edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18537] 
7.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What programmes are being run by Work and Income to meet seasonal labour demand? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Government has a two-tier approach firstly working with seasonal industry to develop and maintain a long-term workforce; secondly in the short-term assisting through Work and Income to ensure that all available and suitable New Zealanders on the unemployment benefit are made available for work so it is Kiwis for jobs first. Work and Income with the Department of Labour and the Immigration Service are working to assist where there is insufficient labour supply with visa changes for visitors to be made quickly and the Inland Revenue Department is ensuring— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer is too long. That is sufficient. 
David Parker 
: What impact are those programmes having on seasonal labour demand? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: As each region is different the short-term plan has been tailored to their requirements. In Alexandra we have seasonal solutions in the form of a one-stop shop in Hawke’s Bay a web-based employment-matching programme that has had a surprising number of hits—2.3 million so far—with 1932 job applications being received and more surprisingly a high proportion of these—about 90 percent—are from Kiwis. Additionally Work and Income has written to superannuitants— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say for the second time that the Minister’s answer is too long. I presume he wants question time to finish. If he does not well then I am happy to let him go for an hour if he wants to. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister assure the House that under the Jobs Jolt initiative relating to the work testing of 55 to 59-year-olds this age group will not be compelled unreasonably to work in orchards vineyards and fields as a way of getting them off the benefit? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The work test will be applied fairly according to the rules for every group.
English Bill: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
English Bill: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7896] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We just have the small embarrassment of the facts. I know that that might be regarded as a problem for the Parliament but for most people according to common sense the facts of the matter have not been altered by the action that Parliament took in passing the legislation. The facts are that the qualification to sit in Parliament was breached and all the official advice was that a vacancy had occurred. That was then retrospectively changed by the passage of legislation but there is absolutely no doubt that the question of a vacancy arose. That cannot be denied. Given that the question of a vacancy arose in a technical sense what the Government did with the legislation is irrelevant to your obligation under statute to deal with that question. 
The facts raise the question of whether a vacancy occurred. If it is now your intention to ignore the facts as if the passage of legislation obliterates all the actions that were taken by a member of Parliament we need to know that because I do not think even the Government would claim that the legislation states that Harry Duynhoven did not do what he did. The fact is that he did and you have an obligation to let this Parliament know whether a vacancy has occurred. If your explanation is that there is none because the legislation has been passed then we should hear that from the Speaker of the House. Up to this point we have heard nothing from the Speaker who is the final arbiter of whether someone is qualified to sit in the House.
Hartley Ann: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15933] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The corrected vote for Part 2 as amended is 102 for and 18 against.
Roy Heather: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Roy Heather: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:625;Page:20145] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is the second time I have sought your assistance on this matter. I have asked several written questions of the Minister of Health and the answers are now long overdue. In fact one of the questions was first asked of the Minister of Health on 29 April 2004 so that question is now more than 1 year overdue. I raised this matter with you in the House on a point of order on 16 March and you requested that I should write to you. I did so and you responded on 17 March saying that you would look into this matter and contact me again. That was 6 weeks ago and I have yet to hear from you. I would just like to say that Standing Order 366(4) is very specific on this matter and reads: “The reply to a question for written answer must be lodged no later than the sixth working day following the day on which the question is published.” I have 11 questions that are well and truly beyond the 6-day mark and I wonder what redress I now have. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. My understanding is that a response was given but I will look into it further for her.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21148] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will not hear the point of order until there is silence. I remind members that points of orders are to be heard in silence. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to make two points. Firstly I say in response to that speech by Winston Peters that Standing Order 116 seriously constrains me and I will stay so. But in respect of the comments made by Phil Goff relating to Dr Don Brash and the tsunami I seek the leave of the House to table a statement made by Dr Don Brash with regard to the tsunami. On 27 December— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have not finished yet. How can members object? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member gave his explanation of the tabling and there was an objection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I did not. I did not finish. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is required to give the explanation tersely. I have ruled on it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the member I remind him that I have ruled on the previous point of order.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7898] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are three factual errors in that speech all of which are quite important factual errors. There is no suggestion that you sat on this issue for 2 months Mr Speaker. You received a letter from Mr Duynhoven bringing to your attention the fact that he believed he might be at risk of having triggered section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. Quite properly you referred the matter to the Privileges Committee because this House does have a role to play in terms of determining whether vacancies have occurred. It is a long historical tradition. Indeed if the member would care to think for a moment he would remember that until very recently a motion in the House was required in order to trigger that process. But this House has long asserted its privileges with regard to its membership in that respect. 
