edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:8019] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. Obviously the bill amends the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. It makes some changes to corporate governance arrangements for the bank and the financial system oversight provisions that have been listed by the bank. Part 3 of the principal Act deals with the governance arrangements for the Reserve Bank and the changes in this bill arose from the review of monetary policy conducted in 2001 by Professor Lars Svensson. The bill provides for the Reserve Bank board to have a non-executive director as chairman elected by the board itself. This will enhance the board’s ability to monitor the bank’s performance and strengthen the director’s accountability for the performance of his or her duties. Part 4 of the principal Act restricts the use of the words “bank” “banker” and “banking” in a name or title. Those restrictions are aimed at preventing non-bank financial institutions from passing themselves off as registered banks and so misleading the public. The amendments to Part 4 are intended to rectify the problems that have arisen while still allowing legitimate non-bank financial institutions to continue offering and promoting banking products and services. 
Part 5 of the principal Act deals with the registration and supervision of banks and the management of bank crisis situations. The amendments in the bill are designed to strengthen the Reserve Bank’s ability to deal with those matters. The bill also adds new Part 5B to the principal Act. This new part clarifies and makes explicit the Reserve Bank’s role in overseeing the payment system in New Zealand. The new provisions allow the bank to collect and publish information relating to payment systems. New Part 5C provides for the finality of payments settled through a designated payment system and for the validity of netting under the rules of a designated payment system. It also makes the rules of a designated system valid and enforceable to the extent that they are relevant to payments finality and netting. Although payments through designated systems will be protected the underlying transactions that give rise to the payments will still be subject to challenge from a liquidator. It will still be possible also to take action against a party if it acts dishonestly or fraudulently. A wide variety of different payment systems are potentially eligible for designation including CLS Bank a system for the settlement of foreign exchange transactions and domestic payment systems. This bill has been dealt with on a multipartisan basis throughout its passage. It is supported I think by all parties in the House. I particularly welcome the input from the Finance and Expenditure Committee including of course the former governor of the Reserve Bank Dr Brash.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17354] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 281 and Supplementary Order Paper 307 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 2 be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15736] 
1. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to improve career information and guidance in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Seventy-five schools throughout New Zealand will take part in a new pilot programme aimed at helping young people plan their move from school to further education or work. The $5.5 million Designing Careers pilot will reach more than 15000 students in those schools. It will arm them with the information and skills necessary to make good choices about where to go next. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House why providing career-planning advice is important? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Ensuring that we get the right people with the right skills into the right jobs is very important for New Zealand. All people have their strengths and we want to match them with the right careers. For example some people are really good at presenting information some people are good leaders and some people follow through on what they say. Getting those people into the right roles is important and it has not always been done well in the past. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that parents and communities are raising almost half a billion dollars a year to keep schools operating when will the Minister stop putting small amounts of money into tiny contestable pools and start funding properly the operations of schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is important in addressing that question that the member makes it clear that a significant proportion of the half-billion dollars that he describes as coming from communities comes from Chinese communities. He includes overseas student funding as local fund-raising which is just nonsense. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not to be involved in this. The member knows that.
Tamihere John: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Tamihere John: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6855] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4355] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill.
Tamihere John: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tamihere John: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18735] 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Standing Order 104 and the Speakers’ rulings relating to speeches in Maori make it very clear that the trifling that has gone on with the Chair tonight is not just frustrating to members here but is absolutely disrespectful to the Ngati Awa chiefs who are here tonight. I feel obliged to stand up to say that. The stunt that was just pulled in Maori is just another abomination this evening. My point of order is that Standing Order 104 does not state that the Maori language must be transliterated to the extent that other members like it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept that. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Mr Franks does not and Mr Brownlee does not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It has gone past Mr Franks. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The point we have to get at is quite simply this. In the event that we express ourselves as Te Runanga o Ngati Awa or Ngati Awa we are using movable terminologies that are dependent on the context of the expressions being used. Members opposite might not understand that but that is the reality. The point I make is that we have now spent 30 minutes on a very special bill and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: And none of them have been points of order.
