edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:676;Page:21399] 
1. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Last week Statistics New Zealand issued gross domestic product data as well as statistics on New Zealand’s international investment position. Despite considerable global uncertainty the New Zealand economy grew faster than had been forecast in the first 6 months of this year. An upward revision to the March quarter was balanced with lower than expected growth in the June quarter which reflected a patchy performance across different sectors. The statistics also confirmed that we are making progress in reducing our net international liabilities the combined amount that the Government households and businesses owe to the rest of the world although there is still some way to go. 
Nikki Kaye 
: How did economic growth in the first half of 2011 compare with Treasury’s forecasts in the Budget? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Gross domestic product increased by 1 percent in the first 6 months of 2011 despite that lower than expected growth in the June quarter. This took annual growth to 1.5 percent. Supported by a strong agricultural sector this is above Treasury’s Budget forecast of 0.5 percent growth for the first 6 months of this year. There was also further positive news last week with Fonterra announcing a record payout for 2010-11 of $8.25 a kilogram. This will inject about $10.6 billion into the economy. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What did the latest statistics on New Zealand’s international investment position show? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: They showed we are making progress through the Government’s clear plan to reduce New Zealand’s longstanding reliance on foreign debt and build faster growth around savings and exports. As at 30 June New Zealand’s net international liabilities stood at $140 billion or 70 percent of GDP which is the lowest level since 2004. Although this is still quite high it is certainly better than the peak of almost 86 percent of GDP 2 years ago. The latest figures incorporate some revisions from Statistics New Zealand to include better estimates of New Zealand assets held abroad.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:676;Page:21400] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before we get to this question I apologise for not getting to your office sooner to give notice of it. This question was originally set down to the Prime Minister. It was transferred and it is the right of the Government to transfer. But the question was about the Prime Minister’s opinion on the Prime Minister’s statement. My question to you Mr Speaker is that in the redrafting as it went to the Attorney-General it appears to have been transferred to now seeking the Attorney-General’s opinion on the Prime Minister’s statement rather than the Attorney-General’s opinion on the Prime Minister’s opinion on the Prime Minister’s statement. I think that quite changes the sense of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member is saying. The question as it is now asks whether the Attorney-General agrees with the Prime Minister’s statement and the member wanted it to ask whether he agrees with the Prime Minister’s opinion on the Prime Minister’s own statement. The dilemma with trying to construct a question that way is that there is no way the Minister can answer that particular part of it. But given that the substance of this question is asking in how many of these cases the prosecution relies on evidence from warrantless filming etc. it would seem to me that the substance of this question—and this is why the transfer was allowed—can readily be answered by the Attorney-General. That is why the question was allowed to be transferred.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:676;Page:21415] 
11. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Has he seen any reports on recent initiatives that boost research in the agricultural sector? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I have. Last week the latest successful bid for Primary Growth Partnership funding was announced. This is a $19.5 million project funded 50 percent by the Government and 50 percent by a research team led by Ballance Agri-Nutrients. It is hoped that the project will help transform the traditional use of fertiliser. It will have a real focus on minimising the environmental impact of fertiliser applications. 
Jonathan Young 
: How does this initiative build on agricultural sector research? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This initiative brings the total support to agricultural research in the last 2 years through the Primary Growth Partnership to $493 million. Nine different projects including dairy forestry red meat and aquaculture are now under way. Industry has committed $266 million and the Government has committed $227 million to support these projects. This is the largest-ever injection of research funding into our primary sectors and it shows that this Government has real solid commitment to the growth of the New Zealand primary industries.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:676;Page:21418] 
2. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Commerce Committee 
: Has she called for submissions on the petition of Allen Hair on the annuities payable to members of the Government Superannuation Fund and the National Provident Fund; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee) 
: 
 Yes we have asked the petitioner to provide a written submission. We have received four unsolicited submissions from other organisations three of which have requested to be heard. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did she put a motion to the committee to call for those submissions to be heard before the House rises? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I did.
Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:676;Page:21483] 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise returning to normal House business at 2 p.m. tomorrow. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Barker Rick: Obituaries — Peter Stevenson 
Barker Rick: Obituaries — Peter Stevenson 
[Volume:676;Page:21399] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I would like to place on the record of the House the recent and sad passing of security guard Peter Stevenson. All who knew him will know that he was thoroughly professional courteous and helpful. His passing was very sudden. I would like the condolences of the House to be noted on the record and forwarded to his family. Thank you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member.
