edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Income Tax Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 195 to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
Income Tax Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 195 to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11775] 
Income Tax Bill 
Referral of S.O.P. 195 to Finance and Expenditure Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion at the Business Committee I wish to seek leave for the procedures to be followed in passing the Income Tax Bill. I seek leave for Supplementary Order Paper 195 relating to the Income Tax Bill to be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
[Volume:618;Page:13740] 
I think National needs to take a leaf out of ACT’s book—ACT’s solution has been to change its leader—because National’s leader has scarcely been heard of for months. He made one speech—a speech that imitated Sir Robert Muldoon in his favourite watering hole the Orewa Rotary Club. He rode for a while on that speech but now the momentum is tailing off again. He cannot spend the whole of his life bashing Maori and making a political career out of that. There have to be more answers and there are not any from National. There is only one yet again—make the rich richer the poor poorer and the elderly suffer. Somehow or other this is called governing in the national interest.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16686] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order —  
Prebble Richard: Points of Order —  
[Volume:620;Page:16082] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure what you are indicating to the House. Are you indicating that if the Government indicates to you that it is taking advice from the Council of Trade Unions on this matter it can invite the Council of Trade Unions in? At that point we will have the whole of the trade union movement out there in the lobby.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5185] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think that from the way the House has interpreted things in the past that would not be the case and that it might be described as “deliberately misleading” or “misleading”. But if statements of that sort are not made in the House they do not breach the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been asked to rule on whether the Minister accused the other member of lying. I thought the Minister said the comments were fiction. That is of course an opinion and does not mean that the comments were deliberately incorrect; it means she thinks they are incorrect.
Hide Rodney: Motions — Polish Children—60th Anniversary 
Hide Rodney: Motions — Polish Children—60th Anniversary 
[Volume:621;Page:16782] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party also rises to support this motion and to remember 733 frightened and distressed children who travelled right around the world to arrive in Wellington and then went on to Pahiatua after suffering horrors that no one should have to suffer let alone little children. We note the magnanimous nature of New Zealanders who accepted those children and looked after them and how we should always keep hope alive. Those children made their homes in New Zealand became as has been observed by Parliament upstanding citizens and have added to the New Zealand way of life and to the Polish community which we all know and appreciate. 
It is a story of hope and triumph. It is interesting that there were 733 children with 100 adults and our annual quota is now just 750. But we should not forget all those who did not make it. Between 1939 and 1941 1.6 million Poles were shifted out of Poland to concentration camps mostly in Siberia and Kazakhstan many of whom were never heard of again. We should reflect on the terrible suffering that the Polish people have been through over the years and wish them every success for the future.
Paraone Pita: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Paraone Pita: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21497] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is quite clear as to what we are talking about in this part. The bill’s title is the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) and not the name of a particular party. Of course after the election we will not be worrying about names. The only name that will be prominent will be New Zealand First’s. I stand to support this part. These changes provide the Customs Service and the police with the necessary powers to enable them to effectively detect the presence of controlled drugs and to take appropriate action. I must say that the example my colleague from Pakuranga mentioned about visitors coming to this country loaded down with a whole lot of drugs for medicinal purposes could raise an issue as we witnessed on a recent TV programme that featured a lady who came into the country loaded down with particular drugs that she alleged were for personal medicinal use. 
This part indicates to us that it is absolutely essential in the fight against drugs. What is the point of wanting to eliminate illicit drug use and the consequences of that use if the law does not provide the tools for our law enforcement agencies? This part now means that customs and police officers will be able to carry out personal searches on the basis of believing on reasonable grounds that a person is in possession of the drugs listed in clause 26. In essence this part strengthens the ability of the Customs Service and the police in the fight against the illicit use of drugs. It is a known fact that drug use which this bill is about is a growing and serious problem. The considerable harm that is caused invariably impacts not only on those who are directly involved but also on their families and the wider community in which many members are innocent parties in the whole sad episode. The drug P is a drug that we are hearing more and more about—particularly the consequences of its use which are disastrous. I think that there are enough recent cases to suggest that this law is long overdue. We believe it could be strengthened and we will certainly address that issue in the debate on the next part. However I stand to take a short call to say that we support this part.
