edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hide Rodney: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7308] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 We were saying that this bill is shockingly misnamed and I am pleased that the Minister of State Services Trevor Mallard is here as the Minister in the chair. This small amendment bill has 13 pages of amendments in it and the United Future party has signed up to it without those amendments having had select committee or parliamentary scrutiny—the public process. 
We say that this bill should be called the “Let’s Override the Parliament Bill” because it gives enormous power to the executive to restructure Government departments. It could be called the “Let’s Get Rid of Christine Rankin Bill” because that is its purpose. Trevor Mallard did not like her and wanted her to be fired. Because he did not want her to get the big golden handshake he restructured the civil service just to get rid of one person. That is what that Minister did. We could also call the bill the “Time Doesn’t Matter to the Socialists Bill” because the cause of this bill is over 2 years old. The Minister of Maori Affairs realises that that is so and nods his head in agreement. Christine Rankin is long gone but we are still sitting here with this bill which gives the Government the power to get rid of her through the restructuring of the civil service. 
I would like Trevor Mallard to take a call and explain why the executive should have that power and to explain why 13 pages of amendments should be rushed through Parliament with the doormat’s—the United Future party’s—support rather than going through the select committee process. I would like the Minister to take the call and explain— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask the member to desist from using that sort of description of another party in this Chamber. In fact I ask him to withdraw it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I withdraw it. The United Future party is the “Agree With Everything This Government Does Whatever it is Party”. 
Opposition Members 
: Doormat! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I could not possibly say that. Members of that party just agree with everything the Government wants. They may speak against what the Government wants and oppose it vehemently in this Chamber but then they vote for it. That is probably what we will see today although I do not think they have examined the ramifications of doing that. 
I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call and explain this bill and its title rather than riding roughshod over the United Future party which is very friendly to him. Why does he not put in the title what the bill is intended to do? Or have we got it wrong? Is it not the case that under this bill the executive can restructure a department without coming to Parliament? Is it not the case that under this bill chief executives can be fired without the Government following the proper process? The Minister just sits there.
Benson-Pope David: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6901] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17720] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12300] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003—Approval 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003—Approval 
[Volume:615;Page:11489] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very happy to support this motion and we congratulate the Government on picking up on two things that some months ago—last year in fact—we strongly recommended were the way forward on P. The Green Party opposed the last proposal in this House to reclassify methamphetamine because we did not believe that reclassification alone would achieve anything. It would simply give to the police powers they could use to hassle people without warrant and we did not see that it would in any way bring the drug under control. 
At that time we said two areas needed action. One was a focus on education and the other was a targeting of the precursors from which P is made. We are very happy to see that there has been action on both those issues. There has been more funding for community education. We welcome that and look forward to seeing it go from strength to strength. Now we are targeting the precursors. All the information we can find is that the main problem is not chemist shops. Small quantities of drugs from chemist shops may be used but the real problems are coming with the bulk import of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Tackling that through more customs powers is exactly the right way to go. 
Classifying these drugs as classes C2 and C3 gives them an appropriate degree of regulation but there are no police powers to search on the street without warrant—which is something we have to ensure is not expanded infinitely in this country when it is unnecessary. There is not a great deal more that I want to say. We are very pleased the Government is tightening up on bulk import—in fact preventing unauthorised bulk import—of the precursors to P. 
We are pleased the education funding is out there and starting to work. This is a terrible drug which has dreadful social consequences. We must do everything we can to get rid of it but let us make sure that what we do is effective. I believe that what is being proposed this time will be effective and therefore the Green Party supports it strongly.
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:21717] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22171] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is wrong when a member seeks to table a document and misportrays the document that is to be tabled. This document clearly has David Thomson stating: “New Zealand’s continued recognition of the Pol Pot regime”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. If the member feels that another member has misled the House there are other ways in which that matter can be addressed. I suggest that the member see me after the session. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I objected to the way you told us both to sit down. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Oh I am terribly sorry—
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10662] 
8.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What is the Government doing to protect homeowners in their purchase of built household units from property developers and speculative builders? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The Government has agreed to introduce further changes to the Building Bill currently before the Government Administration Committee that will extend the warranty provisions to property developers and speculative builders. In addition such developers and builders will be required to obtain code-compliance certificates prior to the completion of contracts for the sale of household units. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why are these changes to the Building Bill necessary? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: When someone buys a unit or house off a developer or speculative builder there is no original contract to fall back on if something needs to be fixed. Therefore the warranty provisions will provide redress should it be required. These will be implied by law and if they are not included in the purchase agreement there can be no contracting out. Homeowners who in the past have not realised that their brand new home was not code-compliant when they bought it from such a developer or builder will be welcoming this proposal. 