Mr Speaker you indicated that you would not act until you had had a chance to consider the advice from the Privileges Committee and the House and those rules are well understood. Indeed Mr Prebble asked for an assurance from me that I would not introduce legislation until the Privileges Committee had had a chance to consider the issue. Had that not been the case had you not indicated to the House that you were going to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee the Government would have sought to legislate earlier. I have no doubt about that fact at all. There is no question of collusion in this matter. We have the Government responding to your ruling in terms of the timing of its actions. So the 2 months is wrong. 
 Secondly the member is wrong and seriously wrong in talking about the Attorney-General approving the prosecution. He is confused with the Solicitor-General and the significance of that is extremely strong indeed. The Attorney-General is a Minister of the Crown; the Solicitor-General is an independent legal officer. That was an error that needs to be corrected. Thirdly you did not decide that a vacancy had not occurred. You have now indicated subsequent to the legislation that a vacancy has not occurred because that legislation was retrospective. You have not made any decision announced to the House about what the position would have been had that legislation not been passed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Following strictly on advice I have received on all these matters I want to say that I did not wait 2 months; the matter was raised with me only on 23 July by way of letter from Mr Duynhoven. My ruling is that there is reference to the Privileges Committee in a case of reasonable doubt only. There was doubt in the Duynhoven case. There was not for example in the Kelly case. I gave a detailed ruling last week about the processes I will follow in privilege issues and that ruling I instructed to be given to all members of Parliament.
Hide Rodney: Motions — Olympic Games—Congratulations to New Zealand Team 
Hide Rodney: Motions — Olympic Games—Congratulations to New Zealand Team 
[Volume:619;Page:15144] 
Well done to those athletes well done to their back-up crews and well done to the rest of us for taking an interest getting excited and getting out of the doldrums for a little while on the strength of their performances. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party also offers its congratulations. I think it was the second-best gold medal tally since Los Angeles. We ranked a creditable 24th in the medal count which was very good. It is important that this House congratulate not just those who won medals but everyone who competed and more particularly those families friends and volunteers who laboured long and hard behind the scenes so that we could all be so proud as a nation. All I can saygiven that performance is: “Bring on Beijing in 2008!”. I understand that the Games will have the triple somersault and I look forward to Winston Peters coming back with a gold medal.
List Member Vacancy 
List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:610;Page:7343] 
List Member Vacancy 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act Moana Lynore Mackey has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Graham Kelly. I understand that Moana Mackey is present and wishes to affirm. Would she please come forward to the chair on my right.
Hunt Jonathan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12300] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to take it again. Is there any objection? There is not. I will return then to the situation where I state the question. I ask members to please pay attention. The question is  
That the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6186] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
Anderton (P) 
Duncan (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Robson 
Barker (P) 
Dyson (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Barnett 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Simich (P) 
Benson-Pope 
Fairbrother (P) 
King 
Smith L 
Beyer 
Field (P) 
Laban (P) 
Sowry (P) 
Bradford (P) 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Locke (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Brash (P) 
Gallagher 
Mackey (P) 
Swain (P) 
Burton (P) 
Goff 
Maharey (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche 
Mahuta (P) 
Tanczos 
Chadwick 
Hartley 
Mallard (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Turei (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hereora 
Parker 
Turia (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hide 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Rich 
Wilson (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui 
Teller: 
Donald (P) 
Hughes 
Robertson 
Pettis 
Noes 50 
Adams 
Dunne (P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith M 
Alexander 
Duynhoven  
Newman (P) 
Smith N 
Ardern (P) 
Eckhoff (P) 
Ogilvy 
Stewart 
Awatere Huata 
English (P) 
Paraone (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Baldock 
Franks 
Perry (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Brown 
Goudie 
Peters J (P) 
Turner 
Brownlee (P)  
Gudgeon (P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wong (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley (P) 
Power (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Catchpole 
Jones (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Worth (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Key (P) 
Roy 
Yates 
Collins 
Mahuta 
Ryall (P) 
Copeland 
Mapp 
Scott (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly (P) 
Mark (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Carter J 
Amendments agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8076] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15640] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:610;Page:7981] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Last night leave was given for the New Zealand First Party to alter its vote on the question that the order of the day for the consideration in Committee of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Health Committee. The New Zealand First vote was initially recorded as a split party vote and Dail Jones sought to have the vote cast as a single party vote for the Ayes. This was not clear at the time and the corrected result was not correctly announced. The corrected result is Ayes 56 Noes 61 and the motion is not agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16930] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to our discussion in the Business Committee I seek leave for there to be 14 speeches each of a maximum of 10 minutes on the second and third reading debates on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. That will be so.
