edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Turei Metiria: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5065] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I was just explaining to the Committee the amendments that the Greens are putting forward to Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia and I will continue with that. The amendments that we have put forward will mean that any third party who may lease the UHF spectrum will have to commit to prime-time broadcasts primarily in te reo so that te reo is not relegated to obscure times when no one is watching the television. At other times te reo programmes will have to be prioritised. Any third party will have to commit that the service delivery takes into account the needs of te reo learners both children and adults and ensure that practical access to as many people as possible is made available. 
Those amendments reflect our concern about the current General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commitments: that those commitments do not adequately protect Maori broadcasting. We know that a request has been made to abandon funding for Maori broadcasting. There remains a GATS reservation in respect of Maori broadcasting but the limits of that reservation are not clear. There is no reservation to prevent foreign ownership or delivery of te reo programming. For example the reservation may protect the funding of Te Mangai Paho but not necessarily the use of the spectrum for Maori broadcasting nor the service delivery of Maori programming to the country. 
The Greens’ amendments will ensure that any third party will be required through its business plan to prioritise te reo and to commit to delivering a broadly accessible service. That is an essential protection in this legislation. We urge all parties in this Committee to vote for those amendments.
Speaker’s Rulings — Television Coverage of Parliament—TV3 
Speaker’s Rulings — Television Coverage of Parliament—TV3 
[Volume:624;Page:19509] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Television Coverage of Parliament—TV3 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I promised the House I am now reporting back on the television coverage on TV3 News of a member of Parliament asleep in the House during question time on 16 March 2005. I have received a letter from TV3 that admits it was in breach of Standing Order 44(2) but states that the item was within the more recent liberal interpretation of the Standing Order and that the decision to screen the shot was made in the context of the debate over the decision to remove television news cameras from the Chamber when Parliament’s system was installed. 
In an acknowledgment of the concern of both TV3 and TVNZ over the decision of the Standing Orders Committee to replace their cameras with an in-house television unit I had met with both parties on the morning of 16 March and offered to meet with them further to discuss not only the issue of the cameras but also the rules that may be appropriate in those circumstances. I agreed that the new set of circumstances resulting from the decision to televise the House was an appropriate opportunity to revisit the rules. 
It was directly after this meeting that TV3 decided to breach the rules. I do not consider that the breach was within the claimed recent liberal interpretation of the rules. It was a gross breach of the Standings Orders and a direct challenge to the authority of the Speaker. 
Since a breach of the Standing Orders has been admitted by TV3 the question arises as to the appropriate action to be taken. I have looked for any precedents of similar incidents and note the then Speaker’s action in a similar case in 2000 involving the  
Evening Post 
 publishing a photograph of a member yawning in the Chamber. The  
Evening Post’ 
s 
still photographers were excluded from the Chamber for a week in that case. I consider the breach by TV3 similar to the case of the  
Evening Post 
. It is a serious and deliberate breach of the Standing Orders.  I have therefore decided that TV3 television operators shall be excluded from televising in the Chamber for 1 week commencing on 4 April. 
On the question of whether the Standing Orders should be changed in any way that is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee. I shall raise the matter at the next meeting for consideration by members. 
A copy of this ruling is being delivered to all members through their bill boxes.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14010] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5391] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The last statement from that member was clearly totally out of order. One cannot accuse people in this House of telling porkies. The member should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Members cannot make that accusation. Could the member please withdraw.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Urgent Question to Minister of Police—Shane Ardern 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Urgent Question to Minister of Police—Shane Ardern 
[Volume:614;Page:10437] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Given that the Government is showing no signs that it wants to discuss this matter further clearly it would want Parliament to be able to have a say on a matter like this. Therefore I seek leave for there to be a debate immediately upon the end of question time to discuss this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10621] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a report from Local Government New Zealand dated November 2003 criticising the Government’s 2-year moratorium. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is.
Tanczos Nandor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14315] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 A party vote is called for. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The clerk will conduct a party vote. 
Jill Pettis 
: What are we voting on? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We are voting on Communications Security and Intelligence.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13160] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the State Only Regulation of Treatment of Prisoners Act”. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Existing Management Contracts Cannot be Extended Act.”