Hon David Carter 
: Will the Minister assure the House that any such legislative change will be more effective than the fiasco around the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act that promised access to speedy resolution and has so far out of 2105 claims resolved only 33? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member has quite rightly identified a problem with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service procedures which were designed to give people effective and ready access to solutions. But what we have actually seen is people spending a considerable amount of money on lawyers instead of on getting their houses fixed and I would like to do something about that.
Peters Winston: Obituaries — Pope John Paul II 
Peters Winston: Obituaries — Pope John Paul II 
[Volume:624;Page:19548] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It is impossible to experience the passing of a person of the stature of Pope John Paul II without a feeling of great sadness and great loss. We particularly wish to extend our condolences to the Catholic community in New Zealand and abroad as well as to all New Zealanders and world citizens who feel this loss. 
The longevity of his papacy and the fact that he was the first non-Italian in the role for many centuries make the papal term of Karol Jozef Wojtyla special. But it was the nature of the man that raised him to the highest echelons. During a period when hedonism and materialism held sway he was guided by ethical and moral principles alone. Whilst we may not all have agreed with all his beliefs no one could doubt the steeliness and fortitude with which he held his beliefs and the profound effect he had upon the century in which he lived. 
Pope John Paul II internationalised the papacy though his many travels and it was very much a special moment for New Zealanders when he came to this country. However internationally the image of his meeting of forgiveness with his attempted assassin Ali Agca will probably have the greatest permanence in people’s minds. We therefore grieve the passage of a great spiritual leader.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:616;Page:11989] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Certainly the latter is true. However to come to the point raised by the member as is always the case that is a matter for discussion between myself and the other parties. Of course if we finish by 1 o’clock on Wednesday or by 1 o’clock on Thursday question time will follow automatically.
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14861] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to continue the points Richard Prebble made regarding clause 317 and 317A. Clause 317A “Offence for residential property developer to transfer household unit without code compliance certificate” concerned a number of submitters because there is a liability on the council and the developer if they transfer a property. Subclause (3) states: “A person who commits an offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding $200000.” 
From a local body’s point of view it is important to know exactly what the provisions in the clause mean. Officials of the Waitakere City Council came before the Government Administration Committee and made a very important point about code compliance certificates. We asked them how many outstanding code compliance certificates there are in Waitakere City. I want the Committee to listen to the reply carefully because it shows how stupid the whole clause is. The answer was: “(a) A year or two ago an internal review concluded that only 48 percent of all building consents issued had code compliance certificates issued in respect of those consents. (b) We interrogated the consents database for the status of incomplete building records in the system which covers the period 1 January 1993 to date.”—the date being the end of December last year. “There are 15184 records of incomplete consents indicating the lack of code compliance certificates. In the period 1 January ‘93 to 30 November ‘03 this council issued 38300 building consents. If the electronic interrogation is correct then this is indicating that around 40 percent of all building consents in that period have not had a code compliance issued. (c) We asked a further question. The response to the question”—which relates to flats unit apartments and stand-alone dwellings—“was 2009 incomplete records. To put that information in context I note that in the 12 months to 30 November 2003 this council issued 920 new building consents for flats units apartments and dwellings. That is with an average construction period of 4 months approximate.” 
The submission goes on to state: “By way of conclusion may I say that I am staggered by these numbers. My experience as a solicitor in practice in Christchurch was that you could not sell or mortgage a property without a code compliance certificate. Why in Auckland it might be so different I do not know but this is a major issue. Finding a mechanism to ensure code compliance is obtained is not easy.”
Benson-Pope David: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7779] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6494] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put.
Visitors — Canada—Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs House of Commons 
Visitors — Canada—Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs House of Commons 
[Volume:624;Page:19353] 
Tuesday 29 March 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2.35 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Canada—Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs House of Commons 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs from the House of Commons Canada are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Cunliffe David: Income Tax Bill — Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Income Tax Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12534] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I hate to disenchant the previous speaker but I should be extremely surprised if in doing the rounds of the beaches over the Easter break I find one New Zealander other than a historian stretched out on a deckchair with a copy of the National Party manifesto. That party will be consigned to the dustbin of history—yet again very soon. 