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9027] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I would like to respond to Dr Cullen’s suggestion to you and to point out the obvious flaw in his argument. The Standing Order needs to be read as a whole. It is not a question of giving substantial and greater weight to the first sentence—both sentences have equal weight. Dr Cullen is quite right in what he says the consequence will be if the two sentences are given equal weight. But it is a very simple and cardinal rule of interpretation that Standing Order 301 must be read as a whole. Maybe it is fortuitous that this issue has emerged. Maybe it is contrary to the practice of the House and the House has been following a practice that is contrary to the Standing Order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I now understand what the issue is and I have heard the arguments concerned. The “place” is the place within the part at which the amendment stands. This is what occurred on 9 September—on pages 8513 and 8514 in  
Hansard 
—on Part 4 of the Gambling Bill. The Minister’s amendments were taken as two questions. I thank members because I have had an opportunity to consult everything since then. The Chairman has apparently put the question on all the Minister’s amendments. Therefore it is too late to go back and put the Minister’s clause 2 and clause 3 amendments again. Therefore unless leave is forthcoming the only question remaining is that the part stand part. That is the only question remaining unless leave is forthcoming. Does anyone want to seek leave?
Field Taito Phillip: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4870] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (NZ Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 As chair of the select committee that helped to process this bill I want to take a short call to say that the provisions in the bill and the issues we were dealing with in the select committee provide a good balance in relation to what is needed in a transitional period when we need to promote competent well-trained and qualified social workers. We have known for a long time and even from the sector that there is a need to improve standards. I believe that this bill fulfils the needs that have been expressed by the sector particularly with regard to registration. We also need to give people who might be well experienced as social workers the opportunity to get themselves qualified and trained to meet the requirements of registration. 
After so many years of the issue being raised by social workers and those who wanted to see standards raised I congratulate the Minister and this Government on this bill finally coming before the House. In relation to social issues and the care of children there is a great appreciation by the community that we need well-trained and qualified people who are properly registered to be effective in looking after children. That is one example. There are many other areas of social work where registration will help promote standards. 
What the select committee and the Minister have done in setting up the regime for registration strikes a very good balance for the next 3 years. At the end of that period there will be a proper review so that we can look at what has happened in that time and then look at mandatory registration and other important issues. I congratulate the Minister and hope that members will support the provisions during the Committee stage.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17816. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I have a brief comment on clause 1 the title. This bill as the title reflects—the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—does fix the annual rates for another year. It does contain provisions that will assist the promotion of venture capital in New Zealand by non-residents. It contains a number of miscellaneous provisions such as preventing the sale and lease-back of intangibles and thus the fiscal risk attached to that the early payment of rebates of income tax provisions around horticultural plants dispute procedures Australian unit trusts and so on. In many ways it is a mechanical bill. It is part of the good governance that is required to ensure the security of the fiscal base. 
In this short call I wish to make two points on the issue of taxation rates. The first is that we have heard a number of arguments from the Opposition that the Government has money in the coffers and why does it not spend it. Whether it is spent by giving tax cuts or expenditure increases is essentially an accounting identity. It does not make any difference to the fiscal balance. However the Opposition members are Keynesians in reverse. They are not prepared to spend when we are down on the cycle and thus they make it worse. They want us to spend when we are at the top of the cycle causing an overheat. 
I have two words for the Opposition—“Allan Bollard”. Why those two words? If we increase spending or give tax cuts now by more than we can afford that will have the effect of raising interest rates and in turn raising the exchange rate. The Opposition’s argument that the Government is flush with tax implies that Opposition members have not even read the December economic forecast. If they had they would know that the Government will be in a cash-negative situation by 2006 with about a $700 million cash borrowing requirement and about a $1.5 billion cash borrowing requirement the following year. So this rhetoric about “rolling in dough” is simply that—just rhetoric. This Government is committed to good prudent fiscal management and that is what this bill delivers.