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17228] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from Covenant Trustee Co. dated 4 August 2004 to the Securities Commission referring the CulverdenCare Retirement Village matter to it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table a Cabinet paper indicating that Cabinet knew about that matter on 19 April 2004. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table a decision of the High Court in relation to Culverden Group Ltd Mr Anderson and the Health and Disability Commissioner. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from the office of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Barry L McKenzie dated 16 November 2004 in which he is told that the matter has to go to the civil process. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8115] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot be asked to rule on why a member a Minister or a back-bencher is not present in the Chamber. That is not part of my role. When it is requested that a question be answered by a Minister my role is to ensure that it is answered by a Minister.
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Stewart Barbara: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21257] 
9.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she confident that policy and funding originating from the Ministry of Health are achieving their intended purpose; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In general yes as seen by the improvement in New Zealanders’ life expectancy. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister assure us that the funds allocated in the latest Budget will be used to improve the lives of those in aged care; if so why is the chief executive of HealthCare Providers New Zealand Martin Taylor saying that most of the increased rest home spending will be used to meet the cost of inflation and cover existing deficits? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I can confirm that the money will be spent for the benefit of all New Zealanders particularly older New Zealanders and that the additional money that is being spent for aged care will go for aged care. 
Dianne Yates 
: Is the Minister also confident that primary-care policy and funding originating from the Ministry of Health are achieving their intended purpose? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. The Primary Health Care Strategy I think is the greatest improvement in primary health care policy for decades. It does mean that many New Zealanders now have access to affordable primary health care. From 1 July this year the 18 to 24-year-olds will join the over-65s and the under-18s in getting access to more affordable primary health care—something that New Zealanders had until the Budget of 1991 when Ruth Richardson took away the subsidy they had for primary health care. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why does the Minister not admit failure when after a further $3.5 billion has been poured into health and after massive unnecessary restructuring patients including the elderly spill into hospital corridors a situation Helen Clark described in 1996 as “disgraceful for a public health system in the middle of winter”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The reason is that it would be wrong. That is the reason why. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister confident that the recent Budget funding will provide adequate funding for the elderly who lack financial resources and require rest home care and who depend totally on superannuation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19307] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My ruling is no he cannot. The member is responsible for his own behaviour. 
Question time resumed.
Prebble Richard: Business of the House 
Prebble Richard: Business of the House 
[Volume:627;Page:22040] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 On that point of clarification I missed one of my valedictories. Can I have two? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. It will be followed. 
Question time resumed.
Locke Keith: Motions — Auckland Mosques—Attack 
Locke Keith: Motions — Auckland Mosques—Attack 
[Volume:627;Page:22029] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I intend to seek leave shortly to move a motion condemning the attacks on several mosques in Auckland like the motion we passed when the Jewish graves were desecrated. But I would first like to point out that I brought this motion to the Business Committee yesterday so the party whips have been informed—because I know that the House does not like such things to be sprung on it. I seek leave to move without debate members’ notice of motion No. 2 which reads: “That this House condemn the attacks on several mosques in Auckland on 10 July extend its sympathy and support to the Islamic community in New Zealand and declare that expressions of religious hatred have no place in this country.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11504] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have now had the opportunity to review the document that was tabled by Mr English and I now want to invite him to correct the statement that he made when he told the House a lie.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:609;Page:6716] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill the introduction and passing of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) the first reading of the Border Security Bill; and the passing through their remaining stages of the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill and of any bills into which those bills may be divided; the second reading of the Retirement Villages Bill; and the passing through their remaining stages of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill and of any bills into which those bills may be divided 
. 
The motion is moved first of all in order to enable the Immigration Amendment Bill to proceed to its first reading and a select committee without the standard 3-day separation—I think members who have been briefed on this will understand the reasons for that—and because of administrative reasons that arise out of the first bill to enable the passing through all its stages of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). In relation to the remainder of the bills the motion is moved in order to gain extra sitting hours to enable the House to consider those bills which members of this House and others have indicated they are keen to see passed as rapidly as possible.
