edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4502] 
1.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: Has a meeting of the Local Government and Environment Committee been set to consider its inquiry into the alleged accidental release of genetically engineered sweet corn plants in 2000 and the subsequent action taken? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 The committee has already met to consider how we will address that inquiry and has made a plan of action. We have appointed a specialist adviser to the committee and briefed that person on the work that we wish to have done. Our next meeting on the topic will be on 10 April. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Has the committee scheduled additional meetings to expedite its business; if so why has the “corngate” inquiry not been accorded a higher priority and what could be more pressing? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: The only additional meeting scheduled by the committee is to progress a matter on which the House has given direction: that we may sit outside normal sitting hours to deal with the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the minutes of the select committee that show that Labour members blocked further tests— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16469] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Care of Children Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9978] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to new section 13B(1) in clause 6B be agreed to.
Jones Dail: Motions — Leader of the Opposition—Attendance in House 
Jones Dail: Motions — Leader of the Opposition—Attendance in House 
[Volume:620;Page:15865] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move a non-controversial motion. In doing so I gift to you Mr Speaker this visitors book and move that you record in it those very rare and infrequent occasions upon which the leader of the National Party attends the House perhaps starting today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I suggest the member might well be going out to listen to the vice-presidential debate on CNN.
Mackey Moana: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16910] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19973] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Connell Brian: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14083] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to take a quick call in rebuttal of the retiring member for Aoraki. There are some clear arguments as to why what the Minister of Agriculture said just does not make sense. He said that the composition of the board needs the two Government members because of their expertise. That flies in the face of what other boards do all across New Zealand—in fact of global practice. What he is saying if members think about it is that if a board has a legal requirement on it it must have a lawyer and if it has a marketing requirement on it it must have a marketer. What absolute nonsense! Any board worth its salt goes out and gets that expertise consults it takes it into account then comes back and uses it as part of the decision-making process. But to have two patsy members on the board with their fingers all over the decision-making process just to keep the Minister informed does not make sense. 
The Minister in the chair Jim Sutton knows that. Federated Farmers raised the point and it was raised right around the country. When the restructuring initiative was taken around the country every farmer who was thinking about the issue stood up and said that he or she wanted the best individuals possible on the board not patsy members appointed by this Government. This is a Government that does not really understand farming practice so how dare it say what farmers will have. It just does not make sense. This is the same Government that insisted in the select committee process that we have Maori representatives and female representatives on the board regardless of their merit. My message to the Minister is simply that people should be selected on merit and we should let the board get on with doing its job.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17103] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 62 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19495] 
Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the 
 Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill 
 be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20524] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Several points of order have already been raised that are not points of order. We listen to them and that is what I have been doing. I will allow Mr Brownlee to ask his questions of course. That is only fair.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:626;Page:21045] 
4.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: How is the Government continuing to support innovation in the New Zealand economy through research science and technology? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 The Government will invest an additional $204 million in research science and technology over the next 4 years. This increase will bring total public spending on research science and technology excluding capital expenditure to just on $600 million for 2005-06—a boost of over 56 percent since 1999. New funding over the next 4 years includes $71 million to increase the competitiveness of key industries and $47.8 million for infrastructure and development programmes for researchers and scientists and into the health area which will undoubtedly help the member. 
Mark Peck 
: What report has the Minister seen about the value of further investment in research science and technology? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a report that states: “We have no doubt that there is an important role for government in supporting strategic public good research both in Crown Research Institutes and in universities. It is likely that we are still spending too little on such research …”. However I have also seen reports of proposals to cut Government services across the board in order to finance tax cuts by Christmas benefiting the better-off New Zealanders in our country. Both points of view come from Dr Don Brash. He cannot have it both ways. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 145/5. Again a Minister has been asked whether he has seen a report and the Speaker’s ruling makes it quite clear that the Minister in responding cannot speculate or hypothesise on what another party’s polices might bring or deliver. That answer was a direct contravention of the ruling and unfortunately we are seeing that repeatedly in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister withdraw that part of his answer please. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw that part of my answer. 