Brownlee Gerry: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8780] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 There is a desire to see this bill passed through all stages today. The bill is holding up a certain amount of development of facilities and one or two other things associated with it. I am aware that people in Christchurch want the bill passed fairly quickly. Accordingly I seek leave for the debate on this matter to be a single debate with the third reading being at the end of it—with no debate and going straight to a vote—and with the debate ending either after 2 hours or after the National Party has had six speaking opportunities of 10 minutes each. It is not unreasonable.
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8298] 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We’ve already done that part. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I know but it is important to understand what the schedule is doing. The schedule is not even changing the membership of the Residence Appeal Authority. That new paragraph (c) stuck in under clause 12(4) states: “the persons who immediately before the date of commencement of this Act were members of the Residence Appeal Authority continue as members of the Residence Review Board on the same terms and conditions as applied before that date:”. What is just dumb is to go to all the expense of changing the name of a board when no element of it is to be changed—nothing! There will no change to the membership. Even the chairperson is not changing. This bill protects the position of the chairperson. New paragraph (c)(ii) states: “the person who immediately before the commencement of this Act was chairperson of the Residence Appeal Authority continues as chairperson of the Residence Review Board for the period specified in that person’s notice of appointment as chairperson.” If nothing is being changed to do with the board itself—not changing any of the membership not changing the chair of the board—what on earth is the Government doing apart from squandering taxpayers’ money? My good colleague Mr McCully mentioned that the logo will have to change because obviously “Residence Review Board” is not the same as “Residence Appeal Authority”. There will be all new stationery and everything to do with this body will have to change and for what purpose when nothing of substance is being changed? This Labour Government is so good at this sort of thing. We used to negotiate things called free-trade agreements in this country but not with Labour in Government. It does closer economic partnerships which are just weasel words for the same thing. We negotiated a free-trade agreement with Singapore but Labour turned it into a closer economic partnership. We negotiated the heads of agreement for a free-trade agreement. I signed them personally. However it is the same stupidity and same political correctness to change words at huge cost to the taxpayer. 
 I think that anyone listening to this debate would have to ask what on earth the Government is doing this for. No element of the Residence Appeal Authority is being changed. When we look back through the legislation we have just been debating it makes it so clear that nothing is being changed—not the purpose of the board not the membership of the board not the chairmanship of the board. The only things that are being changed are the expensive things like the logo and the stationery. All that stuff has to be changed. As my good colleague Murray McCully pointed out probably these days with this politically correct Labour Government the board does have to have a kaihautu and we know how expensive they are. This kind of stupidity and wastage should stop.
Burton Mark: Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11957] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 When we last discussed this bill 3 weeks ago I explained to members the purpose of the further Supplementary Order Papers in my name. I will recap ever so briefly. The passing of the Holidays Act which will come into effect on 1 April this year necessitates some minor amendments to the bill as reported back. So the opportunity has been taken to correct a minor typographical error and to divide the bill into two. Shortly I shall be moving accordingly to amend the Volunteers Employment Protection Act and the Defence Act respectively. Further the opportunity has also been taken to provide that the bill will come into effect at the same time as the Holidays Act and finally to amend clause 5 consequential to renaming the Higher Salaries Commission as the Remuneration Authority. 
I now seek leave for the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in my name and the typescript amendment to be voted on as one question at the conclusion of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is not. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clauses 1A 3 13 19 and 23 and to schedules 2 and 3 and the following amendment to clause 5 in his name be agreed to. 
to omit from the definition of  
State employee 
 the words “Higher Salaries Commission” and substitute the words “Remunderation Authority”. 
Amendments agreed to and clauses 1 and 1A Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 to 4 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 186. 
divided into Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill and Defence Amendment Bill 
Bill reported with amendment.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8229] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:607;Page:4189] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Larry Baldock to be a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Land Transport Management Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Vote: Standing Orders 
Vote: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10736] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5436] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14479] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the notes I specifically took on Mr David Benson-Pope’s opening comments on the Resource Management Act when he spoke at the Local Government New Zealand conference. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those notes. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4760] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 77 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Green Party 4 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Deborah Coddington to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Motor Vehicle Sales Act” and substitute the words “Motor Vehicle Dealers Regulation and Taxation Act”.