Tisch Lindsay: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14577] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that clause 69 and schedule 2 be one wide-ranging debate but that the question be put separately on the clause and the schedule. We will be canvassing the same arguments in both clause 69 and schedule 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Wilson Margaret: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16987] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I rise to make a clarification in the light of the previous member’s presentation of the bill as being racist on the grounds that no non-Maori loses private property rights. It is true that no Maori or non-Maori who has private property rights loses them under the bill so it is not discriminatory in that sense.  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Rubbish! 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: If the member would just bear with me for one second so that we can go through—as he has been kind enough to raise it—what the Court of Appeal actually said and what it was deciding. The Court of Appeal was deciding whether there should be a process for determination by the Maori Land Court of a common law customary title. At common law those titles are not alienable; they are not fee simple titles. It is true however that the only jurisdiction that the Maori Land Court has is under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which does provide for fee simple title but not for a customary common law title. Therein lay the dilemma because when that Act was enacted there was no intention that it should cover wetland—only dry land.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12338] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:625;Page:19757] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the first readings of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill the Rail Network Bill and the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3) and the passing through their remaining stages of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill the Gambling Amendment Bill the Fiordland Marine Management Bill the Railways Bill the Architects Bill the Charities Bill the Public Records Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
This motion is moved to allow for additional sitting hours this week to consider legislation the Government would like to see passed before the adjournment.
Hughes Darren: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11652] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13030] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 107 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 107.
Hobbs Marian: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16062] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8964] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and it is not in relation to this. Please be seated. I asked whether there was any objection. The member perfectly properly as he is entitled to do said “Yes”. That is where the matter then ends.
Turner Judy: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
Turner Judy: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:620;Page:15843] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I think I confused the votes procedurally and the vote for the bill. United Future is opposing the bill but we are happy to support the procedure and I think I got those around the wrong way. I want to change our vote from eight in favour to eight opposed.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19686] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave in the event that the Government does not allow for the 2½ hours of members’ time to be granted on Wednesday 13 April for the House to set aside the time to make up the 2½ hours on Tuesday 3 May.
Simich Clem: Budget Debate 
Simich Clem: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21107] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next two speakers will have 5 minutes each with a bell at 4 minutes.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:618;Page:14293] 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When the House was in Committee on the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill the result of the vote on Marc Alexander’s proposed amendment to clause 10 to omit and substitute proposed section 107A(b) was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 35 Noes 84.
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15817] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 There might have been a lot of discussion about the splits and divisions in the ACT party over the last fortnight but I would have thought that the last party that would want to speak in the House on any welfare-related issue would be the New Zealand National Party. The National Party caucus cannot agree on anything regarding welfare policy so divided is it between the right-wing extremists like Mr Brash and the more moderate like the one-time favourite Katherine Rich. So it is extraordinary that we have already heard two speeches from the National Party and by the look of Dr Hutchison who was girding his loins a few moments ago we will hear from him as well. I hope we get some consistent positions on the National Party welfare approach because this bill which is having its first reading is another piece of legislation in which the Labour-Progressive Government sticks very firmly to its principles of fairness and security. That is very evident throughout this bill. 
I will remind this House of the three significant amendments that this bill will make to the social security system. It will extend eligibility for the accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages who have “licence to occupy” tenure. I am very pleased with that measure representing as I do the Otaki electorate which has the highest number of senior citizens in the country. The second aspect of the bill will ensure that benefit applicants who work for part of the year are not financially disadvantaged. A classic example of that is seasonal workers. With the situation our economy is in at the moment with this country having the second-lowest unemployment rate in the OECD we need to pay special attention to industries that use seasonal workers because it can often be hard to recruit such workers. Once again the Government is responding to a need through this legislation. Finally the regime is changed so that we can encourage sole parents to establish the paternity of their children or to apply for child support. 
I return to those themes of fairness and security that we believe our coalition Government stands for and contrast them with the divided rhetoric coming from members opposite who cannot even sign up to agree to much. They would have difficulty filling out an unemployment form but very shortly more of them will get that opportunity.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17145] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
Baldock Larry: Points of Order — Agent Orange—Health Committee Report Doha Declaration—Motion 
Baldock Larry: Points of Order — Agent Orange—Health Committee Report Doha Declaration—Motion 
[Volume:622;Page:17667] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move members’ notice of motion No 2 in my name on the Doha declaration as a non-debatable non-controversial motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course? There is.