The last thing the House needs just as we are all contemplating the Easter eggs is a long speech about a tax bill but I briefly want to say that this Government thinks that this legislation is long overdue. It is very good to have seen some bipartisan cooperation on it; the Finance and Expenditure Committee has done a very good job on it and we look forward to being able to pass it through. 
This is not a debate in which we want to spend the whole time talking about tax rates but it is important that the Government maintains a healthy fiscal balance to offset what is largely a private savings gap because of the New Zealand habit of raising big mortgages to pay for real estate. The previous speaker will know of course that the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes is not a cash surplus. I look forward to seeing the passing of this bill.
Tanczos Nandor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22220] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson if the Committee will give me a moment I will clarify that and then seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say that not too many minutes are left in this debate. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection. The vote will be corrected.
Yates Dianne: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Yates Dianne: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20075] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 This bill corrects inequities in the present laws on sexual violation. It clearly defines consent and incorporates the intent of my member’s bill. I thank the New Zealand Drug Rape Trust the police and the individuals who have taken cases to court that have not been upheld. I thank members of the Law and Order Committee for incorporating that provision in the bill. 
The bill clearly defines “sexual connection”. That definition includes male on female sexual violence and object violations as well as retaining the word “rape”. I point out to the Green Party and Ron Mark—who has been a soldier and who should understand this—the fact that there is a genocidal intent in some rapes where the intention to impregnate is an added crime does mean that the word should be retained. 
I thank everybody who was involved with the committee. I thank the officials the Minister for listening so carefully and all those who have been involved.
Sex Offenders Registry Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Sex Offenders Registry Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21037] 
Tuesday 7 June 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Sex Offenders Registry Bill 
Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave for members’ order of the day No. l for the second reading of the Sex Offenders Registry Bill to be discharged and for the Sex Offenders Registry Bill to be referred back to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration as discussed in the Business Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Hobbs Marian: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Hobbs Marian: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16283] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 After that fairly large speech which continued to talk about vulnerable employees I want to express to the House why I happen to support this bill and in particular support vulnerable employees. It is all very well talking about butcher shops—about going into the back of them and having those conversations. That actually misleads people. But in this Chamber I would like to comment on the fact that we are reintroducing protections for employees most at risk in the sale transfer or contracting out of business situations. 
Members are aware of the cleaners who work in our hospitals who work in this building and whose jobs get taken out from underneath them. They are replaced their conditions are made worse and they work for longer hours or do even more work just because a business has been sold. This bill gives a higher level of protection to those employees who have been the most vulnerable to restructuring situations in the past. Those employees will have the right to transfer to the new employer on their existing terms and conditions of employment. 
So even though we have had those most wonderful speeches from Opposition members going on about the rights of workers I say that they are the same people who have trampled on cleaners who have trampled on the most vulnerable workers in this society and who could not give a hoot as long as they continue to line their pockets. I totally support this bill.
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9053] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a contract signed on 1 July 1999 between the Smokefree Coalition Trust and the Health Funding Authority. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Worth Richard: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Worth Richard: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21686] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a report that states that fines totalling $31352 were written off by Hamilton judge Anne McAloon in or about May 2005. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is.
Sowry Roger: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9747] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I apologise because I should have done this after my speech but because the Minister has not seen the document I referred to I seek the leave of the Committee to table the special AA Advocate document analysing the Land Transport Management Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Chadwick Steve: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11617] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) and point out that in the debate on the previous bill I omitted to congratulate our new Minister of Fisheries the Hon David Benson-Pope. I wish him well in his job. This bill—fancy having two fishery bills on the Order Paper!—is one that the industry itself has indicated support for. 
The very critical aspect that the bill will correct is the eliminating of the illegal take of our fisheries. I am thrilled the bill corrects that anomaly.
Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11774] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the third reading of the bill. 
John Carter 
: Take a short call! 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I thank the member for that advice. United Future listened with interest to the debate in the Committee predominantly because we did not have a member on the select committee. It has been very informative for us to listen to the issues being debated in the Chamber and I thank those members who have made a very positive contribution to the debate. Phil Heatley from the National Party gave some very clear examples of the issues involved in the bill and I think he has done an excellent job. I also thank Doug Woolerton for his contribution and the Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope for his answers and explanations of some of the issues that have been raised. 
We are happy to see the bill arrive at its third reading because it is an issue that has been around for a long time. It has been a major cause of concern within the fishing industry and it is time for it to be resolved so that the industry can move on. We are pleased to be able to support the bill in its third reading today. 
