edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5389] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 46 
Bill read a second time. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.
Jones Dail: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5736] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am concerned that the Minister is taking a rather cavalier approach to this bill. I have taken the trouble to read the Te Aro Reclamation Act passed in 1879 which I have in my hand— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: You were here then! 
DAIL JONES 
: It seems like that sometimes. I have taken the trouble to read this bill and the important point that the Minister has raised in her speech is as I understand it that the land is leasehold land. I and New Zealand First want to make sure we protect the rights of the people who bought the lease of that land understanding it to be owned by the Wellington City Council in terms of the 1879 legislation and whose lawyers would—like me as a lawyer—have taken the trouble to check the ownership and history of the land and the rights of the tenants with regard to that land. I am sure some of those lawyers would now be concerned at the thought that the leases are being changed by Parliament. That is virtually a breach of the indefeasibility principles of the Land Transfer Act. Parliament is changing the contract between the tenants the lessees and the landowner and it is being done in a fairly casual way by the Minister. 
I make it clear to the people in Wellington who are on those properties and to any other people who may be affected by similar Wellington City Council legislation that New Zealand First will be ensuring on behalf of any particular tenants who may be involved in acquiring the freehold—and I would expect that this legislation will make sure that the first person who can acquire the freehold is the tenant—that the select committee takes all that into account and protects the tenants’ rights to buy that land. We will be ensuring that any prospective owner of the land—who might not be the tenant if the tenant cannot afford to buy the land—buys it subject to what must be clearly the registered lease in the land titles office. New Zealand First will be ensuring that all the tenant’s rights are protected in the future. That is the only point I wish to make at this stage.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — TVNZ—Rescission of Requirement 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — TVNZ—Rescission of Requirement 
[Volume:619;Page:15165] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the rescission of a requirement for TVNZ to return $450000. This application arises out of a newspaper report that New Zealand On Air may be repaid some or all of the loan in respect of a television programme. But according to the report discussions are still continuing and it is unclear what the outcome will be. In these circumstances there is no particular case of recent occurrence. The application is declined.
Maharey Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Maharey Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15873] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a report from  
Fast News 
: “Tech boss fuming over allegations by Mr English” and demanding an apology. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tamihere John: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tamihere John: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3657] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 196(1)(b) and 196(1)(c) and that the committee be instructed to report back to this House by 8 May 2003 
. referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
Motion agreed to.
Mackey Janet: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Janet: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6727] 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 Given that the member who has just resumed his seat was the Deputy Prime Minister in a Government that did bring immigrants into New Zealand and that failed to address the needs of many of those immigrants and to bring in immigrants who had the skills to match the skills shortages identified in this country I would have thought he would be very pleased to support legislation targeted towards doing just that so that New Zealand businesses have access to the skills they have identified they require and so that those people who come to New Zealand have the opportunity to settle and live here and enjoy a decent standard of living.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6880] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22115] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Nuclear Free 
 Zone Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 7; Maori Party 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Connell Brian: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17947] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I start by saying that I believe that the correct title of this bill is the “National Party Envy Bill”. That is the only explanation I can offer as to why the Government is repealing the Fiscal Responsibility Act. That Act as we have heard from other speakers is seen as iconic. It puts the brakes on Government expenditure provides some control and provides some confidence to the general public that the Government is spending money in accordance with some conditions and restraints. That it is being repealed now is an absolute travesty. Let me make it clear to the Committee that the Fiscal Responsibility Act is outstanding legislation and the reason it is being repealed is simply envy. 
We are told by the proponents of what is taking place that we should not concern ourselves because parts of the Fiscal Responsibility Act are being incorporated into this Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. I say to those people that perception is reality and that if we repeal this Act we will do a lot of damage to investor confidence. I think that is something New Zealand simply cannot afford to have happen. Our international reputation as a place where people can invest with confidence is intact at the moment but unless people continue to have confidence that reputation will be damaged. 
We should be in no doubt that Michael Cullen and his cohort are enthusiastic spenders. Some members of this Chamber will recall the fact that the books in 1990 were cooked by the outgoing Labour Government. The person at the heart of that was none other than Dr Michael Cullen. [ 
Interruption 
] It is right. Now he is asking this Committee to accept that the Fiscal Responsibility Act is no longer needed. He is asking this Committee to condone it being repealed. That is why the National Party will vote against this legislation. 
