edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hobbs Marian: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5736] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (NZ Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I am promoting this local bill on behalf of Wellington City Council. It repeals an old statutory restriction applying to methods by which the council can sell certain inner city land. That restriction is in the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. Under that Act the council may sell or lease the reclaimed land in an area known as reserve K but the sale or lease must only be by way of public auction with at least 2 months’ public notice of the auction. The Act also restricts all leases to a maximum period of 42 years. Additionally it requires that the proceeds of any sale are paid into a sinking fund to be used to repay money borrowed to undertake the reclamation. It is those restrictions that the council wants removed. The other thing this bill does is to change the name of the Act to the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Act. 
 The practical effect of this legislation will primarily be on land leased to commercial building owners in downtown Wellington. However I understand that the Sir John Ilott green and the site of the old Circa theatre are part of the so-called reserve K. Understandably some people are concerned that once this bill is passed the council will sell that land which they consider to have important public value. While I do not want to express a specific opinion about that today I do want to note the Council’s obligation to engage in a robust community debate before it sells any land that people consider publicly important. 
Finally I repeat what I have said when I have sponsored other local bills through the House which is that historically it may have been appropriate for central Government to place restrictions on what local government can do with its property but in 2003 local government should be able to deal with its land free of central Government restrictions that limit the process by which properties can be sold. I support the council being able to make local decisions about its own property free from the arbitrary restrictions of outdated laws. I look forward to this bill being referred to the appropriate committee and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9823] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Commissioner for Children Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Children’s Commissioner Bill. name changed to Children’s Commissioner Bill.
Burton Mark: Points of Order — Ministerial Statements 
Burton Mark: Points of Order — Ministerial Statements 
[Volume:609;Page:6698] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The critical point in Standing Order 341(1) is that a Minister may make a statement. It is entirely for the Minister to decide to come to the House take a call and make a statement when and if a Minister chooses to do so. It is not for the House to call a Minister down to do so. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 19/1 (Supplement) which states: “While it is eminently good practice for Ministers to make important policy announcements in the House it is not by any means a convention in New Zealand.”
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15913] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 19 
New Zealand National 1; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15625] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am talking with regard to my amendment and in particular to the new clause I would like to insert clause 145B. But before I go on I would ask whether there can be a slight amendment. It is only a typo with regard to where the insertion should take place. The amendment refers to page 182 but it should read “page 183”. It requires the mandated iwi organisation of an iwi whose takiwa is defined in a deed of settlement or enactment to retain quota allocated to it if the entitlement of that organisation to the quota is the subject of a dispute under Part 5 of this bill or proceedings in a court. In that case the mandated iwi organisation is required to retain the quota unencumbered until either the date on which the dispute is resolved or judgment is given or the proceedings are withdrawn; or the date 2 years after the commencement of the dispute or proceedings—whichever is the earlier. 
I hope that there will be agreement on the inclusion of this provision because again as I said earlier I would not like to see this whole issue being relitigated between Maori and the Crown when there has already been agreement to a particular description boundary or whatever we might call it. So I ask that this new clause—after the minor amendment I requested earlier—be inserted in the bill.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine-farming Space—Allocation 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Marine-farming Space—Allocation 
[Volume:618;Page:13774] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Gerry Brownlee seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 an announcement relating to the allocation of marine-farming space. The proposal in the Minister’s announcements is described as being part of the decision-making process requiring feedback from Maori before final policy decisions are made. In these circumstances it is not entirely clear that a particular case of recent occurrence has actually occurred. However in any case as the announcement makes clear once decisions are made they will be embodied in an aquaculture reform bill later this year. In these circumstances there is no need for an urgent debate on the subject today. The application is therefore declined.
Mapp Wayne: Budget Debate 
Mapp Wayne: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:6009] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 Is not what we hear from the hapless George Hawkins remarkable? He cannot even get his police and crime figures right. Let me ask the Minister which Government was in office in the 4 years he quoted—1996-2000. I have news for the hapless Minister. It was the National Government. We were very pleased that he acknowledged our success in crime reduction. I guess he had to do that because in the last 4 years violent crime has gone up. He knows it. He cannot account for it so he would sooner talk about our success.