Peck Mark: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
Peck Mark: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20717] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I first of all say that I agreed with Dr Cullen earlier on today when he said he could not guarantee that all Government spending was worthwhile because it was hard to say that the money spent on the Opposition was money well spent. That was actually amply demonstrated by the member who preceded me the member who praised Mr Bolger but was one of the colonels who led the coup against him. 
Hon Member 
: Shipley’s man. 
MARK PECK 
: Yes Shipley’s man. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Very short-term memory. 
MARK PECK 
: Yes very short-term memory. This debate is interesting. I support the bill—surprise surprise. It is very interesting— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Don’t ruin it Mr Peck. It’s good stuff and you’re going to blow it. 
MARK PECK 
: No I am not. I am going to quote the member’s own words back at him. I am going to remind that member what he challenged the Government to do. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Are you talking about Richard Worth? 
MARK PECK 
: This is Richard Worth and it is before he became a doctor by the way. Now that he is Dr Richard Worth I am sure he stands by his words. This is what he said we must do: “We need to make our agenda clear in a review of the oaths and affirmations.” And this is what he wants us to do: he wants the removal of old and archaic language from the wording of the oaths and affirmations. We have done it in the bill. It is a very very good bill. And he said: “We have to make sure we have references to the Queen.” We have done that too. They are there. I say to the member that he said this about Mr Goff: “He needs to be reminded that the Queen is not only the head of the Commonwealth but Queen of New Zealand.” Well we know that too—check check check. It is a check check check bill. Three out of three ain’t bad! 
Hon Member 
: Meatloaf! 
MARK PECK 
: It is better than Meatloaf. So why is the member not supporting the bill? That is what I would ask him. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He should be. 
MARK PECK 
: He should be but he has been rolled by Wayne Mapp. Wayne Mapp got him despite the fact that we have Dr Richard Worth Mr Wayne Mapp rolled him. I have to say to the member that he has to get a little bit fitter—I see him in the gym from time to time—so he can take on Dr Wayne Mapp who is not that much of a specimen. He was defeated resoundingly by Phil Goff when he tried to get the Labour Party nomination for Mt Roskill. So not being able to be a Labour Party politician he did the next best thing—as far as he could see—and became a Tory. 
This is a good bill and I support it.
Worth Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4391] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order is in connection with the concluded Part 2 and relates to clause 9(2). We know and we think that the Government should know that there is an error that we have sought unsuccessfully to have the Government take notice of. The error is that the remuneration of the director is determined by an entity and under a statute that no longer exists. Mr Mark started this issue off and other members on this side of Parliament sought to draw the issue to the attention of the Minister in the chair who would not listen to that point. National supports this bill. If we did not support it I suppose we would be happy to leave a hopeless mess behind us. But now we have a situation where the director of the bureau will not get paid. I suggest that this is an issue that needs to be revisited on the basis of the point of order I now raise.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18851] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Gosche Mark: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Gosche Mark: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19717] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The point I raised for the benefit of the House is that Sue Kedgley has the right to make a reply and using it would close the debate. I wanted to make sure the House was aware of that. I am absolutely surprised that members are unaware of this debate and I am particularly surprised at members of the ACT party. I was here listening to the debate last night and I participated in it. The ACT party insisted upon the debate carrying on last night and I am absolutely amazed that ACT members do not know anything about it and are requiring Ms Kedgley to now— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will now be seated. We are now getting into debating material. It is my understanding that Sue Kedgley has sought leave for an additional speech and it is up to the House as to whether it grants it. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16146] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 4(6) in clause 6 be agreed to.
Carter David: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Carter David: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9617] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National supports with pleasure the third reading of this bill. Initially I want to make two points. First I want to acknowledge in this third reading the tremendous turn-round that has occurred within the kiwifruit industry of New Zealand and I congratulate Zespri and the growers on the progress that has been made. It was not many years ago that we perceived that industry to be an industry on its knees and now it is enjoying record returns. So Zespri as an organisation with the support of growers has done tremendously well over those intervening years. 
The second group that I want to take note of today is the Horticulture Export Authority itself. The authority has been a very successful mechanism that allows the control of horticultural products under a framework. This results in the betterment of those products that are now included within the product groups under the Horticulture Export Authority. Products like buttercup squash table grapes chestnuts persimmons avocados tamarillos boysenberries and Nashi Asian pears just demonstrate the wide diversity of horticultural exports from New Zealand to overseas markets. The producers of these individual products would if left to their own resources find it difficult to get a cooperative marketing approach to the world but this mechanism provides a highly successful means of New Zealand having the ability to market its product in an orderly fashion to present top quality produce to markets around the world. So I pay credit to them. 