One of the issues that has not been debated quite as much in the Committee but is part of what is dealt with in this bill is closing some legal loopholes with regard to illegally obtained seafood around our coastline. The only thing that I want to add to the debate this evening is to emphasise again how important it is for us to continue to investigate these loopholes. The Ministry of Fisheries needs to have the resources at its disposal to effectively police our fisheries regulations with regard to the poaching that is occurring around our coastline which is leading to the depletion of our very valuable resources. 
This bill makes some amendments to that and I believe it will be very beneficial to the nation and to the economy as a whole. With that I am happy to indicate United Future’s support for the third reading. We commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10735] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not say that the member agreed to that at all. I said that at the Business Committee where the member’s party was represented I said what the tariff was and there was no comment on that. 
Dail Jones 
: Silence is not consent. I did not agree to it.
Benson-Pope David: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4706] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I called very loudly indeed. Obviously the member has an issue with his hearing.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:606;Page:3645] 
10.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Does she have confidence in the recommendations of the Commerce Commission contained in its final report on its inquiry into airfield activities; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I have not yet made any decisions on the recommendations of the Commerce Commission report on its inquiry into airfield activities. 
Peter Brown 
: Does she believe that in Wellington Airport’s overall charges an increase of 78 percent is significant and if she does will she ensure that the airport activities are controlled as per the Commerce Commission’s recommendations in that report? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The advice that I have is that most of Wellington International Airport Ltd’s price increase relates to terminal charges which are outside the scope of the Commerce Commission’s inquiry. Having said that its increased price for airfield activities of 27.6 percent is certainly greater than the 10 percent increase factored into the commission’s analysis. I will be taking all those matters into account. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Is the Minister still seriously considering placing price controls on Auckland airport given that one of its major customers United Airlines has just withdrawn its Los Angeles to Auckland service and that with the prospect of war soon the international aviation market is expecting a 20 percent downturn in business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have received the Commerce Commission’s report and I am awaiting advice from officials. I will make my decision after that. 
Mark Peck 
: When is the Minister expecting to make a decision on the report? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I anticipate receiving a report from officials in the next few weeks. On that basis I would be hopeful of making a decision on whether to recommend control by the end of March. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that these new charges implemented by Wellington Airport will make the cost of landing a Boeing 737 at Wellington twice as much as at Auckland or Christchurch and will she tell us personally whether that is acceptable to her? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I have said the Commerce Commission did identify the fact that Wellington Airport might in fact be increasing its charges during the period within which I would be making my decision. I have said to the member that I will take the matter under advisement.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7314] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4590] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not require any further assistance on this matter. The acceptance of the closure is entirely a matter for the Chairperson to judge in each case. Members must not seek to relitigate the ruling on the closure any further. I say to members that they are getting close to being grossly disorderly. I refer them to Standing Order 86.
Robertson H V Ross: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11663] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to advise honourable members that the amendment to clause 5 and the amendment to clause 61 in the name of the honourable member Phil Heatley are out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee. In the debate on Part 1 the Committee rejected an amendment to extend the moratorium only until 1 April 2004. The proposed amendments seek to insert a 1 April 2006 extension in the definitions in a later section in the principal Act. This is not consistent with the Committee’s earlier decision. However there is another amendment in the name of the honourable member Phil Heatley to clause 6(2). 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by omitting the expression “40” and substituting the expression “30”.
Maharey Steve: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Maharey Steve: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19576] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Just for the sake of the Committee I point out that Part 2 deals with consequential amendments to the Income Tax Acts. Clause 16 amends section OB 1 of the Income Tax Act of 1994 and the Income Tax Act of 2004 by removing references to the transitional retirement benefit which no longer exists. There are consequential amendments because of the transitional benefit being changed to the Health Entitlement Cards Regulations the Social Security (Period of Income Assessment) Regulations and the taxation regulations. Clause 17 “Savings in respect of tax on benefits” validates the practice of paying tax direct to the Inland Revenue Department at a grossed-up rate of income-tested benefit. 
I just mention that because one of the things I have noticed ever since Mrs Collins has been the National spokesperson on welfare is that she never quite seems to know what she is taking about. 
Darren Hughes 
: She’s like that in every portfolio. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand that but she has just given us another 5 minutes on Part 1 and I thought it may be helpful for the rest of the Committee to know that this part is not the part that has just been debated by the member.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16357] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Motions — Tsunami Boxing Day—Expression of Condolence 
Hide Rodney: Motions — Tsunami Boxing Day—Expression of Condolence 
[Volume:623;Page:18149] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to endorse the Prime Minister’s comments and to note that the tsunami truly was a horrific disaster that affected people all around the world in terms of lost loved ones. The true horror did not become apparent until some days after the event so we had the horror of learning more each day about the true magnitude of this disaster. Even now the devastation and the loss of life are truly incomprehensible. But it was remarkable to see all around the world people coming together in their common humanity and offering help and support. The world feels a much closer place after the response that we saw. 
