition process. This is based on the defence policy framework which the member might like to read and implemented through the tri-service multi-agency defence long-term development plan. We have this process and it is well under way. 
John Carter 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the process for the sale of other Royal New Zealand Air Force equipment that is Skyhawks and Aermacchis is satisfactory in light of new figures that show that Ernst and Young has been paid $677145 in disbursements alone on top of the initial $400000 payment; and on top of that it is to receive a bonus payment with yet no result of sales? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am satisfied that Ernst and Young is working solidly on this process. The test will be the outcome. I invite the member to await that and form a judgment at that time.
Chadwick Steve: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16506] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8436] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 We now have “Mrs Fix-it” in the seat who has taken over from the hapless George. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). He must not refer to a member by her first name but she must addressed by her proper name or by the position or portfolio she holds. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I mean Mr Hawkins. I was interested to read one particular clause in this bill clause 172 which provides for building work to be carried out or supervised by licensed building practitioners in certain cases. It is stated in the commentary that any work over $10000 will require registered people involved in certifying that work. What will happen—and this will come up during the select committee stage—to those people who are do-it-yourself people? What will happen to those people who watch those television programmes like  
Mitre 10 Changing Rooms 
 or the sorts of programmes where there is a view that encourages people to go out and do their own thing—to go down to the local building shop and to do their own building? Those programmes show people how to do it. What is going to happen to those programmes like  
Tool Time 
—you know Tim the Tool Man? 
Brent Catchpole 
: Bob the Builder. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is a good programme to watch is it not? This bill says that there will be huge compliance costs. Regulatory creep will come in—and that is a phrase that I am using more often in relation to increased compliance costs. For the people who want to do additions to their homes—be it in terms of the labour content or adding on a bathroom a kitchen or whatever which they have been able to do in the past—clauses 172 to 175 will mean that their ability to do their own thing will be limited. 
The point I make is that these issues will need to be addressed at the select committee ultimately when the bill is reported back and during the Committee stage. I am drawing the House’s attention to these clauses because my view is that they inhibit and take away that entrepreneurial spirit—that get-up-and-go to do one’s own thing. Not being able to do that is something we have great difficulty with.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:620;Page:15945] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better not be in relation to that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better not be in relation to withdrawing that particular comment. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No of course not. Mr Speaker a number of times you have made it very clear that when we go into this process we should be asking questions that relate strictly to the business of the House and that this is not an occasion for political point-scoring. You have pointed that out a number of times. I wonder whether the Minister given his relevant inexperience in this role might take that advice and just give us a straight answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the Hon Mark Burton give a straight answer.
Gudgeon Bill: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Gudgeon Bill: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13933] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou e huihui mai neii roto itenei Whare. Greetings to all who are gathered here this afternoon. I will be straight; this bill is an abomination to all mankind. What is the percentage of New Zealand’s population that is against this bill and how many are for the bill? Has it ever dawned on the perpetrators of this bill that there is a right and a wrong in this world? Does it ever dawn in the minds of those who wish to pass this bill that the family is made up of mother father and the children whom they have through the sacred ordinance of marriage? This is not about rights. This is about marriage between husband and wife man and woman and not those of the same gender. The word “despicable” is mild in comparison with other descriptions that have come to my notice. 
When will this Parliament realise that in this bill the beginning of a very deep decaying process is being set in place for future generations? If this bill is passed today is a day that will dawn in our history as a day that in conjunction with the prostitution reform legislation is an indictment on the people who wish to lower our standards. 
In conclusion I honour the members of this House who will vote against this bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill because they are all part and parcel of the same deal. We will be recipients of good social management and likewise recipients of those that are negative if the bill goes ahead. 
 We can talk about the rights of those who desire that lifestyle but to make it into law will have serious repercussions for future generations of families. I recommend very very strongly that this bill not be recommended to the House. I look at the concept of whanau and the social structure of Maoridom the collective made up of mother father children and grandchildren and then listen to all the Acts that have been passed or were supposed to have been passed. Does that still make this bill right? In the eyes of the majority of New Zealanders it is wrong—simple. It is spelt “w r o n g”. 
We seem to have fiddled around with Acts and laws to cover up those things that are wrong. Now what do we have today? One in five New Zealanders wants this bill according to the statistics and the majority is being ignored. This will be remembered by the people when the next election comes around. This is what will happen. If we want to live in a society that will have this kind of standard I think we will have to uproot and move to Australia. It might be a little better there. But let me remind us as parliamentarians that there is no place in family society for a bill such as this. In case members have forgotten the family is made up of mother and father and the children they produce through that marriage in all sanctity.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17556] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown  
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone (P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher (P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward (P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit the heading before clause 17 be agreed to.