Franks Stephen: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Franks Stephen: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10723] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If this is relitigating I want to know. It had better be a new point of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is a new point of order. When you advised of your decision I believe you may have considered it before the House met today. You referred to there being only media speculation. In fact there were from the Prime Minister two references to the proposed announcement tomorrow a reference to it from the Hon Tariana Turia and a reference to the fact that there would not be any opportunity to pursue her on it until March next year. In other words I ask you to consider whether the assumption that you made about this being mere speculation is tenable in the face of the Prime Minister’s references to the package before us today.
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6790] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This matter is at the core of New Zealand First’s policies relating to immigration. We have had only one call on this clause and I was going to bring in new material. You have cut the debate short. You indicated at the beginning that it was a wide-ranging debate and we have had five calls on this matter with only one New Zealand First call. I respectfully ask that we get a second call at least. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Standing Order 139 “Acceptance of closure motion” and Speaker’s ruling 54/2. I am the sole judge of the debate. Nothing new was coming forward. I have already put the question and the vote has been taken.
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14117] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I go to the next speaker I have been reflecting and I think that I was a little harsh earlier on. Of course interjections are accepted; they put a bit of life into the Chamber. Certainly if a speaker says anything that is controversial then another member is fully entitled to interject and I expect members to be reasonable.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6286] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 40 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 77 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “as directed by the Government” and substitute the words “in accord with Government policy and best commercial practice”.
Hughes Darren: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Hughes Darren: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:611;Page:8632] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call and support my colleague Steve Chadwick who ably chaired the legislation in the Health Committee assisted by officials from the Ministry of Health. I also recognise the fine leadership in the health portfolio of my friend and colleague the Hon Annette King. She has done a fantastic job on this bill and I welcome its third reading in the House.
Simich Clem: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21942] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The results of those votes will be so altered. The outcomes of all the votes are unchanged and that is that the amendments are not agreed to. Copies of the altered votes are available at the Table for members to inspect if they wish. We are now considering Part 9.
Pettis Jill: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Pettis Jill: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12988] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
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:17754. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote 
 was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Orders Papers 319 321 and 322 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 5 and the following amendment to clause 87(2) in his name be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “assets” the words “ and representing the interests of iwi”.
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14799] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question is worded incorrectly and that will embarrass Minister Maharey. There is a coalition agreement between the Labour Party and the Progressive Party not between the Labour Party and the “led” party. I think that should be corrected. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I again call question No. 6.
Horomia Parekura: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21976] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I am not sure where that member has been but there is a terrific celebration in relation to arts and culture in this country. On becoming the Government we injected $145 million into the arts through the Cultural Recovery Package and placed the creative sector back on a secure financial footing after a decade of neglect under the previous National Government. In relation to Maori aspirations the globalisation of Maori art in the last 5 to 6 years has been phenomenal. The Toi Iho trademark has been established. We are celebrating not just the fact that this country has the No. 1 economy in the OECD but also the fact that Maori cultural performances are being highly recognised by the representatives of hundreds of countries who are touring through the Aichi forum at the moment. 