We should pay tribute to the New Zealanders—the military volunteers aid groups and Government officials—who have worked tirelessly and round the clock to help. We should pay tribute to every New Zealander who has contributed aid to this cause. We should also pay our respects to the military and aid groups of other nations. I am thinking particularly of the United States of America and the USS  
Abraham Lincoln 
—which undoubtedly by being in position 3 miles off the Indonesian coast within hours of the catastrophe saved countless lives—and also of the Australian military. 
The ACT party endorses the Prime Minister’s statement. Let us hope we never see anything like this again. Let us also realise that it will take years to overcome just the physical loss and that we will never overcome the emotional loss of such a tragedy.
Cosgrove Clayton: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17906] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21204] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a statement of Mr Amer Salman made to a meeting at the Pakuranga Community Centre taking objection to the Rt Hon Winston Peters linking him with the Saddam Hussein regime and calling Mr Peters’ statement totally defamatory and disruptive to his family and his children. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: The second document is a statement from Mr Omar Ali taking objection to what he said is the defamatory statement made by Winston Peters that Mr Ali was a police chief in Saddam Hussein’s regime which caused great trauma to his family. The statement was made at a meeting called by the Iraqi community council at the Pakuranga Community Centre which over 200 people attended. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: The third statement is a press release from the Iraqi community council taking objection to the statements of the Rt Hon Winston Peters that two members it holds in high regard in its community were representatives of the Saddam Hussein regime. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9750] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Catchpole Brent: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7068] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I have been listening to the member who has just resumed her seat talking about the amendments to the Forests Act. She requested the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe to stand up and indicate whether the sections being repealed under this part are covered and if so how they are being covered in this bill. I cannot see where there is any replication of those provisions and I cannot see any cause to remove them. Sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Forests Act are supposedly being repealed but where in this bill are they covered? 
The Minister in the chair David Cunliffe has failed to convince the Committee and almost every speaker so far has requested him to stand up and explain to us where those sections are genuinely covered in the bill. I cannot see where they are covered and neither can other members on this side of the Committee. I ask the Minister to stand up and give us an explanation. Clause 26(2) states: “Section 71B(2) of the Forests Act is amended by repealing paragraph (b)(i) and paragraph (c). Where in the bill are they replaced? This side of the Committee has requested the Minister to stand up and explain. He should take a call now and give us an explanation. 
The Minister is shaking his head. He has no intention of standing up and taking a call. He has probably been told by his whip not to take a call because he knows nothing about the bill and therefore should stay seated and keep quiet. That way members of the Opposition will not be able to rubbish him. He should stand up and show that he actually understands this bill by telling us where those sections have been replicated in this bill. So far nobody has been convinced that he has understood the bill. He has not taken a call throughout the whole debate. He should stand up and take a call to show us that he understands the bill. I say again to him to take a call. Why will he not take a call? The Minister will not take a call. That shows he has not been in his job long enough. He has all the trappings but he has not been in the job long enough to take a call and give us a real reason. The bill has been around since 2001. He must have had a chance to read it; he should take a call and let us see how he understands it. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I’ll take a call. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Mr Benson-Pope over there is squawking away. He is saying that he will take a call. That will be good! I hope he will take a call and explain why his Minister will not stand up and give us some answers. I say to him that he should stand up and take a call telling us why the Minister in the chair is not allowed to stand up to explain Part 2. This part which repeals sections of the Forests Act is not understood. Mr Benson-Pope should stand up and explain why he will not allow his Minister to take a call. The Minister should take a call and explain this part to us.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18614] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Barker Rick: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18616] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 This is a very short piece of the bill. I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the change it made to make Part 2 come into effect on 1 April and for some other changes consistent with that to do with the Governor-General. In response to John Key’s— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It doesn’t come into effect on 1 April. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Clause 2 comes into effect when the Governor-General signs it on the date of royal assent—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes I have got that. 
I want to come back to the point made by Mr Key and to contrast it with the comments previously made by Dr Lockwood Smith. Dr Lockwood Smith lamented the fact that people are stuck in traffic as they go north of Auckland. I remind him and the member behind him Maurice Williamson that Maurice Williamson was Minister of Transport in the National Government for 9 years and did nothing about it whatsoever. Dr Smith laments the fact that an overtaking lane is being put in and has taken 12 years to build. Well in the 9 years when the National Party was in Government no bulldozers were there at all. 