Speaker’s Rulings — Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
Speaker’s Rulings — Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:609;Page:6121] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday I undertook to give consideration to replies to questions for written answer that are now conceded to be inaccurate. As I told the House yesterday Speaker’s ruling 142/3 makes it clear that anyone giving inaccurate information to the House should clear up the error as soon as he or she realises it has occurred. That obligation applies even though the member may not have all the information needed to clear the matter up fully at the time the error is appreciated. It is still incumbent on the member to take the first opportunity to acknowledge the error with a promise of a full correction in due course. It is not sufficient for a Minister to acknowledge an error only in answering further questions. Where there is an error the Minister should lodge with the Clerk a further reply indicating that it is believed that there are errors in identified replies and promising to lodge fully corrected replies in due course. I expect all Ministers to follow that course.
Benson-Pope David: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15859] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:607;Page:4269] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) the Wine Makers Amendment Bill and the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Connell Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Connell Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19321] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question is set down to the Minister of Forestry. I seek leave to hold the question over until he is in a position to— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to hold the question over. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Catchpole Brent: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8482] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Chairman—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The senior Government whip made an unparliamentary comment and I object to that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It was not unparliamentary at all. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I would just like to touch on clause 8. Mr Hawkins raised the point that the Government in the way that it has structured Supplementary Order Paper 132 was making things easier for the casinos. 
Hon David Carter 
: He hasn’t taken a call since. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: That is right; he has not taken a call on that because he knows that his statements were out of order I believe. The Supplementary Order Paper states in clause 8B: “A person must not increase the opportunities for casino gambling.” The comment the Minister of Internal Affairs made that the Government was making things easier for casinos contravened his Supplementary Order Paper so I hope he will vote against that particular clause on his Supplementary Order paper. That could be interesting! 
Throughout the Supplementary Order Paper—and it is a rather large one—are a number of clauses that enhance the racing industry. That is an area that New Zealand First is very much in support of. We believe that the racing industry has not been on an even footing with gambling for a long time. Any clauses that bring back a level playing field or even a level gaming board are preferable to the existing situation. Any clauses that assist the racing industry will be supported by New Zealand First. 
I would like to move on to clause 87 which gives ministerial discretion to permit more than nine gaming machines per venue. The Minister has touted that this bill limits the number of gaming machines. It will limit the number of gaming machines at new venues to nine. Yet this clause allows the Minister discretion to increase that number. Pressure from a corporate society that is supportive of the Government could see that society receive preferential treatment under this clause. This clause allows the Minister discretion to increase the number of machines in a venue that is supportive of the Government. That is political interference and this bill leaves wide open the possibility of that. I suggest that the Minister should go back and review that. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Where’s United’s call for accountability now? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Yes absolutely. United Future has sat quietly and done nothing about this clause. It is willing to accept it and obviously willing to have a quiet word in the Minister’s ear to allow societies that are supportive of it to have increased numbers of machines. The Minister must have a look at that and question whether it is the best measure for the general community—not just for people who are supportive of the Government. I suggest that this Supplementary Order Paper really needs to be reviewed and that clause 87 in the bill needs further amendment to correct it because it leaves wide open the possibility of political interference.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Motions — Crop and Food Research—Air Accident 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Motions — Crop and Food Research—Air Accident 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6039. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the motion and extends its condolences to the families and the colleagues of those who died so tragically on Friday. We note that a number of them had young families and that all of them have families and loved ones. Our thoughts are with all of them as they mourn at present. 
It is a particularly heavy blow for any organisation to lose so many of its staff and at such a senior level at one time. Crop and Food Research is part of a wider scientific community with an international reputation and such a loss will reverberate for some time amongst the science and research communities of which they were part. Our very best wishes go to the survivors. They will have a particularly heavy burden to bear as they reflect on being spared when their colleagues were killed and we hope their recovery will be speedy. Our best wishes go to Paul Tocker and Crop and Food Research as together they rebuild their organisation.
Ward Mike: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Ward Mike: Retirement Villages Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9422] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 In an earlier speech I spoke of my disquiet at the idea of retirement villages. I spoke of the undesirability of monocultures of any kind whether human animal or plant. They tend to be prone to predators and disease. I am not sure that retirement villages are prone to disease but the fact that we have a bill like this in front of us certainly indicates that they are prone to predators. That people choose to live with a whole lot of other people of a similar age is a little strange as well but clearly they do. Society has changed and too many of us have too little time for too many of our old folk. This bill clearly recognises that older folk choose to live with other older folk in villages and attempts to put in place a measure of protection. 