Alexander Marc: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14504] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to contribute to the debate on this bill. It is refreshing for once to support a Government bill that I think generally speaking does everything it sets out to do. In a sense the bill is all about personal responsibility and accountability with regard to the integrity of the passports and citizenship of New Zealanders. I just wish that some of this thinking would spill over into the economic sphere of life and to some of the policies that this Government would then have there as well.
Tisch Lindsay: Offices of Parliament—Appointment of Auditors 
Tisch Lindsay: Offices of Parliament—Appointment of Auditors 
[Volume:622;Page:17664] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National is happy to support this motion. For the public to have confidence in the processes and work carried out by the office of the Auditor-General it is important that all audit processes applied to that office are of the same standard as those applied by the Auditor-General to other public entities. Further under the Public Audit Act any independent auditor is to exercise the same powers that the Auditor-General has in relation to the audit of public entities. We need an independent auditor who has the capacity to audit financial statements statements of service performance legal compliance waste and probity issues and to undertake performance issues. There must be no conflict of interest. The term of an independent auditor should be for a period of 3 years as indicated in the motion and what we are approving today is the reappointment of CST Nexia Audit. 
 It is interesting to note that 3 years ago when this exact appointment took place on 18 October 2001 the firm then was known as Curran Sole and Tuck. I checked with the Auditor-General’s office to make sure that we were talking about the same firm. I note that “CST” are the initials of the original name of the firm proposed to undertake the appointment. So we are dealing with the same firm. I wanted to check that we were in fact dealing with the same company. 
National is very happy to support this resolution. We look forward to the same performance being provided over the next 3 years by this company.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:611;Page:8821] 
Thursday 18 September 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: When the House rises today it will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 7 October priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill and the Supreme Court Bill.
Vote: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Vote: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:622;Page:18023] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand Labour 51; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13. 
Motion agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9229. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have not called the member yet. I am conscious that some members try to break up other members’ speeches. They are only 5-minute speeches and I will not tolerate frivolous points of order. If it is genuine I am more than happy. I call the honourable member Peter Dunne. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I have two points. Firstly when hearing a point of order it is customary not to penalise the member who is speaking in terms of time and I would assume that that would apply in this instance. Secondly the point I was raising was that you had just required the member to withdraw and apologise for comments that she had made and she did so. The convention is that the member then moves on. The member immediately proceeded to comment on the ruling that had just been given by saying that some people were pretty twitchy about that and that was reopening the subject. She should be brought back to order and told that once she has withdrawn and apologised that is the end of the matter and she moves on to her next point.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17360] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:618;Page:13542] 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When Parliament was in Committee on the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill the result of the vote on Peter Brown’s proposed amendment to clause 36 was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 19 Noes 87.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8809] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 95 in the name of Richard Worth to insert the definition of  
cigar bar  
in clause 2(1) be agreed to.
Speaker’s Statements — Observation of Silence—Loss of Lives in Terrorist Bombings 
Speaker’s Statements — Observation of Silence—Loss of Lives in Terrorist Bombings 
[Volume:627;Page:21947] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Observation of Silence—Loss of Lives in Terrorist Bombings 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I propose that the House observe a moment of silence as a mark of respect for those who have lost their lives in the recent terrorist bombings in London Sharm el-Sheikh and other places in the Middle East region over the past 3 weeks and in particular as a sign of sympathy to the parents family and friends of Shelley Mather from Auckland. 
The House observed a period of silence.
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21910] 
9.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the intended impact of the Criminal Proceeds and Instruments Bill introduced to the House this week? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The bill introduces a civil forfeiture regime. This allows for the High Court to order the restraint of assets where there is reasonable cause to believe that they are the proceeds of crime. Once the court has found on the civil standard of proof—that is the balance of probabilities—that the assets are the proceeds of crime the regime allows for the confiscation of those assets. These measures are important because they will enable the justice system to strip gangs of assets seriously reducing the profitability of organised crime activities and disrupting the capacity of organised crime to finance further criminal activity. 