The reasoning behind the amendment to the Act has been well explained through the second reading and the Committee stage and I do not intend to go over it again now. Suffice it to say that the Australian market was initially tried as a domestic market. That meant that the returns from the Australian market were not being maximised to the benefit of New Zealand growers. There was also the side issue—but an important side issue—reported to the select committee of some New Zealand product going through Australia then being re-exported to other nations to the detriment of the efforts of Zespri in those particular countries. I think that was a valid concern. It was a loophole that needed to be closed down and therefore National is happy to support that. 
I conclude by thanking my colleagues on the select committee. We have had a very significant workload this year with another matter that we hope to bring to fruition in approximately 4 or 5 weeks’ time. In between the hearings we have had on that other substantial matter we have managed to facilitate the legislation through the select committee process. With the amendments we have made through that process the bill is now back before the House in a very commendable shape.
Pettis Jill: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:6032] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I will take only a very brief call on this bill. I was interested to hear what the previous speaker had to say. Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to sit on the select committee but I have to say that the reasons for not supporting this legislation are very tenuous and very slim. The National Party is saying: “How can you support it going to a select committee?”. Morally it really had no other option. How can we say we do not support paying young people a decent wage? That was the National Party’s way of politically getting out of it—and then: “Please God let us find an excuse not to support this bill.” So hello it seized upon the excuse of not knowing the certainty of the fiscal impacts. Well for goodness’ sake! 
 It reminds me of when Parnell a man who is much revered by a lot of us in New Zealand suggested that an 8-hour day would be a civilised way for people to work. The end of the world as people knew it at the time was going to occur because of that. Well hello it has not happened. It reminds me also of the Blackball coalminers who wanted a half-hour for their crib—their lunch in common terminology—but they were denied it until it was discovered that the boss was having 2 hours for lunch. Then it seemed to be a matter of: “Well all right perhaps these poor miserable sods who work down in the black centre of the earth could have a mere half-hour after all.” 
I do not think there was a great deal of conviction in the National Party’s argument that it was because of the fiscal impact that it could not support this bill. That is just a feeble excuse. This bill ensures that young people will be protected during their period of training—and if we do not know the importance of training in the workforce by now there is something seriously wrong with us. I just have to question the Christian spirit and the good-heartedness of people who do not believe that young people are worth paying a decent liveable wage to. After all are not most of us here parents? Would we not want our children to be paid a decent wage while they are in training? As a parent I most certainly think my children should be paid a fair decent and liveable wage. 
I am supporting this bill because it is good for young people and it is good for society—and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Shirley Ken: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7631] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 After listening to the Green Party spokesperson on this bill I think the Committee could be confused because it is clear that the Green Party’s policy is a total close-down of mining in this country. Regrettably that party has had some spectacular success. The whole of the Coromandel Peninsula is closed down to mining and Jeanette Fitzsimons is proud of that. From her perspective I can understand that but from New Zealand’s perspective I am appalled. We know from the report prepared by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences that this country has an estimated $86 billion of mineral wealth under the land. 
Progress reported.
Cunliffe David: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16624] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a short call on the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. My whips have asked me to keep it to a mere 8 minutes so I will give the member only four quick lessons in transport economics. 
The first lesson is this: road transport is good—but so is rail ferry air and public transport. A lot of congestion on the roads can be relieved by a bit of petrol tax. Auckland has a billion dollars worth of congestion a year according to some estimates. The second lesson is—wait for it—this: roads cost money. They have to be paid for—somebody has to pay for them. Whether it is by a combination of Government spending the odd toll road here or there or the odd public-private partnership in order to be built roads have to be paid for. The third lesson is that there is no free lunch. If there was no 5c per litre excise tax on petrol the money would have to be taken out of the consolidated account and that would mean either having another tax or cutting other expenditure. There is no free lunch. The fourth and final lesson in my short call is this: just because the previous National Government ran an infrastructure deficit all the way through the 1990s that does not mean we have to make it worse now. Two wrongs do not make a right—or was that two “Wongs”?