The provisions I will briefly speak about are those that simply spell out the conditions of occupancy so that older folk know what the conditions are regarding the security of their tenure and the security of their investment. The elderly are likely to live much longer these days. Statistics tell us that they live longer and die more quickly. They could be in retirement for 20 30 or more years and it is as likely that they will want to change homes as the rest of us. When they do it is important that their investment is protected and that they can make those changes easily quickly and safely. The Greens will be supporting the Retirement Villages Bill and I have been pleased to speak briefly on it.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14557] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1A be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 1A agreed to.
Awatere Huata Donna: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Awatere Huata Donna: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15437] 
DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could I cast my vote? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes the vote has not closed.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:618;Page:13911] 
Thursday 24 June 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: Next week in the House priority will be given to completion of the first reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; the third readings of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) if they are not completed today; and the first reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill. The Government then intends to move an urgency motion and the likely business to be included in that motion is the remaining stages of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) the Meat Board Restructuring Bill the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill and other legislation including a number of first readings. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Noting the Government’s intention to take urgency I ask whether he can give the House an assurance that the right of the Opposition to scrutinise the Government by way of question time will not be lost and that the Government will recognise that its performance generally in the House has been poor— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The business statement is not a time for that sort of comment—it is to ask about the business. The question has been asked. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Whilst I must admit to a little surprise that the Opposition would want any questions after its performance we are always— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the end of that. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I will have the answer—and just the answer. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: 
 I apologise Mr Speaker. Of course as always we are open to negotiation.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17937] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 5 be agreed to.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15438] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of MetiriaTurei to proposed new clause 14E set out on Supplementary Order Paper 255 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new subclause (2).
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9249] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say to the best of my knowledge no I certainly did not ask for it.
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21873] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Before turning to Part 2 I note that I was very interested in the speech by the Hon Richard Prebble. Unlike the comments that were made by his colleague Stephen Franks what he said gives pause for a lot of thought. However as a member of the Government that introduced the format for the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 he ought to recognise that the earlier attempts to settle this claim were not measured against the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles—and I am not saying that that was right or wrong. The jurisdiction for this process is the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles whereas in the earlier attempts that was not the case. Part 2 deals with interpretation and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is to do with definitions. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes definitions—I am coming to that absolutely. I turn to clause 13 “Meaning of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi”. National MPs have made a number of comments on this particular issue. It is certainly right that there should be some clarity around those who are entitled to benefit from a settlement. This part raises the issue of adopted children and it includes the issue of whangai as well. I am sure my colleague Gerry Brownlee will take a call on this part because we have raised this issue on a number of occasions. Basically the entitlement in terms of these settlements and in terms of the tikanga of most tribes if not all is based on blood and inheritance—blood lines whakapapa lines. That is clearly set out in subclause (1) of clause 13. 
The issue of the position of adopted children and whangai—particularly where whangai who have been brought into a family have no blood connection to the family concerned—was raised in the Maori Affairs Committee. The Adoption Act overrides any argument claimants may as to who may benefit and so we are told does the Human Rights Act. But clause 13 states: “In this Act Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi … means the iwi or collective group composed of …”—and it sets out various categories all of which depend upon the issue of descent. It names the hapu which come under the umbrella description of “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi” and it also includes any whanau hapu or group of individuals who come within those hapu categories. Hapu of course are made up of individuals who have clear descent lines from the original tupuna which in this case means Nga Rauru Kitahi tupuna. This clause includes a recognition of persons who have exercised customary rights by virtue of their descent lines and so on. 
So it is an issue for tribes that no matter what is said in this legislation the reality is that those who have no direct whakapapa links to Nga Rauru Kitahi are by virtue of adoption and being whangai included anyway.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18614] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:4074] 
11.  