Tim Barnett 
: Will the legislation apply retrospectively? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes the legislation will apply retrospectively to all assets and benefits derived from crime over the 7 years immediately prior to its coming into force. The legislation will therefore not have to be in place for years before its effect is felt. Retrospectivity is appropriate in this case and it is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The assets confiscated will have been found by the court not to be legally in the possession of those from whom they are seized. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Why has the Minister set up in Part 1 of the bill a scheme whereby criminal gangs and gangsters are given rights to negotiate and challenge the values ascribed to their tainted assets with a non-criminal standard of proof required of them leaving the way wide open for abuse? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This bill is modelled closely on legislation that has operated for many years in New South Wales. In that respect the New South Wales authority has found that once the assets have been restrained on the basis of “reasonable cause to believe” in 90 percent of cases the crooks give up and surrender the assets without further taxpayer expense and without requiring the involvement in the court system. That is a great thing. 
Tim Barnett 
: What is the estimate of the level of assets that may be recovered from criminals each year? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Officials estimate that up to $14 million a year will be recovered under the new legislation. That figure indicates just how much more effective the civil forfeiture regime will be than the existing legislation which has recovered just $9 million in criminal assets over an 8-year period—$14 million a year against $9 million over an 8-year period. Everybody in the House should welcome this legislation.
Tizard Judith: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tizard Judith: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16344] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I want to thank members of the House for the comments that they have offered on this private bill. As the MP for Auckland Central I have been asked a number of times to introduce private bills and I see it as a duty of members of Parliament on occasions to do that. I think that the issues that Mr Franks has raised are good ones that should be thoroughly considered by the Commerce Committee and I am sure that thorough consideration will be given to this legislation. It is slightly different in nature to earlier private bills relating to the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. in that it is now owned by a parent company that is registered in New South Wales Australia. I urge the select committee to take any advice it needs to in order to examine the bill and to cross-examine the promoters of the bill. I look forward to this legislation being received back.
Power Simon: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
Power Simon: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
[Volume:622;Page:18096] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for the Speaker to advise the House when that process has been remedied and in particular to emphasise the fact that no member will be disadvantaged as a result of the glitch.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15419] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:609;Page:6121] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you advise us as to what the situation is? You have just told us that it is the choice of the House as to whether a member can make a personal explanation but it is a requirement of the Standing Orders for the mistake to be corrected. If a mistake is made by a Minister surely the Minister is obliged to make a ministerial statement to correct his or her previous answers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister has made a mistake in a written reply he can record the mistake by a written reply. I asked for the leave of the House. Is there any objection to the Minister making a personal explanation? There is.
New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill — Discharge 
New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill — Discharge 
[Volume:617;Page:12539] 
New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill 
Discharge 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received advice dated 21 April 2004 from the New Plymouth District Council the promoter of the bill withdrawing the New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill pursuant to Standing Order 272. The bill is consequently discharged from further consideration by the House.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:614;Page:10653] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Perhaps Thursday week would be even more suitable if the member would like to come back that day. As he is probably aware the Government has given an undertaking to the Waitangi Tribunal that a bill would not be introduced before the first week in March as part of the process for the tribunal’s consideration of the Government’s proposals.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12883] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3843] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. We are now going to continue because I have made that ruling.  
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Point of order on the same point? 
Rodney Hide 
: My point of order is this. I asked for you to rule whether it is acceptable under the guise of a point of order to accuse another member of intimidating the Chair.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have made my ruling on that. 
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Chair you have not made your ruling on this. You have burbled on about what Dr Cullen might or might not have said. You have not ruled on whether that is acceptable behaviour in the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment to the Chair. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The ruling has been given. The question will now be put. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Is it OK for me to stand in the Chamber on this point of order and say that Dr Cullen is intimidating you constantly tonight? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. I have accepted the closure and I have ruled several times on the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I will repeat the ruling. I considered the comments made by Dr Cullen and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. I considered that no further action needed to be taken on them and I have moved on to the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: We take exception to them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated Mr Hide. I have ruled on the point of order. The member cannot raise that matter again. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a new point of order. I have grave concern over how this debate has been going. It is very obvious to members sitting here that the Chair is being intimidated by Dr Michael Cullen sitting beside her. He is intimidating the Chair and giving the Chair instructions about how to behave tonight so much so that the Chair will not take the simple action of asking the Minister in the chair Dr Michael Cullen to apologise for accusing a senior member of this Committee of a breach of privilege. It is very clear to me that you are being bullied and intimidated by the member sitting beside you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I should warn Mr Hide that the Chair is not being bullied and intimidated. That is not acceptable and I have ruled on that. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well you just ruled it was OK. I raise a point of order Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will desist from a reflection on the Chair. The member will now be seated. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair.