The other point I raise is the arrant PC nonsense around leadership and management capability in the public sector. We are now being asked to legislate for standard human resource management practice. Any organisation worth its salt would engage in succession planning career planning equal opportunities and minimum ethics standards but this Government says that we now have to legislate for that. That is the major reason why this bill is 500 pages in length. The amount of repetition and arrant nonsense that I find when I look at this bill leads me to believe that an alternative title could simply be the “PC Act”. This Government is pushing its own political agenda and PC nonsense through this bill and the rest of the country is being asked to swallow it. I can tell members that the National Party certainly does not accept that.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5545] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take this opportunity to back Mr Dunne in what he is saying because in fact we do not always get the opportunity to negotiate the wording of questions. I raised this very point with you last week when a question’s context was considerably changed by the Clerk’s Office in order to accommodate the Minister whom the Government had decided would answer it. I have another point when you are ready. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can tell people that substantive changes are not made without consultation. The second point is that the question as it was originally lodged is not in order but the member is perfectly at liberty to seek the leave to ask the question as he originally put it. Does anyone object? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: No I do not object. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is not. The member may ask it.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9467] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 39(1) after the word “police” the words “a police officer of or above the rank of sergeant”.
Duynhoven Harry: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19909] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That the Railways Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Hughes Darren: Forests Amendment Bill —  
Hughes Darren: Forests Amendment Bill —  
[Volume:617;Page:12949] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to takea very brief call on the third reading of the Forests Amendment Bill. The Minister read out the reasons for this legislation very well at the beginning of the debate. One aspect I am very pleased about is the flexibility this bill gives the Minister in deciding what to do in respect of thedisposal of timber that has been illegally harvested. At the moment it has to be used as firewood and it seems to me that the bill will enable some more creative solutions to be found in that regard. I support the third reading.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12586] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7222] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been reflecting upon the proceedings this afternoon. I will ask you to note at this point that all of the New Zealand First members are vacating the Chamber. I want you to consider that we are consistently running into this problem where tempers become frayed and frustrations rise to the point where people object possibly do challenge you on occasion and do make statements that are unparliamentary. All of that has its root in this question time being turned into a sham by Ministers who refuse to answer questions who duck issues and who shuffle questions from one side to the other. I want you to reflect on that. I know it is difficult for a Speaker to make a ruling that sets a precedent but I think we are getting to the stage where outside on the airwaves people are looking at question time as being an absolute farce.
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13236] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The leave has been granted and I cannot go back on that. It is up to the Government as to which Ministers are present. The member knows that; it has been the case ever since I have been in the House.
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4097] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to speak just briefly to the commencement clause. I heard Tony Ryall say in his speech that he was putting up an amendment to it. New Zealand First wants to get in behind that amendment and support it but probably not for quite the same reasons Tony Ryall gave. Tony Ryall obviously lives in a little bit of a fantasy land in thinking that Bill English will be the Prime Minister in 3 years’ time. Bill English just does not have enough charisma; he is just not going to get there. However I come back to the commencement clause. Tony Ryall asked members opposite a very good question about one of the issues he was talking about. I do not think many members here caught the question because he was not trying to be too loud but I caught it. He asked why other ethnic groups do not get the benefit of this 19.5 percent tax rate and Mahara Okeroa said: “Because you’re Maoris.” Darren Hughes knows because he heard it. People on that side of the Chamber heard it. Mahara Okeroa said that the reason other ethnic groups do not get a 19.5 percent tax rate is that they are Maori. I thought that was pretty honest but I guess he answered that question very well. 
Sitting beside me is Edwin Perry who is one of New Zealand First’s Maori members. He is the chairman of a trust involving about 4000 acres and 80 beneficiaries. Those people are behind what New Zealand First is saying here. They say that they want this measure and that is fine but they want it to apply to all New Zealanders. They do not want special or preferential treatment. That is the message Edwin Perry has been getting and he is the chairman of a Maori trust. One has to ask oneself a question when a member from the Labour Party Mahara Okeroa says bluntly that the reason is that they are Maori— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to come back to the commencement date. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Thank you for your guidance Madam Chair. I have given New Zealand First’s reason for supporting Tony Ryall’s amendment. It is definitely not for the reasons he gave in relation to Bill English taking off his shirt and trying to become the Prime Minister in a few years’ time. We will support his amendment and oppose the commencement date.