Gallagher Martin: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — First Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18127] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 This is a really good bill. I could spend a whole 10 minutes on this but I will not. This bill shows what creative and innovative Kiwis can do to keep New Zealand clean green and sustainable and I think it underscores what a precious international asset Fiordland is. This bill is an excellent way to manage that asset for future generations. I commend this excellent bill to the select committee.
Catchpole Brent: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Maritime Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12038] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill. Peter Brown has taken a lot of time to work through the bill and has spent a considerable amount of time in discussion with the Minister Harry Duynhoven who has been very helpful. The bill establishes a maritime security framework that is vital to the security of our ports and maritime shipping. We acknowledge that a huge volume of trade comes in and out of New Zealand and it is vital that that is secure. But we also note that tourism is a very large portion particularly the huge cruise ships that come into ports in New Zealand. One cruise ship in Wellington not very long ago even towered over the WestpacTrust Stadium. A ship of that size is a floating city and any attempt to target one of those in port would be a tragedy we would certainly not like to see happen. So New Zealand First supports this bill and looks forward to it passing through its Committee stage and third reading. 
Bill read a second time.
Pettis Jill: Consumer Credit Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Consumer Credit Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3519] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am always frustrated—I was going to say fascinated—after hearing an ACT speaker. I wonder where the world is that they talk about. I wonder where those people are whom they talk about. I do not come across such people very often—and I am an electorate MP unlike the previous speaker so I do see people. But people do not tell me stories like those that that member has just portrayed.  
The aim of this bill is to repeal the Credit Contracts Act and the Hire Purchase Act and to replace them with a new legislative framework governing credit contracts and consumer leases. At this very moment I am working on cases for two women. The women are totally unrelated but a similar incident is causing them great concern in their lives. Both of them are widows in their eighties and both are feeling extremely vulnerable. Their concern has been brought about by a plumbing situation. Those women have not got rash with their cash in the late years of their lives but have found themselves in an extremely unfortunate and expensive situation through absolutely no fault of their own. So I say we do need to have protections in place for consumers. This is a good bill in that it provides that protection.  
The previous speaker said that people have a right to make mistakes. However I wonder why we bother legislating for so many things if we think that people have the right to make mistakes. We seem to spend a disproportionate amount of our time in this House in trying to assist people not to make mistakes or in mopping up after mistakes have been made so I wonder what the member meant by that statement.  
One of the issues that does concern me and I am pleased to see this bill being progressed through the House for this very reason is the proliferation of quick money places throughout New Zealand. We now frequently see advertisements in our metropolitan and certainly the provincial newspapers as well that state that if people wanting money go and ask for it they will get it to paraphrase the advertisements. That issue concerns me a great deal. It is as Mr Adams said far easier to borrow money than it is to pay it back. I believe we need to be cognisant of and concerned about people who do find themselves in difficulties through the misguided borrowing of money.  
I am pleased to support this bill. Let us get it progressed through the House as quickly as possible so that there is more protection for consumers.
Mackey Janet: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Mackey Janet: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12585] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Paraone Pita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21869] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution to this part of the debate particularly in relation to the clauses that cover the text of the acknowledgments both in Maori and in English. I want to say straight off that I have no problem with regard to the Maori text. It is an accurate translation of the English text—or should I say the English text is an accurate translation of the Maori text. But I believe that in the acknowledgments lies the nub of this whole bill. They articulate the reasons for this settlement. I want to pick up on the comments made by the previous speaker and say that I believe that what is missing from the acknowledgements is the background as to why the events happened in the first place which is needed so that readers in the future will have a better understanding of why martial law was proclaimed in Taranaki and of all that sort of detail. I think that understanding is important particularly for those members of our society who have some ambivalence about the whole settlement process. I think that if the background is articulated more in that context then people may have a better understanding of why we are going through this process. 