The Film Production Fund has been set up to boost the development of local films. Anyone who has been watching film development in this country over the last 5 or 6 years will surely give credence and credit to the Minister for pushing shoving and making sure that local films have a better platform in this country. The New Zealand film industry has attracted huge international interest and has certainly put this country on the international stage. Whether it is  
Two Cars One Night 
The Lord of the Rings 
 and whatever else— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Oh it’s a tax regime. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member knows that this Government has provided a great injection. New Zealand On Air’s budget has nearly doubled. It had been left floundering. Members will have seen the targeted T-shirts worn in every town and city in this country in relation to the music resurgence—music engineered written and produced by New Zealand artists. It is just phenomenal again. The music industry is to develop a voluntary New Zealand music quota and that is dead right. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Another Sound of Music coming up! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is old hat. The reality of this Government’s performance in relation to this portfolio is that we have really shaken it up and a lot of people are celebrating. The theatres and halls around this country that were dead and quiet are now ringing with a whole lot of activity and that is no small thanks to a whole lot of effort from this Government. In relation to Maori and Pacific Island arts the earning capacity—the increase in international recognition in quality and in sales that is going on—is huge. That has become a key integral part of Maori moving forward. 
I commend the fine performance by the Ministers in this portfolio.
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21935] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5579] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 80 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause
Prebble Richard: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Prebble Richard: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10723] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to reconsider the situation and your ruling on my letter. You as Speaker have sworn to uphold free speech in this House. The effect of your ruling is that we cannot have a debate about something you say is media speculation. I suggest that you yourself have ruled on many occasions that you will not allow an urgent debate unless we attach media speculation to show that a matter has happened. How else are we supposed to authenticate something? The whole House and country know that the Government will make an announcement on the foreshore tomorrow. But it will not make that decision tomorrow. You having been a Minister know and we know that those decisions have already been made and been to the Government caucus. In fact certain select people in the country have been briefed about them. The only people who have not been briefed are members of Parliament and I say that for you to decide that the Government can prevent scrutiny by this House simply by keeping the matter secret actually allows parliamentary debate and democracy to be denigrated. The correct course for you as Speaker is to acknowledge that the reality does exist and is a major issue. We are reading in the newspapers about the possibility of our beaches being occupied and if we are not prepared to debate the matter in this House we are saying to the country that the issue is one for confrontation on the beach rather than for debate in Parliament. I ask you to reconsider your decision and allow this debate even if that is inconvenient for Government members. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In respect of Mr Prebble’s letter I say that no event has occurred. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: How do you know? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No event has occurred. There is no particular case. Speculation is not a case.
Franks Stephen: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9375] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am hopeful that we can get a bit of clarification about what happens if the status of these conventions is changed and whether a change automatically carries through into the relevant definitions in the Terrorism Suppression Act. The conventions that define terrorism and terrorist acts for the purpose of the bill appear in the Terrorism Suppression Act to come through in their form from time to time. I may have missed something when I was flicking through that Act trying to work out the interrelationship between the Act and this bill. The effect of the Terrorism Suppression Act is that the Prime Minister can simply adopt the definitions from these international instruments and is then able to designate and use them in a way that is outside the reach of this Parliament. I am anxious to hear that the definitions in these conventions—having been put in a schedule and therefore presumably carefully considered by the select committee—cannot be changed by the parties to the instruments without the approval of this House so as to have an effect on the way they are incorporated in Part 2. 
It is a relatively straightforward question and I suspect that there is a very simple answer to it. The definitions are either applied in their form from time to time irrespective of New Zealand’s adherence to any change or they are not. Maybe the answer is that they cannot be changed and that there is a single-party veto on change affecting us. Whichever way it goes I would be glad to hear that having solemnly considered these definitions in a bill schedule a change made by the other parties cannot then bind the New Zealand people and their Parliament.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21741] 
2.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the Government’s long-term fiscal objectives? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 They are to run surpluses in average across the economic cycle sufficient to make contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund while maintaining a prudent level of debt set at about 20 percent of GDP. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What factors would threaten those objectives? 
Hon Member 
: It’s only speculation. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh is it only speculation; not a promise? The biggest threat is the pretence that substantial ongoing tax cuts can be financed on the basis of a single year’s surplus and a few cuts at the margins in the public sector. That of course was balanced this morning by a failure to give an undertaking that child poverty and the use of food banks would not rise under a National Government. As Dr Brash expansively said: “Look there is a cycle to these things.” 