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:20974] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; 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 13 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “unless satisfied that—” and paragraphs (a) and (b).
Ogilvy Bernie: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4646] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I stand to recommend this bill to the select committee. This omnibus bill covers many requirements for updates and changes and for just making things tidy. I recommend that this bill go forward with approval from United Future.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Transpower Financing Deal—Tax Significance 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Transpower Financing Deal—Tax Significance 
[Volume:626;Page:21057] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from John Key seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 reports that Transpower has entered into a $732.7 million financing deal. The financing deal was entered into in 2002. It is not clear from the latest media reports whether the deal was known of before now. However the recent reports relate to speculation about the tax significance of the deal rather than to the deal itself. Regardless of the matter of ministerial responsibility—that is whether the financing deal is a particular case of recent occurrence—I do not consider that the taxation implications of it require the immediate attention of the House. The application is declined.
Benson-Pope David: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5082] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4905] 
11.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What is the Government doing to facilitate the development of the organics sector? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 A 20-year strategy plan for the organics sector funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Industry New Zealand has been finalised and accepted by key sector organisations. It is expected that the strategy along with a new organics standard will be launched in June. These are important steps towards the organics industry being able to reach its potential. 
David Parker 
: What is that potential? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Currently the organics industry earns about $70 million a year from exports. The goal of the strategy plan is to reach $1 billion a year by 2013. 
Hon David Carter 
: As 13 percent of New Zealand’s organic exports currently go to the United States is the Minister confident we can further increase our organic exports to that valuable market and does he see the Prime Minister’s recent comments as assisting in that process? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I have every confidence that the organics sector will expend all efforts in achieving its goals and I see no obstacle to the United States market playing a full share in that. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Will the Government be providing funding to support the establishment phase of the organics sector board so as to ensure its viability and to help it implement the organics strategy; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government has offered the organics sector a hand up not a handout. The first resort of the sector like other parts of the agricultural industry that want to spend money in a collective way is to apply for a commodity levy under the Commodity Levies Act. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: How can the Government claim to facilitate the development of the organics sector when the Government is actively undermining the sector with the lifting of the moratorium on genetically modified organisms? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government’s position on genetic modification is clear and well reasoned. We are working through the issues in a cautious and scientific way. It is not impossible for organic and genetically modified agriculture to coexist.
Dunne Peter: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8798] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I have in my left hand the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of today’s date. I have in my right hand a document called  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. If we go down the path that the Minister is now suggesting I could seek to table the  
New Zealand Herald 
 believing and saying to the House that I think it is actually  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 then when someone says they are two totally different documents I could say: “Oh well actually what I meant to table was  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 even though I have also tabled purporting it to be  
Speakers’ Rulings  
the  
New Zealand Herald 
.” It is an absurd situation and I think the way forward is for the Minister to withdraw his original request then to seek to table afresh whatever he chooses now to describe the document as.
Vote: Forests Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Forests Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12863] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18724] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I take it that the member has moved that the Committee reports progress? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If that is the correct procedure I am indeed moving to report progress. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The member moved that we recall the Speaker. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I have. Reporting progress is something a Government does when it wants to suspend a bill. If we report progress we will not be able to get to the bill again today. I just want to recall the Speaker. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Tamihere John: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Tamihere John: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15264] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 The member from I think Whangarei who has just resumed his seat actually had five issues not four. I know that it is tough for members in the National caucus to count particularly when they taking a vote on who will be the boss. 
I shall comment on two particular issues before commending the bill to the House. The first concerns jurisdictional issues in terms of the right under the world’s growing oceans policy to take wild species—for want of a better term. Kiwis can conduct themselves as all other nations do in the international domain of international fisheries. That is what we do and what everyone else does. The beauty of our quota management system is that it is world-leading edge. It is an unfinished manual that is continuing to be written and this bill continues to conduct a wonderful process that everyone acknowledges is world leading. 
The opportunity Kiwis have to fish in the international domain is beyond repute and beyond reproach. That is why Mr Heatley would not have had a submission from the Chinese the Taiwanese or the Fijians. He will have to get his simple limited mind around the opportunities that we have. He should not come to this House and bleat on like that. [ 
Interruption 
] The chief whip over there groans like a little bloke all the time when one tries to voice very valid concerns about speeches made by members on the opposite side of the House. The member should grow a bit of a backbone. 