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17095] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. No there is no point of order. The member is running out of steam and I thought that I would give him a break. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order.
Peters Jim: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17904] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I listened with interest last night as I left the Chamber just before midnight and heard quite an impassioned comment about the very subclauses that have just been referred to by the last speaker—namely those in clause 157. I went home after midnight somewhat confused by the trend and the tone of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s comments. 
I am even more confused by the Hon David Carter. As an employer in the State service as a school principal who employed many teachers and other staff throughout the late 1990s I recall such aspirations as these being quite clearly set out in the then Government’s requirements. I also can recall a very impassioned debate with an education consultant about why the Treaty of Waitangi obligations were being fostered upon the education service by the National administration of the 1990s. All that I can say very briefly is that what I see here is a watered-down version of what I saw the last Government enshrine in day-to-day requirements of employers in the State service throughout the 1990s. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Rubbish! 
JIM PETERS 
: The call of “Rubbish!” could be answered by documentary evidence of exactly that. This measure to me personally is demeaning. It need not be there. But all that I see in that clause is a watered-down version of a far stronger obligation that was imposed by the last Government upon the State services throughout the 1990s. So let it rest where it belongs. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith knows exactly what I am talking about. As a Minister of Education he set in train such obligations and burdens and he knows that. It was because of his impassioned call last night that I decided reluctantly to get up and say that National was not only the godfather the grandfather and the grandmother of these clauses but enshrined them bill by bill Act by Act throughout the 1990s. For those members to attempt now to come to the Committee with very pure and clean white hands is just not on.
Turner Judy: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16478] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to talk on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. United Future members have taken a pragmatic look at this bill and asked ourselves whether it is an improvement. We have decided that yes it is. But does the bill go far enough? No it does not. Are we prepared to support it on the basis that it is an improvement on the current situation? Yes we are. 
My colleague Paul Adams who would normally be taking this call but is on leave has a favourite saying about the way one eats an elephant—one bite at a time. We feel that this elephant—this bill—does provide the opportunity for another bite to be taken. However let me be very clear that if we were to be given the opportunity to support New Zealand First’s proposed amendments we would be behind that party in supporting those amendments. I want to make it very clear that we see a huge amount of room for improvement. 
I refer now to some issues that came up before the Social Services Committee when it was considering this part. For instance the select committee was advised that apparently officials are considering a framework and looking at the design eligibility criteria and payment structure that could eventually apply to self-employed people. That is apparently on the agenda but it is not covered by this part at this point in time. I guess the point we would make about this part then is that maybe we should have tarried waited a little longer and allowed the work to be done so that the very important people who are yet to be included in the provisions— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Who are they? 
JUDY TURNER 
: Self-employed people—are able to be included. The other thing that we need to remember when looking at this part is what was said on it by submitters. There were definitely some concerns about it regarding their inclusion if they were self-employed. 
I also want to refer to a report in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
in February this year in which it was reported that Margaret Wilson was apparently recommending to Cabinet that the self-employed be covered by paid parental leave. Apparently Cabinet discussed the matter but was not happy with the proposal by the Minister. So it is obviously a moving feast with Cabinet and let us hope that we do not have to wait too much longer before we have a new amendment bill bringing in some sensible provisions so that this paid parental leave is extended to the huge number of women who at present are missing out. 
United Future is supporting this bill because it makes a step forward—it is a bite of the elephant—but we want to see more. We will be anxious in the future to cooperate with any Government that is prepared to re-look at this and include provisions to extend the legislation further than it is at present.
Hartley Ann: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14557] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind members that as the Minister’s amendment clearly signals the Government intends to vote against clause 65. The debate is just on the commencement so members cannot speak about anything else. The Government has signalled that it wants to vote against the clause so I suggest that members may prefer to move on to the clauses they can debate.
Hobbs Marian: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18933] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to answer two points that have been made in the debate. The first is the renewable energy question. I want to remind Mr Sowry that when Wellington Regional Council representatives came to me they said they were prohibited from using their land—prohibited from altering the intention of the Wellington Regional Water Board Act—because the land was primarily used for water catchment purposes. There are a number of issues that they did not want to have: large buildings large roads moving of trucks over land extensive farming or any of those other things. They wanted to use the land largely for forestry and for renewable resources so they were quite happy with the definition that had been put in this bill by the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was not contrary to their immediate intention as they expressed it to me. 