John Key 
: If the levels of Government spending are appropriate as the Minister maintains and if everything is all going swimmingly in health and education as he maintains can he tell the House why he wrote in his Budget briefing document to Cabinet: “Growth in Government spending is unsustainable if we are to remain on track to meet our fiscal objectives and significant reprioritisation will be important in the future.”; and maybe he would like to tell the country exactly what that reprioritisation involves? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I would love to for another 10 or 15 minutes but let me just pick it up briefly. That is why the Budget forecasts additional new spending of only $1.9 billion a year compared with $3 billion over each of the last two Budgets. If the member is going to commit something like $4 billion on tax cuts plus increased spending on defence plus increased spending on police plus increased spending on roads plus increased spending on prisons and the corrections service he will have to borrow a great deal of money on top of that and he will need all his skills in financial market speculation to achieve that outcome.
Cosgrove Clayton: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17766. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7560] 
6. JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Wanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What progress is being made by the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The Regional Assistance Mission has been successfully deployed and has received an enthusiastic welcome and overwhelming support from Solomon Islanders. The deployment has had the immediate effect of curbing the previous intimidation extortion and violence by armed gunmen in Honiara. However it is still early days and tougher challenges lie ahead in recovering weapons and curbing corruption. 
Jill Pettis 
: What are the priorities of the Regional Assistance Mission and what steps is it taking towards achieving those priorities? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The first priority is to restore the rule of law followed by measures to restore the economy and good governance. The recovery of weapons has started with a 21-day amnesty but backed by credible sanctions. Reform of the police force strengthening the judicial system and completion of the Rove prison are the next steps.
Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19136] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill the Administration Amendment Bill (No 2) the Care of Children Amendment Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3) the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill the Estate and Gift Duties Amendment Bill 
the Goods and Services Tax Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 4) the Income Tax Amendment Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 4) the Interpretation Amendment Bill the Life Insurance Amendment Bill (No 2) the Marriage Amendment Bill the Minors’ Contracts Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill the Tax Administration Amendment Bill the Trustee Amendment Bill the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Wills Amendment Bill  
divided into Relationships (Statutory References) Bill Administration Amendment Bill (No 2) Care of Children Amendment Bill Child Support Amendment (No 3) Deaths by Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill Estate and Gift Duties Amendment Bill Goods and Services Tax Amendment Bill Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 4) Income Tax Amendment Bill Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 4) Interpretation Amendment Bill Life Insurance Amendment Bill (No 2) Marriage Amendment Bill Minors’ Contracts Amendment Bill New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill (No 2) Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill Social Security Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill Trustee Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3) Wills Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 332 
.
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12364] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16470] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Robertson H V Ross: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20978] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is an amendment to clause 14 in the name of Marc Alexander. It is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment affecting subclause (2)(b). 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 14(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c).
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21582] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 8;.Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
[Volume:620;Page:15369] 
4.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What steps has the Government taken towards improved flood management in New Zealand? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yesterday Cabinet agreed to a review of river control and flood-risk management in New Zealand. The Ministry for the Environment will work with local government to examine current approaches to land-use planning identify any shortfalls in the current division of responsibilities between central and local government and determine any additional elements needed to achieve robust river control and flood-risk management in New Zealand. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why is such a review needed? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The two major floods this year highlighted the fact that local councils were squeezed between the demand to use flood plains for housing and intensive agriculture and the cost of providing enough protection from floods from their ratepayer base. The Ministry for the Environment is working with local government to provide protocols for balancing those issues as part of the review. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What has the Minister done to put into action both the lessons of Cyclone Bola and the explicit recommendations of Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd that farmers should be encouraged to retire marginal grazing land into forestry so that water velocities are decreased in river headwaters during flood events? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Ministry for the Environment has worked closely with the councils concerned including the councils in Gisborne and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for exactly that sort of improvement in retiring land and in replanting.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17559] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks  
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock  
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown  
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Mapp(P) 
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Mark  
Shirley(P) 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 82 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff (P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Turia(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Parker(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Peck(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Perry(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Wong(P) 
Collins(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Power(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Key(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5372] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill. To reflect on Bill English’s speech at the start of this debate I had hoped that the National Party’s speechwriters would bring him down a speech. What are the real issues that the National Party seems to neglect? All the evidence shows that young people and heavy drinkers are particularly susceptible to the price of alcohol. So an increase in the price of that alcohol through an increase in excise duty should result in decreased consumption by young people and heavy drinkers. What are the facts which the Opposition spokesperson on health should know? Those are the facts. 