Smith Lockwood: Privilege — Provision of Advice to Members—Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh Decision 
Smith Lockwood: Privilege — Provision of Advice to Members—Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh Decision 
[Volume:676;Page:21399] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that on my own initiative earlier this year counsel was instructed to address the Supreme Court on any aspects of parliamentary privilege that might arise in an appeal arising from a defamation action between Miss Erin Leigh and the Ministry for the Environment. My intention in instructing counsel was so that a full submission could be provided on the law of parliamentary privilege relevant to the provision of advice by officials and parliamentary staff to members for the purpose of supporting the effective conduct of the business of the House. The court gave its decision in the case on Friday 16 September 2011. The court has held that statements made by an official to a Minister for the purpose of replying to questions for oral answer are not themselves parliamentary proceedings. Such statements can therefore be the subject of court proceedings as they are not protected by absolute privilege. 
I consider that the court’s decision in  
Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh 
 [2011] NZSC 106 raises serious issues concerning the privileges of the House. Consequently I have determined that a question of privilege is involved and therefore the question stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Urgency 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgency 
[Volume:676;Page:21443] 
Urgency 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill and for Sue Kedgley to give her valedictory statement at 5.45 as determined by the Business Committee.  
As members will be aware the recent Supreme Court decision in Hamed and others with regard to the use of video surveillance has serious implications both for current prosecutions in cases already before the courts and ongoing investigations by the police and other law enforcement agencies. The Government has decided it is vital we ensure that the police cameras that are currently switched off are switched back on as soon as possible. Therefore we intend to introduce the bill and pass it after a brief select committee consideration to preserve the common law as it has been understood by successive Governments the police and the Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court decision of 2 September. The bill is an interim measure and if Parliament passes it it will remain in force for no longer than 12 months to enable a permanent regime to be put in place. 
With regard to the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill it is also the product of a court decision. Following the finding by the Court of Appeal that sleepovers constituted work for the purposes of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 and that the minimum wage applied for each and every hour worked a settlement was reached between IDEA Services Ltd Timata Hou Ltd and the Service and Food Workers Union. Cabinet has agreed to the settlement to which the Crown contributes and this bill will provide the framework for settlement of these issues. The passage of the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill is required in order to implement this settlement. Both of these bills will be considered by select committees until next Monday. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wish to clarify for the House that for Sue Kedgley’s valedictory approval of the House was given at 2 p.m. today. In voting and opposing the House’s use of urgency we were not explicitly voting to oppose Sue Kedgley’s valedictory. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I understand that. That has been clarified by the Acting Leader of the House so that is fine.
Wilkinson Kate: Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21483] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move  
That the Health Committeeconsider the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 3 October 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet tomorrow and at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
Tremain Chris: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:676;Page:21483] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise returning to normal House business at 2 p.m. tomorrow. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Privilege — Provision of Advice to Members—Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh Decision 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Privilege — Provision of Advice to Members—Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh Decision 
[Volume:676;Page:21399] 
Privilege 
Provision of Advice to Members— 
Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh 
 Decision 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that on my own initiative earlier this year counsel was instructed to address the Supreme Court on any aspects of parliamentary privilege that might arise in an appeal arising from a defamation action between Miss Erin Leigh and the Ministry for the Environment. My intention in instructing counsel was so that a full submission could be provided on the law of parliamentary privilege relevant to the provision of advice by officials and parliamentary staff to members for the purpose of supporting the effective conduct of the business of the House. The court gave its decision in the case on Friday 16 September 2011. The court has held that statements made by an official to a Minister for the purpose of replying to questions for oral answer are not themselves parliamentary proceedings. Such statements can therefore be the subject of court proceedings as they are not protected by absolute privilege. 
I consider that the court’s decision in  
Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh 
 [2011] NZSC 106 raises serious issues concerning the privileges of the House. Consequently I have determined that a question of privilege is involved and therefore the question stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Obituaries — Peter Stevenson 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Obituaries — Peter Stevenson 
[Volume:676;Page:21399] 
Tuesday 27 September 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Peter Stevenson 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I would like to place on the record of the House the recent and sad passing of security guard Peter Stevenson. All who knew him will know that he was thoroughly professional courteous and helpful. His passing was very sudden. I would like the condolences of the House to be noted on the record and forwarded to his family. Thank you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member.
Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business of the House 
[Volume:676;Page:21399] 
Business of the House 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions in the Business Committee about the valedictory statements that have been scheduled over the remaining sitting days I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break each day or adjourn if the day is a Thursday at the conclusion of the valedictory statements. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.
Adams Amy: Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21436] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on the first reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill. I commend to anyone who did not have the opportunity to hear the Minister of Revenue’s introductory speech that they refer back to it as an excellent summary of the operation of the bill and the matters it contains. 
In essence a world-class tax system is a fundamental component of this Government’s growth agenda and a part of that is making sure that the tax administration system represents both value for money and ease of use for the taxpayer. This bill in the main contains steps to continue that reform making electronic filing in particular far less burdensome for taxpayers and far easier to do. I note certainly that the bill removes the requirement to retain paper copies for those who have filed electronically and on that basis alone I am sure we can look forward to having Green Party support for it. 
The bill puts in place Budget changes to KiwiSaver and a number of other matters that previous speakers have referred to including the thin capitalisation rates software deductibility and the like. I look forward to a full discussion of the impact of the bill at the select committee. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21432] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1133] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this debate be now adjourned. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1133] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
.
Worth Richard: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1130] 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell made careful and considered comments that I am sure will be examined by the Justice and Electoral Committee to which this bill is referred. 
I would like to briefly make these comments and I start by saying that the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is another key plank in the Government’s law and order package. We are not afraid to walk the talk and take the necessary action to create safer homes safer streets and safer neighbourhoods. As others have said the bill allows for the staged implementation of its changes. It takes into account New Zealand’s fiscal situation and allows the gathering of further information about the impact of full implementation. Staged implementation will also allow the Institute of Environmental Science and Research to adjust to the inevitable increase in its workflow. By 2011 the Government will have provided our police with the power to conduct DNA tests for every person charged with an imprisonable offence. 
There are some people and Mr Locke exemplifies that type of person who have raised privacy concerns in connection with this legislation. That is a legitimate concern as are the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act concerns that others have raised. But the reality of course is if someone has done nothing wrong he or she has nothing to fear. DNA profiling will ensure that a person is not wrongly convicted of a crime. It has an exculpatory and exonerative role. 
The bill contains specific provisions regarding the use and storage of DNA profiles and as is the case with fingerprints and photos DNA records will be destroyed as soon as is practicable where charges are dropped or a person is cleared of charges. The reality is that at a physical crime scene there are almost invariably traces of blood semen and hair to be found. By permitting DNA samples to be taken through the sanction of the law and appropriate protective provisions the police will have added to their tool kit of investigative resource another means of protecting and resolving criminal activity. I welcome the passage of this bill and its detailed review by the select committee. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:20105] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a real pleasure to take a short call at this time of night on the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill. We have heard why this legislation is being put forward. It is about abolishing gift duty and about the sharing of information between Government departments which will lead to more effective outcomes for the Government. 
We have heard tonight from speakers opposite why they are not voting for this bill. We heard them say that gift duty raises $1 million for the Government and it costs the Government $430000 in added administration. However the private sector spends up to $70 million on compliance. We heard the last speaker Raymond Huo say that is no reason to change the law. That is unbelievable. Those members wonder why they are sitting in Opposition when there are effective compliance costs of $70 million and they do not want to change the law. 
We heard his colleague talk about incest and we heard him talk about Filipino wives. We heard him talk about income splitting which is not within the realms of this bill. And those members wonder why they are sitting in Opposition. It is because of the financial illiteracy and incompetence that has been demonstrated tonight from that side of the House. They will bring out their policy of a capital gains tax tomorrow yet they do not understand that $70 million of compliance costs going to lawyers and accountants is a waste of money. 
Debate interrupted.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20094] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the commencement clause in particular and that is because a change was made at the Health Committee. If one simply read the commencement clause as it is written one might think the Health Committee sought to delay the introduction of this legislation by changing the date on which it comes into force to being “at the end of the period of 12 months” as opposed to the original 6 months. 
I do not want to venture too far into Part 1 but there are transitional matters in Part 1 and the overall effect of the change to the commencement clause is that all retailers will fall under the Act over a slightly shorter period of time as a result of the changes. The select committee heard from a number of submitters that perhaps the 6-month period for the initial commencement of the Act was too short a period of time for retailers to be able to comply. 