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:614;Page:10569] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the date by which the Commerce Committee must finally report the Shop Trading Hours (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill to be extended to 27 February 2004 and for the date by which the Education and Science Committee must finally report the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill to be extended to 27 February 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8737] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two issues here. I think the second issue is whether an issue of privilege is involved and that is the one that should concern the House. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise that as a matter of privilege then the way to do so is not by way of a point of order. He should have raised it as an issue of privilege with you in the appropriate fashion and if it is your determination that an issue of privilege is not involved that is the end of the matter. Again that is not a matter to be raised by way of point of order in the House. That is dealing with a Speaker’s ruling and again such a ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice. Clearly you have either made a decision that an issue of privilege is not involved which is the end of the matter in the House or you have yet to make a decision on that matter in which case when you have made a decision you will report it to the House and the Privileges Committee will deal with it.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order —  
Cullen Michael: Points of Order —  
[Volume:620;Page:16083] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I conclude that the member just referred to comments you made as being intemperate? If that is so I think he should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the comment made by Mr English was not very wise. I do not think I made an intemperate comment and I invite him to withdraw that comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw.
Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5528] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During my colleague John Carter’s contribution he asked the Minister whether she had read the submission and I understood that she indicated that she had seen that submission and that she had had discussions with Meridian. Have I misinterpreted the Minister? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Go on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is not a point of order but I am happy to listen. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It certainly is a point of order if I correctly understood what the Minister said. I wanted to seek clarification as to whether the Minister had clearly given my colleague the impression that she had discussed the submission with Meridian. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the honourable member but— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have had zero response from the Minister. This is a serious matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Any response is entirely up to the Minister and that is as far as we will go on that.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17769. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 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. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 2A be agreed to.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14167] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; 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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to insert new clause 8A be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8964] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Firstly that kind of information has not infrequently been tabled in the House and indeed some members specialise in the tabling of that kind of information. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: One example. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Not far from where the member is sitting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee you are very lucky. I want no interjections on points of order and the member knows that. That is the only and final warning. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Secondly once the matter was raised by Mr Brown who introduced information that otherwise might be regarded as private then clearly—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Katherine Rich will now leave the Chamber. I said there would be no interjections during points of order. 
Katherine Rich withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Secondly once the matter had been introduced in the House by Mr Brown including private information about Mrs Grimsdell then clearly other information relevant to the case could be quite legitimately introduced to the House in rebuttal. [ 
Interruption 
] In that case we have the capacity for people to mislead the House from outside by ensuring that only partial information is ever presented to the House. That can be quite unacceptable. Thirdly—and I see Mr Prebble nodding his head because I think he probably knows what my third point is going to be—in terms of the privileges of the House Mr Speaker you go to the Governor-General at the start of each Parliament to affirm the privileges of free speech in the House. Every member is aware that things can be done in the House in terms of the presentation of information that cannot be done outside. I have seen many members sitting on the other side of the House engage in precisely that kind of activity.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14879] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have read the Speaker’s ruling you referred me to from the Hon Peter Tapsell— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was actually my ruling. Speaker’s ruling 130/6 was one of my rulings. The member has the wrong edition of  
Speakers’ Rulings. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have it here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Speaker’s ruling 144/6 I think I said. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I thought you were relying on the rule: “The Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question and has no responsibility for the quality of the answer that is given nor its content.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Speaker’s ruling 144/6 is my ruling of 2002—“Form of reply”. That is the answer I gave and that is the ruling I have here. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am not too concerned about that other than to say to you— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will tell the House why. The very same criteria apply here as applied at the time of the sale to an Arab of a Coromandel sheep farm and as applied on 6 June 1989 when the first one-third of the BNZ was sold and no Minister then defended himself on the basis that he could not answer because it was subject to some later scrutiny. Those provisions have always been there and if this House has got to the stage now where a Minister can duck behind some future tribunal then this House is being denied its proper access to information. There are countless examples of high-country farms high-profile sales all of which have come to this House in question time and Ministers in the past have answered. But today we have got something different and we had the same yesterday: “It’s going to the Overseas Investment Commission and therefore I can’t comment.” Frankly either the Overseas Investment Commission is superior to Parliament or Parliament has the right to be asking questions on this matter today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is for the Minister to consider not the Speaker.