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know that the drinking habits of young people are causing great concern. It was a rather stupid move by the previous Parliament to lower the drinking age to 18. Recent surveys have shown an increase in the level of heavy drinking amongst young people. Survey data show that the proportion of young women aged 14 to 17 years who drink four drinks or more in one sitting at least once a week has increased from 15 percent in 1998 to 28 percent in 2001. In addition to an increase in heavy drinking in young women survey data show that there has also been an increase in the proportion of young men who are drinking excessively. 
This bill is part of saving lives. It is all very well for the Opposition to have a bit of an outing. Opposition members love extraordinary urgency. It gives them a bit of an outing exercises the lungs and gives them a bit of a laugh. But this issue is no laughing matter. We are doing everything that we can to try to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by young people. If price is a lever to reduce that consumption then so be it. It is all very well for members on the Opposition side of the Chamber to make opportunistic speeches. The survey also showed that 58 percent of young men aged 14 to 17 years and 51 percent of young women aged 14 to 17 years reported drinking enough to feel drunk at least once a month. Members of the Opposition should look at what is happening on our roads. What is the No. 1 drug-abuse problem in this country? It is alcohol. 
I commend the Government for taking this action tonight. This is well researched and well-thought-out. It is but one of the many measures being taken to help our young people who are not helped by the Opposition and were not helped by the previous Parliament when it reduced the drinking age.
Brown Peter: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Brown Peter: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16366] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave. Would members say “Yes” or “No”. 
PETER BROWN 
: I want to make sure we understand that. Is that seeking a split vote? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member Jill Pettis might like to inform the House.
Catchpole Brent: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12240] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I would like to state that New Zealand First is against the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is a nonsense; it is unnecessary. It adds some unnecessary pieces to the charter and I really cannot understand why the Government has even bothered to bring this bill here under urgency in order to push it through Parliament. It is ludicrous legislation. We have a situation here where as Georgina te Heuheu has suggested the bill adds further responsibilities to Radio New Zealand via its charter. Well Radio New Zealand has a big enough charter and it is having enough difficulty in meeting its current charter obligations without adding additional pieces like the spiritual and ethical piece. If we consider the wide range of multicultural ethical and spiritual facets of New Zealand society today we can see that the charter would require effort virtually 24/7 just to cover that portion of it. This legislation adds an unnecessary burden to the charter which is now so overloaded with the spiritual and ethical side of things that unfortunately there will be no room for anything else. It is nonsense legislation and along with the other New Zealand First members I believe that it is totally unnecessary. 
There is one good point I will note. Clause 3(2) which is to amend section 7(1)(c) of the principal Act contains the words “and a full range of age groups”. That means I am now probably catered for in this bill whereas before perhaps I was not. It is also interesting to note that in clause 3(5) which amends section 7 of the principal Act the broadcaster is required to do a survey annually not only of its own listening audience but also of the members of the audiences of other stations—people who are not currently listening to the broadcaster. I observed at the time that that was an interesting option because there are some merits in finding out what everybody else is listening to and trying to incorporate that into the programming of the public radio station. 