Roger Sowry raised the second issue when he said that clause 4 in Part 2 “Electrical installations and works” states that the Wellington Regional Council must own this energy action. I say that it does not. Subclause (1) states: “The Wellington Regional Council may construct operate and maintain electrical installations”. I take the point that Murray Smith my Wellington colleague from the United Future party raised. When United Future moved to amend the original clause 5 “Performance of functions by council-controlled organisation or council-controlled trading organisation” and extended its meaning by doing so the amended provision allowed and added to the fact that private individuals or a private company could invest. I think that was quite clear when Genesis Power a State-owned enterprise came and expressed its interest in possibly investing there. 
This is not a bill that will automatically put an enormous cost on to Wellington ratepayers and a responsibility on to a council to run what could be quite a large enterprise. [ 
Interruption 
] It does not forbid it but this is not forbidding legislation and I— 
Simon Power 
: It is empowering legislation. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I wonder who is on her feet? I think I made those two points quite clearly. The first point was that renewable energy was something the council was quite happy with as it did not conflict with the council’s original intention and the second point was that this clause is not an instruction for those people to own the energy company that may go in there.
Vote: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3973] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Donna Awatere Huata to clause 52A be agreed to: 
To insert after clause 49 the following new clause: 
49ABookmakers to be allowed to take bets on course 
(1)Racing clubs are permitted to allow bookmakers to take fixed odds bets on course at any race meeting for which a betting licence has been issued subject to imposition of reasonable conditions including payment of any rentals and levies agreed. 
For the purposes of this section bookmakers offering fixed odds on course betting must comply with the provisions of this Act relating to fixed odds betting with any necessary modifications.
Robertson H V Ross: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8462] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I recognise that we do have a large Government Supplementary Order Paper and I am also aware that Standing Order 178 no longer exists as it has been suspended. I will certainly in taking into account the number of calls that members make recognise the importance of the Supplementary Order Paper.
Duncan Helen: Border Security Bill — First Reading 
Duncan Helen: Border Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6830] 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: I am pleased to speak to the Border Security Bill which is part of the whole-of-Government approach towards strengthening New Zealand’s national security and maintaining our good reputation as clean green safe and secure. This bill addresses global concerns about security and introduces four major sets of provisions addressing travel security supply-chain security law enforcement and immigration matters. This bill will be good for New Zealand and I recommend it to the House.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to  
Georgina Beyer (Member in charge of Local Bill) 
: Why has she sought to postpone the second reading of the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill under Standing Order 71(1)(b)? 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 In answer to the member it was in order to assist progress on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In making that trade-off did the member consult the district council to obtain its approval or was she acting as a result of discussion with the whips of her own party? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: I had an informal conversation with the Mayor of Masterton District about my intention to defer the second reading of the bill until 5 November and subsequently left a telephone message for him when I had in fact sought that deferral from the Clerk of the House. 
Jim Peters 
: Why should the good people of Masterton wait a further time when the bill has been considered by the select committee submissions have been heard and the final mind of the committee has been made known merely because of a political device? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: I understand that according to the Standing Order quoted by the original questioner I have the privilege in this House to make that decision as a member in charge of a local bill.
Pettis Jill: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9574] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Obituaries — Ronald Morrison Barclay Possum Bourne 
Obituaries — Ronald Morrison Barclay Possum Bourne 
[Volume:608;Page:5163] 
Wednesday 30 April 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Obituaries 
Ronald Morrison Barclay 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on Tuesday 29 April 2003 of Ronald Morrison Barclay QSO MBE JP who represented the electorate of New Plymouth from 1966 to 1975. He was senior Labour whip during that period. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member in particular his wife Joy. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Possum Bourne 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 New Zealand lost in the early hours of this morning one of its great sporting legends Possum Bourne. I move  
That the House acknowledge the contribution of Possum Bourne not only to New Zealand motor sport but also his role as one of our great sporting ambassadors 
. He will be very sadly missed by many New Zealanders. Our condolences go out to his wife and his family. 