Mark Peck 
: Can the Minister give us a concrete example of an investment in research science and technology that will have a really positive impact on New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can. This Government will invest an additional $70 million in health research over the next 4 years. It will be the biggest funding boost in more than a decade and will bring the total investment in health research to a figure double what it was when Labour came to Government. This in an example of our trying to correct the deficit left to us by the tax-cutting previous Government.
Speaker’s Rulings — Replies to Written Questions—Signatures 
Speaker’s Rulings — Replies to Written Questions—Signatures 
[Volume:617;Page:12621] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Replies to Written Questions—Signatures 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was asked yesterday to consider the propriety of a Minister approving a hard copy of a reply to a written question rather than affixing an electronic signature personally. The Standing Orders Committee when it first considered the system of electronic written questions in 2002 was concerned to ensure that members should take responsibility for questions that are lodged in their names. To this end the sessional orders agreed on 17 December 2002 required members and Ministers to sign questions and replies personally by way of an electronic signature. 
In practice this requirement caused difficulty. Both members and Ministers wished to be able to put in place systems whereby they could entrust a staff member with affixing the electronic signature to a question or reply on their behalf. Accordingly the Standing Orders Committee in its recent review unanimously decided to allow members and Ministers to delegate the electronic sign-off of questions and replies. Standing Order 366(3)(b) while requiring questions and replies to be signed no longer requires members to affix an electronic signature to a question or a reply personally. 
This change was made on the basis that the responsibility for the question or reply remains with the member. Any compromise of the integrity of the system that allowed a non-member to lodge a question or reply without the specific authorisation of the member or Minister would remain a contempt. But the way in which such authorisation is given is entirely a matter for each individual member or Minister. The Minister’s practice of authorising the affixing of an electronic signature by signing a hard copy of the reply is therefore perfectly proper.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Committee on a Pacific Economic Community National Parliament 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Committee on a Pacific Economic Community National Parliament 
[Volume:624;Page:19547] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Committee on a Pacific Economic Community from the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcome.
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
[Volume:619;Page:14593] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When questions in this House have been raised about the accuracy of answers to questions Ministers have always responded from time immemorial by seeking leave to make a personal explanation if there is a need to correct an answer or as in this case to affirm the accuracy of the answer that was given. It is not done by way of ministerial statement and never has been. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Anyone is entitled to raise an objection; an objection has been raised.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17055] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Responses — Omar Ali and Amer Salman—Statements made by Rt Hon Winston Peters 
Cullen Michael: Responses — Omar Ali and Amer Salman—Statements made by Rt Hon Winston Peters 
[Volume:627;Page:22163] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published.  
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5445] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
Noes 37 
Motion agreed to 
. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 18; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.
Peters Jim: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18923] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First members were not averse to giving the bill further thought with regard to matters that have already been raised. We saw this bill as merely a completion and other councils have felt the same when past pieces of legislation have needed to be brought to the House to be resolved in their own way. 
This bill in particular was about an area of land that was fully documented and in this case was vested for the use of water collection and forestry. It made sound sense to us in New Zealand First and I believe to those on the Local Government and Environment Committee to take this line of approach. But I also raise the point raised by the Hon Roger Sowry—that is if a council is so easily able to pick up on the relevant sections of the 2002 Local Government Act and in this case also to look at being a commercial enterprise which seems to be inherent in the language of the legislation then why do other Government agencies such as the Department of Conservation not do the same? 
I think that that is a highly significant point. It also brings us to another issue which is this: where have we come to in this country regarding energy when any local body or any other group is able suddenly to contemplate going into the provision of energy in a most haphazard and in this case individual way? It also begs the question surely that if this legislation had been part of a national strategy in respect of energy then it would have slotted in as a small attempt in Wellington with regard to this newly found wind power and it would have made good sense. 
However those matters are not really relevant to the bill before us. We are looking here at the preamble. Members of New Zealand First were satisfied in the course of the select committee work—there were a few reservations at the start; submissions were made by the Wellington Regional Council and by the odd submitter who came—that this is a sound piece of legislation that will allow the Wellington Regional Council to get on with the business of energy procurement in the future.