My final point is about the 20 percent. In 1992 when Douglas Montrose Graham and Jim Bolger constructed the settlement agreement—also known as the Sealord’s deal—20 percent of the quota management system was put across to Maori. The reality is that a National Government put that in place in 1992. Now the National Party tries to recant tries to resile from what it put in place. End of story—National put it in place. It is constitutional it is entwined within it and that is the way it will stay. The reality for those members who are really upset about it is so sad too bad! 
I commend the work of the Minister of Fisheries for bringing this legislation to its conclusion. I commend the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House.
Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16470] 
Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3494] 
A party vote was called for on the question That all the words after the words “this House has no confidence” be omitted and the following words substituted: “in the Labour minority Government because of: (a) failure to support New Zealand’s exporters and hence exports are declining; (b) its failure to provide proper training and education for New Zealanders resulting in excess immigration to New Zealand; (c) its failure to resolve issues surrounding the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; (d) its failure to recognize social ills in New Zealand resulting in increased youth suicide lack of skills for youth in New Zealand and a decline in self-respect for youth; (e) the breakdown of law and order and the failure to support our police force with adequate resources;” (f) the decline in conditions for the poor in New Zealand highlighted by the increase in fees for the NCEA and decline in housing and health standards and; (g) its lack of support for agriculture in New Zealand 
.” 
Ayes 40 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 79 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2 
Amendment not agreed to.
Copeland Gordon: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4348] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will support the first reading of the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill and its referral on to a select committee. When I looked at the title of the bill I could not help but think of the fact that for many years in New Zealand we actually had a Department of Trade and Industry. That department has long since ceased to exist and I think it is now the Ministry of Economic Development. In a way it is interesting to see how the wheel turns as years later we find that by the integration of these two entities we will end up with something that brings trade and industry back together albeit under the new name of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. I hope that the change from “industry” to “enterprise” will signal very clearly that this new Crown-owned entity will be there to foster trade opportunities for New Zealand companies in every way possible and that in particular it will assist New Zealand business obtaining new overseas market and commercial opportunities. 
As I have said we will support this bill. We think it makes good sense to bring the two agencies together and as the Minister has said to provide a seamless service to New Zealand businesses leading from this country into the many different markets overseas where New Zealand enterprises find demand for their goods and services. However we make one request of the select committee that is to consider this bill and it has to do with the perceived culture that exists in these agencies. On the one hand some commercial organisations say to us that Trade New Zealand sometimes acts as if it is part of the diplomatic corps and that it seems to be very concerned with the process of diplomacy in dealing with trade opportunities. On the other hand they say that Industry New Zealand sometimes seems to be a politically orientated organisation. In other words there is a perception that it is like an extension of the Government and particularly of the Progressive party and the Minister Jim Anderton. 
Although we can understand that to some extent in our view it is terribly important that the central culture of this new organisation should be clearly focused on the task of assisting New Zealand businesses to maximise their trade and competitive opportunities. Therefore there needs to be not just a change of name to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise; the organisation actually has to be enterprising in the way that it seeks out business in an innovative manner and in the way that it employs people who have business nous and understand business trade and enterprise. For example I would like to see the select committee give thought to this new Crown-owned enterprise making a habit of employing people who have actual hands-on trade and commercial experience so that it can succeed in its objectives for the good of New Zealand and its businesses.
Visitors — Speaker of Legislative Assembly Queensland 
Visitors — Speaker of Legislative Assembly Queensland 
[Volume:609;Page:6625] 
Thursday 26 June 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Speaker of Legislative Assembly Queensland 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Ray Hollis Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland Australia accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
The Hon Ray Hollis accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Corrections to Answers 
Williamson Maurice: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Corrections to Answers 
[Volume:618;Page:13961] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I seek leave then to table both the letters I wrote to you which include in great colour tables and graphs showing that the expenditure was higher in National’s last year in Government. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7155] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Vote agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10403] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker can I say to people in the gallery that under Speaker’s Ruling 8/1 no contributions can be made from the galleries without prior permission being given by the Speaker. A contribution made without authority is an interruption of the House and will be treated as contempt. I am now asking the Serjeant-at-Arms to go to the gallery and act accordingly—to inform people that they cannot interrupt during the course of a debate which is between members in this House.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8156] 
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; Green Party 9. 
Noes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of Dr Lynda Scott to clause 116(1) be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9270] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that no member stands to gain any pecuniary interest by the passing of this bill.