I suppose there probably was not an awful lot of sympathy for the position but we did hear some arguments about the changes that retailers would have to make to their display stands to their stores and what that would entail. We wanted to work alongside retailers to get them on board and to try to make this transition as easy for them as possible. The transition period has been reduced from 2 years to 12 months. So within 2 years all-up of this bill receiving Royal assent every tobacco retailer in the country will have their tobacco products out of sight. 
I have to say that I am really looking forward to the day when we can all walk into a dairy or a service station or a supermarket and not notice that tobacco is even there and available for sale. I would like to congratulate Tariana Turia on getting us to this point where we are just at the most 2 years away from that being the way things are in New Zealand. Of course one day a few short years after that people will look back on the thought of advertising tobacco in any form whatsoever and think it was absolutely ludicrous. 
It has been a journey and this bill in itself is of course another step on the journey towards having a smoke-free New Zealand. I would like to congratulate Tariana Turia on getting the Government to support it. This will be my last call at the Committee stage of this bill and I just want to say that I am very pleased to be able to support this legislation.
Henare Tau: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Henare Tau: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20092] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I too want to reiterate what the member who has just resumed his seat Kris Faafoi said about the issue of having a reasonable fine. It is not a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket; it is a reasonable hefty fine. I think it is about time that we had a reasonably hefty fine for those who transgress and even more so in the case of the tobacco industry. Let me put that in context. This debate is not about just some normal business in New Zealand paying its taxes and going about its job. This debate is about the tobacco industry which has for years and years found ways of sliding and sliming like a little old snake out of its responsibilities. 
Just over 12 months ago I had a heart attack. I can guarantee that that was because of my own stupidity—I smoked. But I also put some responsibility on the tobacco industry for peddling that sort of nasty product. Until the 1950s and 1960s we did not know much about the effects and the causes of smoking but in the past 30 or 40 years we have obtained enough scientific evidence to warrant imposing a $10000 fine and a $50000 fine on those who transgress the regulations that we have before us. That provision shows the feelings that members of the House of Representatives have about this issue. It is not a party political stance; it is actually a House of Representatives stance. We all agree on imposing a hefty $10000 fine on those who display the nasty products. 
I will take a minute—if I have one—to say that a whole lot of us used to say that smoking was not bad for people until an event happened. So I think it is a bit unfair for the member for Mana to have a go at the Minister of Health about what he said. Until 12 months ago—and I was a chairperson of an inquiry into tobacco—I was still a smoker. I refused point-blank to hear what was going on until I picked myself up off the floor and on the day after my heart attack when somebody asked what we should do I replied: “I’m buggered if I’m going outside for a smoke.” and that was it. 
It is unfortunate that that event horrific as it was was the thing that made me stop smoking. I am not a zealot by any stretch of the imagination but the time has come. The time has come for the tobacco industry to start seriously thinking that its business is about to close and most New Zealanders even those who smoke would agree with that. It is not about having a go at legitimate business; it is about the safety of the next generation. Kia ora.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20089] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20089] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 257 in the name of Rahui Katene to insert new clause 9A be agreed to.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20088] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My recollection is that the Committee was not instructed to consider that amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The rest of the amendments were not part of the scope but these ones here that we have are OK. It is up to the members to vote how they want to.
Tremain Chris: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20086] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20095] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I will make just a few comments on the title and on other areas of this bill. Undoubtedly the title of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill is totally appropriate. Indeed we are all aiming for a smoke-free environment. This bill is imposing controls and we have pretty tough enforcements as well. 
However one alternative title could have been the “Pavlovian Dog Reflex Bill”. The only reason I say that is that we very much wanted to be convinced that there was an evidence base behind these measures that we have taken and as we know over the last 10 years or so there has been accumulated evidence from a whole variety of jurisdictions where they have started removing displays. It has taken some time to make sure that it is absolutely obvious. But what we do know is this: when smokers go into a store for the purpose of purchasing something else and they see signage all over the place or they see their favourite cigarettes sitting in front of them they have a Pavlovian dog reflex and they buy those as well. Clearly that is not a title that is appropriate but the evidence was made very clear in the literature right around the world. 