Duynhoven Harry: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14007] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in support of this bill. Having been asked only a few minutes ago to give a short speech on it I am very happy to do so. It is also a pleasure to follow Mr Key an Auckland member. He mentioned the UK experience— 
John Key 
: A positive experience. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: —he calls it a positive experience—in terms of the construction of new roads new motorways etc. I want to give Mr Key a little of my experience of the UK. I well recall the ring roads around London the congestion that occurred there in the 1980s and the huge construction efforts undertaken by the roading authorities in the UK at the time which resulted in a motorway called the M25. 
John Key 
: I know it well. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Mr Key would know therefore that the M25 was dubbed almost as soon as it was completed the largest car-park in the world. I had the experience when this brand new motorway was less than a few months old of sitting in a coach for several hours as the traffic inched gradually along. 
 The point I am making is that Auckland’s problems will not be solved by a very simple recipe of building more and more motorways. I am not for a moment saying there is no need for more roads. Clearly the Government has recognised that but it has a balanced mixture of policy that sees roads public transport by way of buses a rail system integrated ticketing cycling walking and walking school buses—all those things—as part of a greater whole. But at the same time we are making the investments that are needed in an area of the country that for many years has been neglected in terms of the amount of infrastructure being built. 
I think it is absolutely instructive to look at some of the comments of the National Party members. Just to give members one very short example before I sit down I refer to Mr Brash’s comments. He said we should remove petrol tax and reduce rates levies etc. but acknowledged that we need to build a roading network within 10 years. If one actually looks at the detail of the comments made one sees it is quite clear that one cannot remove taxes and spend more money at the same time. It is simply not possible yet that is what National members are asking us to believe.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Mr Bob Speller MP Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Mr Bob Speller MP Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 
[Volume:611;Page:8103] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Bob Speller MP Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association accompanied by Dianne Yates is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Bob Speller accompanied by Dianne Yates entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Business of the House Allocation of Questions 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Business of the House Allocation of Questions 
[Volume:606;Page:3901] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I can help the honourable member. If he actually goes and looks at the questions for oral answer for today he will see that in question No. 2 the effective Opposition does ask a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is being silly.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20120] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to insert after section 8(3) the following new subsection: 
(3A)For the purpose of subsection 2(b)(ii) for every day during which the application was lawfully in New Zealand on a tertiary equivalent student visa work visa or long term business visa the applicant shall be deemed to have been in New Zealand for one-half of a day.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4963] 
4.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: How is he proposing to assist tertiary education organisations to realise the teaching potential of information and communication technologies? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 The Government has announced that it will be making available $37.8 million in targeted funds over the next 4 years to increase e-learning capability throughout the tertiary sector. A $28 million E-learning Collaborative Development Fund will be used to fund capital projects to support a wide take-up of technology-based learning tools. The Tertiary Education Commission will be calling for applications from tertiary institutions private training establishments and industry training organisations within the next few months. A further $9.8 million will be used to enable the sector to develop e-learning capability and to create a tertiary e-learning portal. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister tell the House what difference those initiatives will make to tertiary education learning? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: E-learning will not only allow institutions and other providers to provide innovative learning tools it will also promote learners’ familiarity with those new technologies. It is also vital to realise that a genuine system of life-long learning can be promoted by learning in the workplace in the home in the community and on the marae which can be done only through e-learning. For instance we have had a broad range of new learning opportunities with experiments over the last little while with CD-ROM packages for the plumbers’ industry training organisation on learning safe working practices. We have also been doing some very interesting work with the seafood industry using e-learning. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will access to those funds both capital and operational be made available to all tertiary institutions; if not what institutions will be excluded? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The funds will be available to all institutions that are currently accessing public funding. I would point out—because people may not be aware of that kind of institution—that industry training organisations for example— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: And PTEs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —and private training establishments will also be able to access those funds.
Locke Keith: Motions — Terrorism—Madrid Bombings 
Locke Keith: Motions — Terrorism—Madrid Bombings 
[Volume:616;Page:11627] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I totally endorse the Prime Minister’s comments and those of the other members and extend our most heartfelt sympathy to the Spanish people. Green parties around the world are condemning this atrocious act and we totally identify with the comments of the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who said that the killing of innocent people cannot be justified regardless of the cause. We agree with Mr Annan’s hope that the perpetrators of this despicable bombing will be swiftly brought to justice.