Choudhary Ashraf: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Fiordland Marine Management Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18120] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill which has excellent measures to preserve protect and manage the area in Fiordland. I am delighted that this bill has been put forward by a very good friend of mine Marian Hobbs.
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
Cullen Michael: Personal Explanations — Replies to Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:609;Page:6122] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I now want to raise a quite serious matter which is a matter for future reference and is not in relation to this case. In relation to the ruling you have just given where a Minister discovers that a mistake has occurred in an answer seeks to make a personal explanation to correct that answer and the House denies that leave I see that as being the end of the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. All that the Minister now has to do is to supply the Clerk with an answer in writing and that will be sufficient.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21434] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 94 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Robertson H V Ross: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22321] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that members in this place are of long-standing. The member well knows that there are to be no interjections at all during points of order. The member is warned. He has his first yellow card.
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I say just briefly that in terms of clause 9 levies have to be confirmed within that Parliament or they lapse. Once confirmed they do not need to be reconfirmed later. In terms of the other matter I refer the member to clause 15(2) which validates the fact that in effect the levies have been properly collected and therefore are due. Of course if this bill were not passed then the member would be quite correct to raise the issue. There would then be a case to argue that the levies were invalid and therefore should be refunded.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20981] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) the words “provided that any monies paid or received in terms of this subsection must also be paid into the victims’ claims trust bank account.”
Motions — America's Cup 
Motions — America's Cup 
[Volume:606;Page:3901] 
Tuesday 4 March 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
America's Cup 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House congratulate the Alinghi syndicate on winning the America’s Cup on 2 March 2003 in Auckland from Team New Zealand; over the course of the challenger and defender series Alinghi proved itself to be the best syndicate; its success was deserved.  
I also move That the House acknowledge the hard work and efforts of the whole team at Team New Zealand; they faced the unenviable task of rebuilding the syndicate in the wake of a successful defence in 2000. While unsuccessful this year a new team has been built that is capable of making a strong challenge to the America’s Cup when the next regatta is held. 
Motions agreed to.
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11771] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I do not intend to take long in making a contribution to this legislation—[ 
Interruption 
]—because as Phil Heatley interjects behind me he has said it all and it is legislation that is completely supported by the Primary Production Committee. 
As chair of that committee I want to take this opportunity to thank my fellow members for the way they worked through this legislation. I particularly want to thank the officials who helped us and Mr Murray from the Ministry of Fisheries who I thought did a superb job answering some difficult issues for us with regard to the submissions we received—particularly from tuna and scallop fishers who tended to have left the industry over a period of time. 
This legislation is before the House because the Fisheries Act of 1996 was not implemented as we politicians thought it would be. It is with some regret that we are here now passing an amendment bill to tidy up that Act. I hope that in future we can have confidence that the officialdom of both the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries will take care and accurately allocate levies to the various species so that we are not back passing similar legislation in another 8 years’ time.
Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations of Telephone Taping 
Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations of Telephone Taping 
[Volume:619;Page:14677] 
Personal Explanations 
Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations of Telephone Taping 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal statement in relation to allegations made in this House on Tuesday by Mr Hide that I misled this House over the matter of the taping of telephone calls. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter to the Speaker on this matter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15582] 
5.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on Work and Income job partnerships with industry to assist people into employment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Work and Income has established job partnerships with five major industry groups. They are hospitality road transport retail master plumbers and roading. Job partnerships with industry create formal agreements ensuring industry skill and labour needs are met and that people currently on the unemployment benefit gain sustainable job opportunities. Further partnerships are being developed in areas such as the meat industry and construction all of which are helping push our unemployment numbers down to the lowest they have been in 20 years. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other reports has he received on alternative measures to assist people off benefits and into real jobs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen reports that ask the unemployed to queue outside post offices and reports about work-for-the-dole schemes and raising the age of eligibility for superannuation. None of those schemes would get one person a real job. We were of course promised a full welfare policy from the once-great National Party but I now understand that divisions and splits in the caucus mean they have nothing to say. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you going to allow that sort of answer to stand? Whilst you might want to say that it is just a debating point I think it invites disorder and it will make it very difficult for you to maintain a reasonable standard of behaviour in the House if Ministers are able to get away with that sort of free shot and total misrepresentation of the truth when they finish an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say to the member— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I haven’t finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I have. Points of order must be expressed tersely. I think what the member says has some validity in it and that the last comments made by the Minister were out of order. I take the point that the member makes. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: Will the Minister tell the House why it is that after 5 years of a Labour Government we have so many people unskilled in literacy and numeracy and can the Minister give a figure on those who fall into this category? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The identification of adult literacy as a major problem has of course been a focus of this Government. We understand that literally hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders need their skills lifted which is exactly why over the last 5 years we have spent tens of millions of dollars—now hundreds of millions of dollars—lifting the skill base of New Zealand. We are focused heavily on adult literacy and numeracy.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8874] 
4.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: When will an announcement be made on the future of the agricultural greenhouse gas emissions levy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Any announcement will follow the outcome of discussions with the agriculture sector. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the Minister share the optimism of his office spokesperson who was quoted in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 on Saturday as saying that it looked as if the Government would end up “avoiding the need to bring the levy in”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Time will tell but if it does happen that will be the Government’s first preference. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does the Minister see any advantages in a statutory levy rather than in voluntary funding from the agricultural sector for that research? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s preference has always been for voluntary funding and we are pleased that the sector is reconsidering its position on that. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Why will the Minister not admit that the proposed methane emission research levy on farmers was a mistake and would do nothing for world greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Should the research into methane emissions prove to be a little successful moderately successful or even very successful it will have small medium or large effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore it is worth doing because it puts more money on our farmers’ bottom lines. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Why will the Government not withdraw the proposed methane research tax immediately in light of the Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative - Lincoln University announcement that a new jointly developed product started 10 years ago could achieve the Government’s Kyoto target even if it were only half as efficient as the first research results show; and is this not an example of just how far the Government is behind the nineball in terms of its relationship with the rural sector? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That research is very encouraging although it is yet to be tested in the field. I understand it is approaching that phase now. It has of course been funded by the taxpayer and by industry in the past. In other words it is a very good example of how research can make a difference. 
Hon David Carter 
: Could the Minister explain to the House what is the difference between a back-down on the flatulence tax and a “back-up” a term the Minister used in the House on 4 September? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It seems that it is within the bounds of possibility that the agricultural sector and the Government may be able to move back up to being the first preference of us all.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13023] 
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 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ron Mark to clause 49 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 49.
Obituaries — Hon Allan McCready 
Obituaries — Hon Allan McCready 
[Volume:610;Page:7819] 
Tuesday 12 August 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Hon Allan McCready 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 8 August 2003 of the Hon Allan McCready QSO who represented the electorate of Otaki from 1960 to 1972 and that of Manawatu from 1972 to 1978. He was Minister of Defence in 1972 and from 1975 to 1978 and Minister of Police from 1975 to 1978. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19827] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Murray Smith to proposed new clause 3L set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (a) of proposed new section 116B(1) of the Building Act 2004 before the word “permit” the word “knowingly” 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Murray Smith to proposed new clause 3L set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) of proposed new section 116B(1) of the Building Act 2004 before the word “permit” the word “knowingly”. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order —  
Cullen Michael: Points of Order —  
[Volume:620;Page:16082] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 A brief glance at the Order Paper will tell the member that following question time we will have a general debate this being Wednesday and following that we will have the third reading of the electricity and gas legislation. So we are some hours away from getting to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill giving Mr Speaker considerable time to consider the matter.