Indeed this is yet another step in this very very important public health effort to try to reduce smoking in our country. We still have a long way to go. The leadership of the Hon Tariana Turia has been absolutely superb. It has been wonderful that we have had a consensus in this House. The aim of course is to make our country smoke-free. Thank you. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20084] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I advise members that there has been a major power outage and it will be some time before lights return to normal.
Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20083] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I want to take just a very brief call regarding Mr Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper 256. He made a great contribution during the Health Committee. Oh the lights temporarily went out—hopefully not permanently! I am informed that the—[ 
Interruption 
] Ha ha! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have one speaker in the Chamber at the moment. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: This was to be a short call indeed. As I was about to say the issue we have with this Supplementary Order Paper is that new clause 7A has been inserted in the provisions of the amendment bill to prohibit wholesalers from offering trade discounts on tobacco products so this matter is already covered. 
His second amendment to clause 9 amends new section 29AA which has certain provisions concerning signage but as currently drafted the amendment will not prevent retailers and wholesalers from creating personalised signs that could contain favourable or misleading images. In fact in the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill as currently drafted the signs may do no more than communicate health information or warnings and must comply with regulation and those regulations will ensure the tobacco industry does not personalise the signs to contain favourable or misleading images. The Government’s approach in the bill also enables more flexibility in terms of making the signs more effective and having them put in the right places. The danger of the proposed changes in the Supplementary Order Paper is that they could restrict the ability to regulate for the best outcome. In view of that we believe they are totally unnecessary. 
If I may I want to make just one other point and that is on the to-ing and fro-ing on the glory in respect of who has been responsible for this bill whether it be Tuku Morgan or whoever. But I would make this one point: it goes back to 1960 when Sir Richard Doll an epidemiologist from Oxford realised there was a connection between tobacco smoking and morbidity and mortality. Since that time legions and cohorts of people—non-governmental organisations organisations like Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) and many many people—have tried to get to where we are now. I absolutely celebrate the leadership of the Hon Tariana Turia of Hone Harawira of the Maori Affairs Committee of Tau Henare and of everyone in this Chamber who has agreed that this legislation is worthwhile. Thank you.
Henare Tau: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Henare Tau: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20082] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Here is the history lesson that all members should know which I am gobsmacked they do not know: the member responsible for the gestation of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill was a former member of this House Mr Tuku Morgan. It was his bill. He was responsible for the gestation of what we are doing here tonight. It was his bill and I am absolutely gobsmacked that none of the members on the other side of the Chamber could get it right. I expect Darien Fenton not to get a few things right; the whole of west Auckland feels that way. But I am gobsmacked that the Hon Rick Barker sits there—and he is a learned member of this Committee—and even he did not know. Well I think he did but he was just being mean. 
It is a bit like what is going to happen on Thursday with the “jealousy” tax. But I digress. Mr Chairperson Robertson if you put your hands together you will get a clap. 
I thank Tuku Morgan I thank Stevie Chadwick—you see I can be gracious—and I thank the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Tariana Turia. But here is something else. 
Hon Member 
: Is this a point of order? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Does the member want me to take a point of order? I want to thank the Maori Affairs Committee and Hone Harawira. We do not see eye to eye on a whole lot of things—milkshakes included—but he was the one who had the guts to get up and bring the inquiry and the terms of reference to our committee. We all had a hand in the writing of what I still consider to be one of this House’s very very good reports. It has had repercussions around the Pacific and around the globe. I thank the Minister for going the extra mile as well. 
I have one final thing to say to the Imperial Tobacco Group which had the gall to write to me—me—and ask me to vote against this legislation. Later on I might even table both its letter and my reply. 
Hon Member 
: No bad language! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No it is OK. It is all good. I too commend this bill and the work of the Hon Tariana Turia to the Committee. Kia ora.
Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20094] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I will take a very short call on Part 2 of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill “Amendments relating to offences regulations and purposes” to reiterate the fact that there is consensus that the penalties relating to not obeying the law are certainly pretty stiff. One fine will go up to $50000 and that should hopefully send a very clear message to tobacco manufacturers although they are a very very powerful lot and have millions of dollars at their disposal. I am sure the consensus in this Committee is that if need be we would raise the penalties if manufacturers did not respond because this Committee is incredibly serious in terms of its messages. I think that is one of the great things about the consensus that we have had in the Committee. 