The fact is that roading is being done in this country and this Government with this extra 5c in tax will fix a lot of projects that have been waiting a long time. In my area of Hawke’s Bay there would have been a long long wait before the overbridge at Meeanee was fixed. This extra amount of money will ensure that that is done and done quickly and my people are very pleased about that. A lot of other things will be done. This 5c will make sure that we have better infrastructure. 
The National Party can go on as much as it likes about how bad the roads are but it has not yet thought up a way to fix them other than the proposal before us. I say to the National Party that this Government takes these issues seriously. We will fix them. The National Party had 9 years in Government and did nothing. We have done vastly more in the short time we have been in Government. We will have vastly improved the roads by the time we too have spent 9 years in office and we will do even better in the years after that. Make no mistake about it: this Government is committed to improving infrastructure despite what Maurice Williamson said. He was in Government for years and he did nothing.
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
[Volume:613;Page:10014] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may have noticed that recently the ACT party had occasion to relocate its seating in Parliament and as Speaker’s ruling 7/1 states indeed it is left to the party whips and/or leader to determine where those seat allocations may be. But having made those allocations there is a requirement for the whip or leader to notify the Speaker for practical reasons. The broadcasting people have to know where every person actually speaks from and therefore each individual does have an allocated seat in this House and it is only the party leaders and whips who allocate where it might be within the block. So I concur with Mr Dunne’s sentiment. There is a lot of confusion here and I do not believe that the ruling we had last night does cover the situation or explain it adequately. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think it does quite clearly. The allocation of seats within a party group is a matter solely for the leader of that party. As long as a member is sitting in that block there is no cause to question the right of a member to sit there. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter and I do not want any further relitigation of it. 
Ron Mark 
: I will not take that as an intimidatory comment towards me— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it will not be and if the member makes that comment he leaves the House immediately. I have said I have ruled on that matter; I am not having relitigation.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14319] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Communications Security and Intelligence be agreed to. 
Ayes 86 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Vote Communications Security and Intelligence agreed to.Vote Ministerial Services agreed to.Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11592] 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Finance; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes for many reasons. One reason is the work he has done to guarantee New Zealand superannuation for the future. I note the National Party is signalling no firm commitment to superannuation for future older New Zealanders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that we now have New Zealand’s largest January trade deficit since 1986 and a continuing adverse exchange rate; and how can she retain confidence in a Minister of Finance who adopts the Don Brash policy of doing nothing—unlike every other First World economy in those circumstances? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I retain confidence because neither I nor anybody else blames Dr Cullen for the fall in the US dollar. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Prime Minister rule out the possibility of Dr Cullen—or her Government in fact— interfering in the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can only refer the member to Dr Cullen’s own many statements on that subject in which he said it is unwise for a Government to ever say never. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that every other country in the world has to have regard to the falling rate of the US dollar why is it that whilst every other First World economy does take steps and has machinery in respect of the highs and lows of currency fluctuations she and her Government have adopted the Don Brash policy of doing nothing? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I note that the member issued a press statement yesterday offering to help to bring down the exchange rate of the dollar and I suggest he makes his suggestions known to the Minister of Finance.
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17051] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment is to clause 12 in the name of Larry Baldock. I ask members to note that this proposal for entrenchment requires the agreement of 90 members. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to proposed new clause 12 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a) of subclause (2) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(a)by a special Act of Parliament: 
(i) passed by a majority of 75% of all the members of the House of Representatives; and 
(ii) enacted after the commencement of this Act; or.
Wilson Margaret: Retirements — Hugh Douglas Turnbull 
Wilson Margaret: Retirements — Hugh Douglas Turnbull 
[Volume:606;Page:3339] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the House record its appreciation for the long and devoted service of Hugh Douglas Turnbull who retires today as Assistant Compiler of Statutes at the age of 89 
. I note that Mr Turnbull has worked in the Parliamentary Counsel Office on the reprinting of New Zealand legislation since 1947. He was appointed Assistant Compiler of Statutes in 1950 and in 1979 the first volume of the current reprint in the series of New Zealand Statutes was published. Mr Turnbull has been the principal compiler of that series to the present day. I think it is therefore appropriate that we express our appreciation for over half a century of work devoted to producing up to date New Zealand legislation.