Vote: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7594. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 6 (Bennett P Blue Borrows Hutchison Power Rich); New Zealand First 3 (Donnelly Woolerton Stewart); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 42 (Ardern Auchinvole Bennett D Blumsky Brownlee Carter D Carter J Clarkson Coleman Collins Connell Dean English Finlayson Foss Goodhew Goudie Groser Guy Hayes Heatley Henare Key King McCully Mapp Peachey Roy Ryall Shanks Simich Smith L Smith N te Heuheu Tisch Tolley Tremain Wagner Wilkinson Williamson Wong Worth); New Zealand First 4 (Peters Mark Paraone Brown); United Future 2 (Turner Copeland); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Question agreed to.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6477] 
10.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to recognise and promote excellent teaching in the tertiary education sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Last night the Prime Minister Marian Hobbs and I participated in the second annual Tertiary Teacher Excellence Awards presentations. Awards went to eight individuals along with two teaching teams who won in the “Excellence in Collaboration” category. The Prime Minister’s Supreme Award went to Dr Peter Schwartz of the University of Otago who is well known for pioneering a style of teaching based upon self-directed small groups. I should also note for the House’s interest that Dr Peter Schwartz is also well known for the fact that every year he memorises the name of all the students in his class and meets them at the door for their first lecture by naming them. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Does the Government intend to introduce further measures to support teaching quality in the tertiary education sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes we do. The tertiary education reforms place a great emphasis on teacher quality. Funding for tuition of students is going to include a performance element. We will continue and expand the teacher excellence awards. We are setting in place the tertiary workforce review and a review of quality. All of this will be maintained next year through to next year’s Budget. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: What does the Minister think will be the effects on the quality of teaching in the tertiary sector of the decision to exclude postgraduate courses from the fees maxima when university academic positions generally require a PhD and doctoral graduates are having to go into the private sector to repay their student debt because salaries in New Zealand institutions are uncompetitive? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not expect a negative impact on teaching. In fact the Performance-based Research Fund places a high priority on postgraduate and other research students in the postgraduate area which will ensure that they are well looked after by their institutions.
Cullen Michael: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4047] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take strong exception to the direct statement made by Mr Hide that there is corruption of the voting process. If he believes that there is another way of raising that issue as I am sure he is well aware but to raise it in the House is highly offensive and I take offence at it. I think he should be required to withdraw and apologise.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Smoke-free Policy—Parliamentary Complex 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Smoke-free Policy—Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:621;Page:16783] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to make a statement to the House on the smoke-free policy for the parliamentary complex. This supersedes the statement I made to the House on 2 March 2000  
Hansard 
 Volume 582 at pages 947 and 948. The Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act 2003 has commencing on 10 December 2004 increased the scope and intent of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990. Parliament enacted the smoke-free legislation and has a duty to ensure that the parliamentary complex environment fully complies with the provisions of the Act. Under section 26(1) of the Parliamentary Service Act the Speaker is the person invested with the control and administration of the parliamentary precincts. In this capacity I have consulted with the Parliamentary Service as both the supplier of building services for the complex and the employer of the majority of complex staff which in turn has consulted with other agencies housed within the complex. Following that consultation and advice the smoking policy that applies at present within the parliamentary complex is being reviewed and updated in order to comply with the amended legislation. 
 Beginning on 10 December 2004 the entire parliamentary complex—that is Parliament House the executive wing Bowen House and the Parliamentary Library—will be smoke-free. This includes those areas in which smoking has hitherto been permitted—that is the bar known as Pickwicks single-person offices with windows opening to the outside the car-park areas on levels 2 and 3 of Bowen House the underground garages in Parliament House and the executive wing and the walkway under the main steps of Parliament House. All these areas are to be smoke-free. 
Other smoke-free areas that merit specific mention are the lobbies Chamber galleries the Parliament House conservatory including the bridge the members’ recreation room the library veranda and the balcony outside level 20 of Bowen House. Smoking at the top of the main steps of Parliament House is still prohibited. Smoking is permitted within Parliament grounds but not in or around any entrance ways to the buildings nor adjacent to any open windows or in any other area from which smoke could enter the buildings. 