Of course this settlement will it is to be hoped put to rest the effects of the loss of life and the land confiscation and the impact of all that on Nga Rauru Kitahi all of which has been found and acknowledged to be a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown. Therefore the apology is important as it is in any settlement. How effective an apology is can be felt only by the recipients of that apology which in this case is the claimant group. In terms of the outcome of this bill although it is laudable that the Crown is acknowledging all that and that some compensation is being considered it will never suffice and therefore will never provide full restitution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PITA PARAONE 
: As I was saying before the break clauses 9 and 10 which state the text of the apology in both English and Maori actually comprise in my view the nub of the purpose of this bill. Although some members feel that the content of the apology may be over the top if I have any criticism of it in terms of being wanting it relates to why certain activities for which the Crown is apologising occurred. Those activities were clearly a breach of the treaty. For instance why did the Government of the time decide to go to war? What was the real purpose of going to war? Although some who take an interest in New Zealand history may have their own views if I have any criticism of the text of the apology then it is in that area. Other than that I think the bill is a reflection of the intent of the Crown. The fact that the claimant groups have accepted the apology means that this Committee should lend its support to these clauses.
Smith Nick: General Debate 
Smith Nick: General Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22065] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am quite concerned that the member has been given leave to table a document. She says it is a press release from myself— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The National Party. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No she said it was from Nick Smith. She specifically said my name. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am listening to one point of order at the moment. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to make it very clear that I issued no press release on that day. I have checked with my office. Now the member has conveniently said that she does not have to table it for 24 hours. I think the House has been misled. We granted leave in good faith on the basis that what she said in the leave application was true and honest. So I seek clarification from the member as to whether what she said in her leave application was correct.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Toll Holdings—Tranz Rail Report of Environmental Risk Management Authority 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Toll Holdings—Tranz Rail Report of Environmental Risk Management Authority 
[Volume:610;Page:7148] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Roger Sowry seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 an announcement on 7 July that the Government had reached an agreement with Toll Holdings concerning its bid for Tranz Rail. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. On 10 June I allowed an urgent debate on the Government’s decision to acquire an interest in Tranz Rail Holdings. While the agreement with Toll Holdings is an important development with regard to the future of Tranz Rail the fact that a recent urgent debate has been held combined with the ability to raise the matter under the appropriate vote in the estimates debate leads me to conclude that a further urgent debate is not justified. I therefore decline the application.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13041] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9690] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by inserting after the words “The national land transport account may be used to provide funds as follows” the words “ with available non-roading funding capped at 10% of the total fund”.
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7439] 
10.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What is the role of forensic investigation in solving crime and does he consider it to be important? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The role of forensic investigation is to determine evidence. Where there is forensic evidence I am advised that the police consider its investigation important and I agree. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In the light of the Government’s $4 billion surplus why has he allowed a critical bottleneck to develop in forensic examinations with front-line police now having to wait up to 9 months for criminal evidence to be examined and up to 2 years for the analysis of drug scenes; and what does he say to police and the victims of crime who regard his failure as justice delayed which is justice denied? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: In all cases where the police have vital evidence it is processed quickly. I told that member in answer to question for written answer No. 6863 lodged on 16 July that as of 1 July 2003 there were 59 samples in the DNA national database that were classified as “work in progress”. The national database receives an average of 875 samples per month. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What is the role of forensic investigation in solving crime and does he consider it to be important? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well the obvious examples include fingerprinting document examination ballistics computers photography and DNA. Local and international expertise is assessed as required. For example in the double-murder Barlow case the ballistic examination was carried out in Germany. 
Richard Worth 
: Against the background of the surpluses in the police budget which the Minister spoke about yesterday why is he not taking immediate steps to contract out forensic work and avoid the current delays in the prosecution of murder burglary and methamphetamine cases or is this a case of his praying for the miraculous delivery of resources and dithering in the meantime? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: What I am praying for is an Opposition that actually knows that the work is already contracted out to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Exactly how many of the 23 homicides 970 sexual attacks and over 1800 robberies and grievous assaults that remain unsolved are unsolved as a result of the backlog in DNA forensic testing by the institute? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If the member wants that precise information I am happy to provide it. But I can say that all urgent work is done quickly by the forensic people. Less urgent stuff or evidence that is not likely to present a solution is not dealt with as quickly.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Broadcasting—Sound System 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Broadcasting—Sound System 
[Volume:615;Page:11315] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One of the reasons is that people speak too close to the microphone. People with strong voices should not go too close to the microphone. We are going to do some testing and I will write a little memorandum for all members. I thank them for raising those points and particularly also to Mr Tisch.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10490] 
2.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: What recent reports has he received on business reaction to compliance costs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 A Colmar Brunton survey for the Inland Revenue Department last month asked how much of a hassle it was dealing with Government departments over payroll issues. Fifty-three percent of businesses rated it not really a hassle at all. Only 16 percent considered it a big hassle—much lower than one might consider from some public comments. 