Motion agreed to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think it would be appropriate if we also observed a period of silence for Mr Bourne. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6194] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
Adams 
Copeland 
Ogilvy 
Smith N 
Awatere Huata 
Dunne (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Carter J 
Eckhoff 
Roy 
Choudhary (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Teller: 
Coddington (P) 
Newman (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Franks 
Noes 93 
Alexander 
Dyson (P) 
King 
Smith L 
Anderton (P)  
English (P) 
Laban (P) 
Smith M 
Ardern (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Barker (P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Barnett 
Field (P)  
Mahuta (P) 
Swain (P) 
Benson-Pope 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Beyer 
Goff (P) 
Mapp 
Tanczos  
Bradford 
Gosche (P) 
Mark  
Te Heuheu 
Brown (P)  
Goudie 
McNair (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Burton  
Gudgeon (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
Okeroa 
Turei(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
Paraone (P)  
Turia (P) 
Catchpole 
Heatley (P) 
Parker  
Turner 
Chadwick 
Hereora 
Peck (P) 
Ward (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hide (P) 
Perry (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Connell (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wong (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hughes 
Rich (P) 
Worth (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Robertson 
Yates 
Donald (P) 
Jones (P) 
Robson (P) 
Donnelly (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Ryall 
Duncan (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Scott (P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven 
Key (P) 
Simich  
Pettis 
Abstentions 1 
Baldock 
Amendment not agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21712] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15275] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1.
Hawkins George: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hawkins George: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20107] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7357] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The purpose of the bill is to make generic provision for matters resulting from the machinery of Government reorganisations. It enables the Crown to organise itself for administrative purposes without unduly consuming House time. The most important element of the bill is to limit the cost to the taxpayer of compensation for technical redundancy. Where functions transfer from one department to another and an employee’s position ceases to exist the employee is redundant and entitled to redundancy compensation even if a substantially similar position is available in the transferee department. In such a situation the employee is technically redundant. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is about to raise a point of order on something I was just about to comment on myself. I could hardly hear the Minister. There are meetings going on now. Could members please leave quietly and could the Minister please speak into the microphone. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I wonder— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want any comment. I just want the Minister to continue. He is using up his time. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Under the bill where an employee is offered a substantially similar position in the transferee department on no less favourable terms and conditions of employment no redundancy compensation will be payable. The bill covers similar situations where functions of a Crown entity are transferred to a department affecting an employee’s position. These provisions will only apply following the making of Orders in Council. Specific legislation will still be required to disestablish a department that is established by legislation. The bill applies to the generic provisions of the transfer of functions from the Department of Social Welfare to the Department of Work and Income and changes the name of that department to the Ministry of Social Development. It also applies to the merger of the Department for Courts into the Ministry of Justice.
Maharey Steve: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Maharey Steve: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13495] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order—because I know that the New Zealand First members want to know exactly what is going on with their change—I point out that the legal advice from officials is that we needed to veto the clause so all their amendments have been vetoed. But because we want to support what they are doing we have simply put one in so that we can advance what they have asked for. It is the legal advice that has led to this but we will advance what they are asking for.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I am wondering whether the Leader of the House might give us an early indication of when the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill is likely to progress up the Order Paper. There are a number of businesses throughout the country that are interested in that bill making some progress. It has been available to the House for some time. Further can the Minister just give us an indication about what the following week may have with regard to extended hours.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19520] 
4.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How will the Working for Families package assist families with their accommodation costs from 1 April 2005? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 From tomorrow housing will be more affordable for thousands of New Zealand families. The maximum allowable rates of accommodation supplement will increase in areas with higher housing costs and a new accommodation supplement area with new higher maximum rates will be created in northern and central Auckland. This completes the Working for Families changes to housing assistance that began last October. They involve almost 100000 people having their accommodation supplement increased by an average of $19 a week at a cost of $480 million over the next 4 years. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can working families expect any further assistance beyond tomorrow’s changes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They certainly can. In October this year families with young children will see a further increase in the rates for childcare and subsidies for out-of-school care and recreation. This time next year the new in-work payment replaces the current child tax credit and pays at least $60 a week for each working family to ensure that the move from a benefit to a job is always financially worthwhile. Families will also be able to earn more before their family assistance is reduced. Finally from April 2007 family support will increase by another $10 for each child in the household. 