But let us face it: there will not be a chance to add any other parts or interests into Radio New Zealand’s programming because it is so overloaded and so overburdened by the spiritual and ethical side of things. This is just a nonsense bill. This Government is scraping the bottom of the barrel to even bring this bill to this House let alone to bring it in under urgency. It is a waste of our time to have to debate it. I ask the Minister to pull this bill and do away with it now to stop this waste of our time.
Hobbs Marian: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8850] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—Minister's Comment 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—Minister's Comment 
[Volume:616;Page:12532] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the phrase; I was in the Chair. If I had thought that that referred to any member of this Parliament not only would the member have been asked to withdraw and apologise but his speech would have been terminated. I understood the member referred to people outside this House. I still regard the phrase as very infelicitous and that word can be looked up in the dictionary if members are unaware of what it means. 
Hon Member 
: Do we have one? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes we have and it is over there.
Peters Winston: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Peters Winston: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17024] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 What a sad mindless leaderless rabble the National Party has become. Right there we heard Nick Smith and the National Party supporting the “Freedom to Roam Bill”. One can walk on anybody’s land— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Foreshore! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No that gate is not underwater. That gate is on riparian land. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask him to sit down. Madam Chairperson he cannot do that. Can I start again? I started and the member stood there and shouted at me.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Carry on. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What a mindless leaderless rabble the National Party has become. Nick Smith got up. He would not tell us whether the gate was underwater. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s on the foreshore. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh it is on the foreshore. No it is not. It is on riparian land; it is not part of this bill. I tell members not to trust the National Party when it comes to land. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I think the speech is ridiculous but my point is that we are not able to stand up in the Chamber and say that a member is lying. That would be unparliamentary and out of order. How can it be in order for a member to so distort the contents of this bill to make his points?  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Peters knows full well that the foreshore goes to the mean high-tide mark— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
:—and there are months in the year when it is dry land.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: There are thousands of kilometres on the foreshore and if he has not worked that out he should get out of the Chamber and read the bill he is supporting.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will now leave the Chamber. He was told to sit down three times. He will leave the Chamber now. He was ordered to resume his seat. I was ruling on that. 
Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.
Benson-Pope David: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11066] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17084] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 19 
Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 49 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit from the proposed new subclause (1) the words “or cancel”.
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5442] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.
Simich Clem: Sittings of the House 
Simich Clem: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:14198] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8985] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Barker Rick: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19496] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill that it take the bill part by part 
.
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5368] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I will respond directly to the Hon Richard Prebble who spent most of his time talking about the McLeod tax review as though the sole purpose of the Government in introducing this legislation was simply to raise taxes. That is not the case at all. The Government is not doing that as a revenue-grabbing— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would be happy to listen to the member’s reply but there is some sort of dreadful ringing in his microphone. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept that. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The Government’s approach is actually about minimising the harm that that kind of alcohol causes. More and more people are starting to drink the sort of drink that has a lower alcohol content and it is causing a real problem. Young people used to buy a six-pack of beer. Now with the same amount of money they are able to buy spirits so migrating straight on to harder liquor that is not good for them at all. As those higher prices kick in the Government believes that fewer younger people will be accessing the product and therefore revenue from those products will fall. It is actually a harm minimisation approach. 
It is true that young people are now getting access to this kind of alcohol. It is not good for them and that is why the Government is taking a very clear approach to it. More than that we know that young people are very price-sensitive to alcohol so we are sending that message. That is absolutely the truth. Older members laugh but it is true that in the bigger alcohol stores one can buy much harder alcohol than previously at very low prices. I challenge members to go and look at the kind of alcohol young people can get for the same amount of money they might have paid for a six-pack when they were younger. It is a very real concern. I do not agree with the Hon Richard Prebble that it is a tax grab. I believe that it is Parliament sending a very clear and responsible message to young people about alcohol and that is why I am supporting the first reading of the bill.
Benson-Pope David: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Wine Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9481] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I did not make an obscene gesture to Mr Hide. That is a totally offensive suggestion. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s word is accepted.