The policy applies to all occupants of and visitors to the parliamentary complex including members of Parliament employees of all agencies members of the press gallery visiting dignitaries and delegations function attendees guests contractors and any members of the general public who are visitors to the parliamentary complex. I will ensure that a copy of this statement is sent to all occupants of the complex. The smoke-free policy will be available early next week.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18817] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21013] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005” and substitute the words “Prisoners’ Pecuniary Interest and Claims Act 2005”.
Coddington Deborah: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4777] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is good to see the real Minister of Transport the Hon Harry Duynhoven in the chair. We might get some good amendments passed today with him there. Last evening when the Committee rose I was debating Part 2 and was just about to talk about clause 25 “Power to exempt persons from requirement to register by Order in Council”. The five exemption clauses are curious because a person can apply to be exempted from the new register of motor vehicle dealers. The register was originally to be run by the Ministry of Economic Development but it is not quite clear in the bill where it will be run from now. Maybe it will be the Ministry of Commerce. 
A person can apply to be exempted from registering but as one would expect a number of things must be taken into account when he or she makes the application. People apply to the Minister via the prescribed form stating why they want to be exempted from all the regulations imposed on them for being motor vehicle dealers. Under clause 28 “Process for making recommendation for exemption” subclause (1)(a) states that the Minister must consult with persons or representatives whom he or she thinks will be substantially affected by the exemption and the Minister can then go to the Governor-General for an Order in Council.
Yates Dianne: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Yates Dianne: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16378] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
referred to Government Administration Committee 
.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Olympic Games—Congratulations to New Zealand Team 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Olympic Games—Congratulations to New Zealand Team 
[Volume:619;Page:15144] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I join with others who have spoken to congratulate our Olympic athletes on their achievements at the 28th Olympiad just completed in Athens. I want particularly to express congratulations to the Evers-Swindell twins Sarah Ulmer and Hamish Carter on their gold medal successes and to Ben Fouhy and Bevan Docherty on their silver medals. I contrast the feeling of elation throughout the country at those successes with the gloom and despondency we felt at the Sydney Games 4 short years ago. There is no doubt that Games success does translate into popular mood and certainly there has been a decided uplift in the public tempo over the last couple of weeks. 
I want to make two other brief points. Before these Games began it was customary in just about every quarter to bag the capacity of the Athens organisers to get the venues completed on time and also to doubt that they had any capacity at all to run a successful Olympiad. Events have proven that these Games were one of the best organised yet and I think it is worth acknowledging the contribution of the organisers to that achievement. 
The final point is that I think most New Zealanders along with perhaps many people around the world would have approached these Games with a sense of some trepidation that there might be some terrorist outburst during the period of the Games and we can be thankful that that did not happen. That is a tribute of course to the security arrangements that were in place but it is also a nice reminder that just occasionally in this troubled environment things can go according to plan things can go well and people can get the enjoyment from them that the spirit of the modern Olympics is supposed to be all about. Congratulations to all concerned. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:620;Page:15527] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 15 September. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is in relation to the Japanese parliamentary delegation. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Prebble Richard: Business Statement 
Prebble Richard: Business Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18738] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hope that when you are considering that matter you will also take into consideration the situation in which the House actually finds itself. We have the Government introducing a bill that is in Maori. The Government then produces a translation that is demonstrably false. Even non-Maori speakers know that because the Maori words that are in the English text are not contained in the Maori text. So it cannot be right. We also know that when the courts come to interpret the legislation it will not be the English translation that they look at; the Maori text will be the law of the land. So we have a situation whereby possibly 10 MPs know what is being passed and the other 110 of us are being misled. I think that requires some action from the Speaker. I would say that a false translation must be a breach of privilege and a very serious one.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8470] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8462] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
Yates Dianne: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5356] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to rise in support of the bill and say that I believe that it is about being a New Zealander. I am very proud of this bill. I am absolutely appalled that we should have members of Parliament making speeches like those the ACT party has made here tonight. I find it difficult to believe as a New Zealander born and bred in this country that other people who have the same heritage could make such speeches.