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:20971] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; 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 11 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “To help” and insert the words “To facilitate”.
Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11603] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. As I pointed out in my first reading speech United Future was concerned about the extension of this moratorium knowing that there are many opportunities existing in the country for economic development within aquaculture farming but we were resigned to the fact that an extension was inevitable. 
The Primary Production Committee has reported back to the House after hearing submitters and we are pleased that it has attended to some of the details that were raised by them. United Future does not have a member on this select committee; we monitor it from a distance and we are pleased with the work the committee has done. It has made some useful amendments to the legislation. 
The National member who spoke earlier pointed out that there were various concerns about this extension and how urgently we want to see the aquaculture legislation put into this House so that the proper framework is in place for the development of this industry. We share those concerns. The member asked why there was a delay. It is really quite obvious. We have to do this properly. It is no good if we open up the opportunities too soon then find we have made some mistakes because we have not put in place proper procedures or there are environmental concerns as mentioned by the speaker before me. There are a number of issues that still need to be investigated properly before we begin to allow permits on a wide scale across our marine environment. 
There are many people who are keen to get involved in aquaculture but there are also many who are very concerned about the proliferation of marine farms particularly around our inshore coastal environment and their concerns are just as important. We cannot have a mad headlong rush into making profits without being conscious of what the impacts may be. 
While we do want to make sure that this is the final extension—and that in particular the regional councils are doing the work that needs to be done and the Ministry of Fisheries officials are working on the preparation of the legislation so that it will be accomplished this year—we are of the mind that it is necessary. Again I thank the select committee for taking note of the details raised by submitters. We are happy to see this bill process through to the Committee stage.
Carter David: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
Carter David: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4527] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to be pedantic but I raise with you a difficulty that the National caucus finds itself in in voting on this at this stage in that when this vote was originally taken approximately an hour ago we had 27 members of Parliament available to vote.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17894. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 71 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) of subclause (2) after the words “promoting diversity” the words “and employee representation”.
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:20977] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; 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 the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(1A)Notwithstanding any other matters detailed in section 14(2) the rights and views of victims must be paramount.
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9657] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind members that the bill has been considered by a select committee. In such circumstances the debate on the title clause is limited strictly to the elements of the clause 
and any amendments proposed thereto. The debate on the clause is a very narrow one. Members must address whether the title in the form in which it is expressed properly represents describes or reflects the purpose and contents of the bill as agreed at the second reading. I would certainly say that Dr Brash addressed the issues of the title in his introduction but he went on to move away from that. I would draw the member’s attention to the fact he is speaking to the title. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.
Vote: Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17792. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Carter John: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Carter John: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13156] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am a senior member of this Parliament and I do not often take points of order unless there is an issue that needs to be raised. I will not have my point of order dismissed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will call the member for a point of order but I would make the point that it is not a debatable motion. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is correct and I understand that Madam Chair. I am well versed in the Standing Orders of this House. But I want to make the point that while it is true that proportionality is only one part that needs to be taken into consideration at some stage I would ask you to give a considered ruling on Standing Order 102. The reason I do so is that I was involved in the discussions in the Standing Orders Committee when this whole issue was debated. It was debated for the purpose of addressing the rule that in the past anyone who had not spoken in a debate was given priority over anybody who had. Part of the problem then was that often the larger parties could cut out contributions from smaller parties. As a consequence we changed that rule in the Standing Orders for the very purpose of trying to allow as one of the factors proportionality. I accept that it is only one of the factors but it may be something you can give a considered ruling on in due course and I ask you please to do so given the background of why we arrived at the Standing Order as we have. 
Today in the debate Mr Alexander of United Future made two contributions. By my calculations therefore New Zealand First should have been allowed a further two calls and National should have been allowed a further four. On that basis the Greens could have made a contribution had they sought to. ACT also should have been given a further allocation. So we should really have had at least another seven contributions. Accepting that I think we need a system to help the Chair whereby proportionality is a significant factor. I accept that you are right Madam Chair that there may be other factors—such as a member being in charge of a bill—that you need to give emphasis to but it is probably appropriate that we get a considered ruling on this not now— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: And members who have moved amendments. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes the factors include members moving amendments as Mr Ryall has and I accept that Mr Alexander certainly has done that. But there are other factors and I would ask that you at some stage perhaps next week when we are in Committee or the next time we are in Committee give a considered ruling on how we are to deal with this relatively new Standing Order which is an important one for us all to understand. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order—