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Has the Minister received any reports over concerns about the quality of water in the Rotorua lakes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Yes the Minister has received reports that the water quality of some of the Rotorua lakes is below the standard set by the local authority. The Minister has also received reports of widespread concern about the impact of this on the amenity of the lakes. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister taken any action following receipt of those reports? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. The Government supported a project led by the Northland Regional Council to ensure the ongoing survival of Lake Omapere. The project is a success. The first task was to control the weed and there has been a 95 percent reduction in the amount of weed since September 2001. In respect of the lakes in question a similar process is likely to be undertaken. Officials from the Ministry for the Environment have been asked to work with Environment BOP the Rotorua District Council and other stakeholders to prevent further deterioration of the water quality and to consider ways of improving the water quality over time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister personally oppose controls on nutrient flows into Lake Rotoiti that were proposed by Environment BOP last year in its land and water plan and now that the lake has become putrid and a national environmental disaster will the Minister accept that her submission was a mistake and apologise to the people of Rotorua? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid I do not have that information to hand. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister be taking any proactive steps to prevent further nutrient enrichment of the lake such as encouraging or requiring riparian plantings on streams and lake margins or is effort only to go into cleaning up by spraying herbicides? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I remind the House that the responsibility for controlling land use is that of local authorities. In this instance I am advised that Environment BOP is currently consulting on a rule change to limit farm intensification leading to pollution of the lakes. None the less central government can continue its work with stakeholders such as Fonterra to establish industry standards for cleaner land use and its work with small communities to help them to properly dispose of sewage and other polluting waste. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table records of the Minister for the Environment’s personal submissions to Environment BOP on the proposed regional water and land plan. 
Document tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the submissions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry which oppose controls on nutrient flows into the lake. 
Document not tabled.
Motions — New Zealand Black Sox  
Motions — New Zealand Black Sox  
[Volume:615;Page:10781] 
Tuesday 10 February 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
New Zealand Black Sox 
New Zealand Rugby Sevens 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I move 
 That the  
House congratulate the Black Sox on winning the men’s world softball championship on 8 February 2004 and in so doing winning the world championship for the third successive time. 
 This victory is especially sweet given that it was achieved on home soil. I am sure the House will join me in congratulating the efforts of the coach Don Tricker captain Jarrad Martin and Mark Sorenson who I think has been in the team Mr Speaker nearly as long as you have been here and other members of the world champion Black Sox. 
I further move 
 That the House acknowledge the victory of the New Zealand men’s rugby sevens team in the final of the Wellington tournament on 7 February. 
 This victory illustrates the depth of rugby sevens talent in New Zealand and the mastery of coach Gordon Tietjens in building a successful side with not a very big base. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 These motions are I think an excellent idea. Both the Black Sox and the sevens team were a great credit to our country. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First also endorses the motions. It was thrilling to see the Black Sox win their third world championship especially after being three runs down in the first innings. It was a wonderful performance by the whole team and we endorse the motions put by the Minister. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to add the Green’s congratulations. I was busy at another sporting engagement halfway up the South Island. I was in a restaurant and the game was on television. Everybody was watching and I have to say it brought immense glee to the people at that gathering. I got home and everyone was talking about it. The joy that events like these add to the country is enormous. I say “Well done!” to the Black Sox and to the New Zealand rugby sevens team. 
Motions agreed to.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6860] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to insert new clause 5A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 5 the following clause: 
5A 
Section 24 of the principal Act is amended by adding the following subsection: 
(3)Notwithstanding anything else in this section for the avoidance of doubt franchise schemes which are not manifestly unfair on account that these schemes do not rely on recruitment of additional participants to enable financial rewards are not considered pyramid selling schemes.
Jones Dail: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Jones Dail: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3961] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Looking at the purpose of the bill and as I mentioned before speaking of racing as an industry I say New Zealand First agrees that changing the Racing Act and merging the Totalisator Agency Board and the Racing Industry Board is all fine. But we ask what we are doing for the racing industry in this legislation. What does the Minister propose for example in terms of changing the tax policy for breeding or of having a reduction in duty relative to other forms of gaming in order to make racing competitive with them? The Government should start being fair and adopt the same tax rate that applies to casinos for the racing industry. Does the Government have any proposals to adopt that approach? 
I understand that the English Irish and Australian racing industries had similar problems to the New Zealand industry’s in the past but those countries have gone out of their way in different ways to solve them and the industry in those countries is doing very well. We have asked the question in the past of why people should bring for example a stallion to this country get no depreciation write-off whatsoever and try to compete against Australia and other countries. What proposals does the Minister have to really assist the racing industry where it matters? She suggests that this is a bill to set out how the racing industry is governed. But really if this Labour Government is concerned about the industry itself—about the 32000 or 33000 people who work in this industry all around the country; and probably mostly in some of the provincial areas rather than in the city areas—what will the Government do to support this industry? 
Nowadays the racing industry’s share as I understand it of the gambling dollar is only about 17 percent and is going down. What will this Government do to support the racing industry and enable it to get more income? Obviously without income racing will no longer be an industry. It is a wonderful sport; and it has always been supported in this House in one way or another— 
Hon Annette King 
: It is an industry. 