John Key 
: Why is the Government going to pay an accommodation supplement to 41 single people who earn between $50000 and $80000 a year and 30 couples who earn between $50000 and $80000 a year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Obviously I would have to check the figures but to put this in context an estimated 133000 families will be eligible for the accommodation supplement including nearly 15000 who are eligible due only to the Working for Families package. If there are a small number around the edges who have gained it as the member described I will find out who they are. 
John Key 
: As the member has asked for the information I seek leave to table an answer to question for written answer No. 8943 from the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that indicates that not only are 80 New Zealanders going to be earning up to $80000 and receiving an accommodation supplement but over half of the 266000 people who are receiving the accommodation supplement are not families; they are singles. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is an objection. The document will not be tabled.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7563] 
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many applications for residency are currently under consideration? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 My advice is that there are 27461 applications currently under consideration. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Do the 27000 applications include amongst that number two pallets full of files that went missing between Wellington Shanghai and Beijing in the last 2 weeks which contained some 700 files of applications in the business category and for residence and which included confidential material such as birth certificates passports and bank details? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not know because I am not aware of the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why were two pallets containing 700 files with confidential material such as birth certificates passports and bank details being sent to Shanghai and Beijing from this country for processing as to the suitability of the applicants to become New Zealand residents; why is that processing taking place in the People’s Republic of China rather than in New Zealand by New Zealanders and what has happened to the missing files? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not aware of the matter that the member is raising. I am aware that a decision has been taken to shift some files from the business branch in order to have them dealt with in a particular area that has the capacity to deal with that work because there is a significant backlog.
Duncan Helen: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Duncan Helen: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13511] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14891] 
10.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to school zoning policies? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen one suggestion that school zoning should be abolished completely while I have seen another report suggesting there should be some limitations on parental choice in areas of high population growth and that the removal of zoning would not solve any problems at all. These suggestions came from the leader of the National Party Don Brash and his education spokesperson Bill English. Why can they not get their act together? 
Helen Duncan 
: Has the removal of school zoning been considered previously? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes school zoning was abolished in the early 1990s. Then the previous Government was forced to bring it back in 1998— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think something has affected that member’s memory. 
Opposition Members 
: Oh come on! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a perfectly legitimate interjection and the member made the interjection. He said it was not true and the Minister said his memory is not accurate. There is nothing wrong with that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes school zoning was abolished under the previous Government and then it was forced to bring it back in 1998 to combat overcrowding. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not accurate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was abolished in the early 1990s and we are listening for Richard Worth’s opinion on this issue. Is he backing Bill English so that people who live next-door to Auckland Grammar can get in or is he backing Don Brash in which case they would not be allowed to go there?
Turner Judy: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8070] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I just want to take a brief call because I have a concern about Part 1 and one of the Supplementary Order Papers. Part 1 refers in clause 9 to restricted activities and while that term has been left to be defined at a later date by those who should be making that decision not members of Parliament Heather Roy’s proposed substantial amendment—which she has very sincerely put together—does not actually make any changes by my observation to clause 9. The problem that is then created is that if doctors pull outside of this legislation and stay with their own existing legislation and then if invasive surgery anaesthesia and some of the things that we know are done by medical doctors become restricted activities anybody outside the Act would not be able to perform those activities. So my concern with Heather Roy’s Supplementary Order Paper is that it could work against the very people I think she is trying to help with her amendment in that those people could then be unable to perform surgery unable to give anaesthetics and unable to perform activities that we can anticipate will probably be listed under the restricted activities because that is not amended. 
I want to draw members’ attention to that because I think it could have serious consequences for medical specialists in particular.
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8811] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Committee has been instructed to consider the bill part by part. The bill is drafted in three parts. Part 2 of the bill amongst other things substitutes a Part 1 heading in the principal Act. That Part 1 heading is an amendment to the principal Act not a separate part of the bill. Part 2 encompasses clauses 3 to 7A as I stated and that is what the Committee has been instructed by the House to consider. That gives lots of time for debate. We will debate Part 2 clauses 3 to 7A.
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10294] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can the member just come to the title debate please. I know it is difficult but members need to address the title. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you. I am suggesting that the bill be described as the “United Future Bribery Bill”. That would be an adequate description of what the bill does.