Mark Peck 
: How do compliance costs for small business in New Zealand compare with those in Australia? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Recent studies in Auckland and New South Wales show that compliance costs of GST are significantly higher in New South Wales. New South Wales also face payroll-tax liabilities and compulsory superannuation. Maintaining accident compensation cover and occupational safety and health requirements also requires less time on this side of the Tasman. 
Pansy Wong 
: Why has the Minister failed to convince Mr Michael Barnett Chief Executive of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce who said that the trend is towards lower compliance in Australia and higher in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Barnett pointed out that the result of the findings was that costs were actually higher in Australia but we could do better in New Zealand. As he said clearly some compliance costs are necessary. On these matters Mr Barnett is a breath of fresh air compared with say some other business leaders. 
Mark Peck 
: What steps has the Government taken to reduce compliance costs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Measures introduced are in train and include restoring free post which was abolished by National in 1998; allowing tax pooling through commercial intermediaries; the potential for subsidies for employers to engage payroll firms; and providing a discount for new businesses that pay their provisional tax in the first year of trading.
Duncan Helen: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Duncan Helen: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:618;Page:13828] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 This legislation is an important part of the Government’s approach to strengthening both New Zealand’s national security and our international reputation for providing that security. It will provide a legal base for the Customs Service’s innovative Secure Exports Partnership scheme which sees the Government and industry working together to secure goods from the point of loading to export. It is very important. 
The previous speaker did at least have the wit and the sense to recognise how important this legislation is for New Zealand and for our international reputation but he got a few things wrong. The Government is of course putting $20 million in to start this process. It is not covering the whole cost. We are not trying to claim that but we are working in partnership with the industry and providing money to get the process up and started. This legislation facilitates early and timely access to information for the purposes of managing at-risk people planes ships boats and goods and the threats they may pose from terrorists. 
We all recognise that in today’s extremely insecure global climate we are at risk and we are a trading nation a long way from those people with whom we do most of our trade. Therefore we need to make sure we secure our borders and that our trading partners feel confident of that security here in New Zealand and when our goods go overseas. So I commend this legislation to the House as being absolutely vital to New Zealand’s international reputation and our trading success.
Peck Mark: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peck Mark: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5148] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19685] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a different point of order? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes it is a new point of order. This House does operate by conventions and there are the Standing Orders. I seek leave for the House to set aside 2½ hours of time for members’ business for the next sitting day on Tuesday 12 April to make up for the time that was removed by the abuse of Standing Order 38. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Sowry Roger: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Sowry Roger: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6635] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to ask you to go away and reflect over the weekend on what has happened this week because this member is the second member who has been named. It is always to do with frustration over the same issue which is our not getting an answer. When Opposition members raise points of order you are very quick to stand on your feet midway through the point of order and sit them down—we saw that in the last case and we saw it just before with Mr Brownlee as well. In the last few weeks I cannot remember a time when you have ever asked Government Ministers to sit down when they are raising a point of order—you hear them out. I put it to you that you are in danger of being seen to apply different standards when telling people to sit down before they have made their point of order. You anticipate what is going to be said by the Opposition and I have not yet seen you do that with the Government.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Veterinarians Bill — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Veterinarians Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18763] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a notice of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton from the Marlborough provincial Federated Farmers meeting held at Waihopai. It requests his resignation and it was passed unanimously. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Hartley Ann: Voting — Correction 
Hartley Ann: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:618;Page:13756] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I adjourn the House I advise members there is a correction to a vote. The result of the vote on the question that the amendment to the amendment to the amendment be agreed to on the second reading of the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 9 Noes 108.