DAIL JONES 
: The Minister says it is an industry but for some people who have the occasional flutter it is a sport depending upon the way that we look at it. Racing has always been the sport of kings and if for a day a worker can be a king that is great. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about queens? 
DAIL JONES 
: I will leave that interjection to one side. But all New Zealanders can enjoy racing and be a king for a day. The question to be asked of this Minister and the Labour Government is this: what will they do to help the industry where it really matters—where its income and tax rates are concerned? The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of the Hon Mark Gosche to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There are a number of amendments. Which one are we referring to?
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7931] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I will just say to members that the bill is not now called the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. The words “(Enhanced Protection)” have gone from the title. It is now called the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. That is the first point. 
The second point I wish to draw to members’ attention is that despite members speaking to the title we are getting a rather wide-ranging debate. The title is supposed to describe the elements contained in the bill. The debate on the title is not a general discussion of the bill’s intent—that is the role of the second reading debate. However given the nature of the legislation I am prepared to take a member’s call to seek leave that there be a wide-ranging debate on the title. If no one so moves then I will keep the debate strictly to the title. 
Larry Baldock 
: I seek leave to have a wide-ranging debate on the title.
Tisch Lindsay: Business Statement 
Tisch Lindsay: Business Statement 
[Volume:610;Page:7505] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House give us any indication of whether we will be in urgency next week?
Vote: Motions — Reserve Bank Funding Agreement—Ratification 
Vote: Motions — Reserve Bank Funding Agreement—Ratification 
[Volume:616;Page:12410] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16334] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document of May 2002 where Mr Hide characterises his friends as drunks crooks thieves wife-beaters and fighters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Gallagher Martin: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20069] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the chair of the Law and Order Committee I commend the speech of the Minister of Justice on the third reading. I think it was a very good summary of the issues. 
I will take only a very brief call. I believe that this bill is well overdue. I am delighted to see it go through to its third reading. I want to thank all members of the committee including its Opposition members the Hon Tony Ryall Brian Connell and Ron Mark. I particularly want to thank my deputy chair Marc Alexander; the Government members Georgina Beyer Ann Hartley Mahara Okeroa and especially Dianne Yates; and Sue Bradford. I can assure members of this House that we gave this bill exceptionally comprehensive consideration and did our very best. 
I think the Minister of Justice has summed up the issues around this bill very succinctly and very well. I commend the bill to the House.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14318] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As was said in the discussion it is up to the Chair to call the vote. As often happens in this House the people who call for the Ayes can often be louder than or not as loud as the people who call for the Noes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No one called for the Ayes; that’s the point.
Jones Dail: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17268] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this part of the legislation. About the only real issue is the one that has been raised by Murray Smith the United Future member. I understand the ACT party is likely to support that amendment if it is consistent with the report and I expect it would be. 
I have had the opportunity to listen to the debate on this issue. I was not at the Justice and Electoral Committee at the time; a member deputised for me while I was dealing with another piece of legislation. I am going to support the United Future amendment. I think it just adds that extra degree of safety. It is perhaps unfortunate that the member mentioned the particular party in question; it could happen to anybody. From the point of view of extra caution New Zealand First will support that amendment. There is really nothing else to say. It is largely a non-controversial measure and I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee any further.
Barker Rick: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 
Barker Rick: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 
[Volume:626;Page:20842] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Acting Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I seek to correct the record in respect of my answer to question No. 7 today when I advised the House that the current rate of claims to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service is 71 per month. The figure of 71 should have been in respect of the month of May and of part of the month of May—up to the 16th. I withdraw the associated comment I made with that.
Carter Chris: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
Carter Chris: Commissioner for Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9784] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in support of the bill and proud of the Government’s record of support for New Zealand families and children. This commission for the family will be a further step in providing support for the families of our country. We have just heard a contribution from the ACT speaker who in a curious contradiction said that the Minister and the Government were not doing enough and the next minute finished off her speech by saying that they are doing too much and are interfering in the lives of New Zealanders. Once again it was a confused and muddled message from the ACT party. This legislation is about improving the quality of life for New Zealand families. How could one not support it?
Hartley Ann: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21581] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The ruling is that a member can sign on behalf of another member if the member had that member’s permission. So I ask Mr Donald whether he had given his permission to Mr Locke to sign on his behalf.