Horomia Parekura: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5732] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Ikaroa Rawhiti) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill be now read a third time 
. The passage of this bill through to enactment will finally allow the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust to operate within the realities of the 21st century in a manner that takes account of the needs of Te Whanau-a-Taupara. 
I will briefly canvass the issues that have given rise to the need for this bill. The Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust represents a section of Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki who hold mana whenua over the Waerenga-a-hika lands. Those lands comprise approximately 245 hectares of predominantly pastoral land. The land is currently held by the Waerenga-a-hika Trust. In 1857 the land was gifted to the Crown for the purpose of establishing an education trust. The Crown gifted the land to the Bishop of New Zealand who in 1862 by deed of conveyance passed the Waerenga-a-hika lands upon trust to the Bishop of Waiapu and certain others for a school for Maori in connection with the Anglican Church. I commend this bill to the House.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18745] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 This is an important issue to do with the nature of question time because my questions to the Minister were about the veracity of his statements—what he had told the House in answer to my questions—not what the Prime Minister had said in answer to someone else’s questions. That has nothing to do with this particular issue. It is simply not good enough for a member to quote someone else’s  
Hansard 
 and represent it as things he said in response to my question. Trevor Mallard has represented what the Prime Minister said as his correct answer to my question when of course his answer was incorrect.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:618;Page:13707] 
Thursday 17 June 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House as prearranged the Government has scheduled the first reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill on Tuesday so that supporters and signers can be present. This will be followed by the joint debate on the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill and further work on the Committee stage of bills being considered later if necessary. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Thursday the first readings of the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will be progressed. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House would be prepared to assist us by indicating at this early stage where the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill might be sent for select committee consideration. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not think a final decision on those matters has been taken at this stage. I will consult with the member about that later.
King Annette: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
King Annette: Misuse of Drugs (Industrial Hemp) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15076] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Labour supported this bill’s referral to the select committee. However due to my announcement on 27 April 2001 on the cultivation of industrial hemp under strict guidelines this legislation now proves to be unnecessary. I would like first of all to thank the Primary Production Committee for the work it did on this bill and I particularly commend the chairperson. He was an extremely good and credible chair and I thank the committee members for the work they did on this bill.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11287] 
1. HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What progress has the Government made in improving the conditions of low-wage earners? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Excellent progress. This Government has increased the adult minimum wage from $7 an hour in 1999 to $9 an hour in 2004. This is in addition to the lowest unemployment rate in decades 4 weeks’ annual holiday and 12 weeks’ paid parental leave. 
Helen Duncan 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the effects of employment relations reforms? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. As Treasury advice on the reforms reflects although wide ranging they are unlikely to have a big impact. This is in marked contrast to the comments made by Dr Brash who believes we should remove all minimum employment standards including a minimum wage minimum holiday entitlements parental leave and equal pay. 
John Key 
: Did the Government make the decision to raise the minimum wage before or after it saw the  
Herald 
-DigiPoll on Monday; and if we are to believe it was before would she describe the timing of the announcement as desperate or coincidental? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I am sure the honourable member is aware there is a process that takes place for a determination in this matter that started sometime last year. Therefore the timing of it was of course appropriate. It was time to be announced. 
Peter Brown 
: What progress has the Government made in its 4 years of office in improving the lot for people employed casually—working people who would like a permanent job but are forced to take casual employment? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The member raises an excellent point and that is why in all the reforms we have not made the distinction between full-time and casual employees.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4400] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Carter Chris: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
Carter Chris: International Treaties Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3603] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill.
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17183] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 In the circumstances a number of the ACT party caucus are across the road at the High Court and I therefore seek the leave of the Committee that notwithstanding Standing Order 156 we vote to our full strength of eight shortly to be nine. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. Leave is granted.
Peck Mark: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11546] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill that it take the bill part by part 
.
Burton Mark: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
Burton Mark: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
[Volume:608;Page:5457] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Stephen Franks and the Hon Matt Robson to be members of the Law and Order Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Corrections Bill and for Bernie Ogilvy and Keith Locke to be members of the Government Administration Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the petition to repeal the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 but in each case without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.