I will make one point about what the effective measures have been for decreasing smoking. One of them certainly—believe it or not—has been raising tax. Under the 9 years of the Labour Government I think there was only a 10 percent tax rise. Under the National Government and the leadership of Tony Ryall there has been a 30 percent tax increase over a series of years and undoubtedly might I say— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: She bullied us. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: She bullied them. Ha ha! As I said before everybody extends their huge congratulations to the Hon Tariana Turia on the persistence and wonderful leadership she has shown in this respect. 
I will make one other point and it relates to herbal smoking products. Kevin Hague who has left the Chamber brought the matter up earlier. Under the Smoke-free Environments Act it is an offence to sell herbal smoking products to a person younger than 18 years old and this was pointed out in the commentary on the bill. Section 39(1)(e) of the Act confers the power to make regulations to require that health warnings be displayed on herbal smoking products but no such regulations have been made. This bill ensures that all the health warnings and offences are now applied to those products. I think that is yet another step forward in the progress that we are making in our aspiration to have a smoke-free Aotearoa. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Blue Jackie: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20085] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. Part 1 is about transitional requirements and extending them to internet sales. The bill also talks about sponsorship. But I thought the Committee—and I ask the Chair to give me a little leeway—would like to hear of an update. 
As of 1 July prisoners in New Zealand are no longer able to smoke because prisons are smoke-free. There are 6000 prisoners on nicotine replacement. Today is day 13 in terms of prisons being smoke-free. The planning for this has taken a year and there has been education obviously and prisoners have been given nicotine replacement to start on and on day 13 it is going extremely well. There is no rioting. There is no burning of beds or anything like that. It has gone extremely smoothly so I congratulate the Minister of Corrections on her work in this area. I think it is very indicative of where the momentum is going as far as smoking and the damage it does to our society is concerned. Certainly the Government made an excellent initiative early in the year by increasing the excise tax on tobacco products by an unprecedented 30 percent over time. That really is an extremely effective way of reducing cigarette smoking. The use of Quitline has increased dramatically and people are giving up in droves. That is excellent indeed. 
This Government is extremely serious about reducing the harm from cigarette smoking and this bill will go one step of the way by getting rid of displays of cigarettes in retail stores. I commend this bill to the Committee. Thank you.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20071] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill that it have the authority to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments in my name relating to the registration of tobacco sellers.  
(Rahui Katene) 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:20068] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20089] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 256 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to clauses 9 and 10 be agreed to.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20088] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 256 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to insert new clause 7B be agreed to.
Wagner Nicky: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:20060] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill at its second reading. This bill deals with a series of issues to amend existing legislation and to improve the effectiveness of drug control. Its main provisions are to deal with the control of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and to increase controls on the sale of drug paraphernalia. It also reclassifies thalidomide so that it can be controlled under the Medicines Act and it allows hazardous substances to be restricted substances which will assist with the continued control of low-risk psychoactive substances such as party pills as restricted substances. 
Many New Zealanders are concerned about the use of illicit drugs in our communities. They are particularly concerned about methamphetamine commonly known as P. For some reason New Zealanders have been particularly taken with P. We have one of the highest percentages of P users in the world and the Prime Minister and the National Government have been focusing on combating this addiction. This bill is just another step towards controlling the supply of that drug. 
The bill is designed to close off the source of precursor substances for the local manufacturing of methamphetamine. Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are the active ingredients used in the manufacture of P. Currently they are available over the counter in cold and flu remedies from pharmacies. We have all heard of the big buy-ups of these products for drug production. The police estimate that up to one-third of methamphetamine produced in New Zealand comes from these previously legal products. The bill reclassifies both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine so that they will no longer be easily available. But they will not be prohibited; patients will still able to obtain them by prescription. 
The bill also increases controls on the sale of drug paraphernalia. That is a difficult area to control because common tools and implements can be used for drug taking and some loopholes in the past have allowed the utensils to be imported in a knock-down format to be reassembled in this country. This amendment has been carefully worded and will help to minimise the availability and the visibility of drug-taking paraphernalia. 
Finally I will talk a little bit about broadening the definition of amphetamine analogues a provision designed to control by default a wider range of emerging designer drugs. We are all aware of the new psychoactive substances coming on to the market and we want to be proactive in dealing with these products before they do harm. This is a first step towards the better control of products such as Kronic but more work needs to be done in this area in the future. I commend this bill to the House.