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20001] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18529] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to applying the rules in a consistent way Mr Hide made a comment at a point when the question had not begun. If you look at the  
Hansard 
 I think you will see it will reveal that. More important Mr Hide is a new leader struggling to make a name for himself and I think you should give him some leniency until he learns the ropes. There is more than one leader of that sort in this House.
Tisch Lindsay: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11263] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am interested in the new Standing Orders. Have they been circulated? I am hearing this for the first time. I am not disputing anything. I am just interested to know the number of the Standing Order. Can you refer the number to me? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am more than happy to. It is Standing Order 296. The new Standing Orders have been available for a little while.
Parker David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7062] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13047] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 212 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 212.
Copeland Gordon: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Copeland Gordon: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6184] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave of the Committee for my Supplementary Order Paper to be put to the vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is free to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. I now come back to the amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp.
Tizard Judith: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6874] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: I thank members for their intense interest in this bill. It is interesting that the Commerce Committee received 22 submissions on it. I understand that 10 requested to be heard. These matters—particularly the one raised by John Carter—were dealt with at some length in the select committee. I think most New Zealanders have got to the point where we are all a bit impatient about local authorities and private water suppliers who are not meeting reasonable standards. I think many have been dragging their heels for many years. I personally remember  
Consumer 
 magazine many years ago pointing out that local authorities around New Zealand had very variable standards. New Zealanders are entitled to see the intent of the Consumer Guarantees Act that was passed in 1993. That Act was intended to cover all goods and services ordinarily supplied in trade to domestic consumers in New Zealand. A number of areas have been disputed through the courts. 
The effect of this bill is to clarify those definitions of goods and services that are covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act the Fair Trading Act the Commerce Act and in one or two cases the Sale of Goods Act. I think it is very important that water and waste water are included. I understand that one of the very good reports the select committee heard was from the Ministry of Health. That report informed the committee that the ministry was preparing a Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill for introduction to the House. The ministry saw the bill that is before us today as compatible with that bill. That bill would provide a 5-year phase-in period for suppliers to comply with the requirements to introduce public health risk management plans and to take all practicable steps to comply with the drinking water standards. I do not think that is an unreasonable requirement. I think that New Zealanders are sick of the fact that a few local authorities have failed to take good steps. All reasonable people understand that acts of God accidents or incidents will happen that will affect the quality of drinking water. The courts have indeed found that the demands of one or two for a particular standard of drinking water for a particular purpose will not be enforceable. It is an obligation on those people to do their own water treatment. 
So I am very happy with the work of the select committee. It was thorough and it looked at all the issues in the bill before us the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill. It is a good bill that amends four Acts to make them work alongside each other. It clarifies issues that a variety of court cases have raised. Some of them excluded some goods and services and others included some of them. This will be an excellent consumer protection measure. It is a well-named bill and it is a well-examined bill. It should be passed promptly.
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17563] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment in the name of Richard Worth to insert new clause 24B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit subpart 2 of Part 2 be agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7808] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill.
Fairbrother Russell: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12248] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5088] 
3.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard’s statement when announcing the reduction in the official cash rate from 5.75 percent to 5.5 percent that “available data suggest that growth in the New Zealand economy is slowing”; if so will the cut in interest rates be accompanied by a prosperity-boosting tax cut? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes and no. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Given the Minister’s own statements of concern that economic growth will be affected by the energy crisis and the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic how does he justify overtaxing the country in order to fund his superannuation scheme and get a surplus when if he balanced the Budget there would be enough money for a $50 per week per full-time taxpayer tax cut and would not such a tax cut boost the economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Only a very silly Minister of Finance would try to solve a cyclical downturn problem by a structural change in the Government accounts. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why will the Government not spend the Budget surpluses now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because unlike some others we are governing for the long term and governing for all New Zealanders not just for the rich. Before we spend the surpluses which are not cash surpluses but surpluses on an operating balance on an accruals basis we need to know what proportion of them is structural and what proportion is cyclical. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Given the likelihood of a sharp slow-down in the economy over the next year or so why does the Government continue to erect what most people in the business sector see as major barriers to economic growth such as the Resource Management Amendment Bill and the Land Transport Management Bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because we do not agree with business particularly on the former. In any case 3 years ago we were forecast that this economy would grind to a permanent halt and no new jobs would be created. Over the last year we have had the fastest growth rate in the OECD and well over 100000 new jobs. Cassandra I am afraid is one of the few people left on the unemployed index at the present time.