edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Adams Paul: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21163] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I welcome this bill and I look forward to the issues that surround it being discussed at the select committee. Matt Robson’s bill has been drawn from the ballot at an opportune time. The drinking age is an issue that does need to be discussed by the New Zealand public and therefore I think that the discussion at the select committee will be welcome. However I also realise that no legislation will stop our drinking problem—or our binge drinking problem either. We as parents also need to look at the responsibility we have to bring up our children correctly and to teach them the responsibilities associated with drinking. Many people enjoy a glass of wine with their meal and that type of thing but the problem is whether we as parents have taught our children what alcohol can do. I just touch again on the fact that people liken the legislation relating to the drinking age to that relating to the age at which one can go into the Army and to other similar legislation. The major difference with regard to alcohol is that alcohol affects the brain affects thinking and can change behaviour types. Therefore I think it is an issue that seriously needs to be discussed. I hope that many people who are concerned about this issue will bring their concerns to the select committee. It will be very interesting to see the facts and figures brought forward.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22297] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Pettis Jill: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4929] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I listened with interest to what the member who has just resumed his seat had to say. I appreciated the considered contribution he made on the bill. In respect of his questions about the level of pension that is being paid to our veterans I am sure that he will be aware from his notes when he has a moment to read them that the minimum level of a veterans pension for a married couple remains legislated for at not less than 60 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly earnings. That is something that has been fought for long and hard. 
I have taken an interest in this legislation not only because of my electorate constituency but also because of my own interest in the issue. I too come from a family that has served this country for three generations. In my generation my husband and my brother were also in the New Zealand services. They too would never ask for anything—as most people who have served our country would not either. But I am very pleased that after many years we are able to bring this legislation into the House. It is timely and it has been well considered. I am delighted to say that at long last after spending 6 years in Opposition it is wonderful to be in Government and to see it do something tangible about the issue. I commend the bill to the House.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7441] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would appreciate it if you would be prepared to reflect on the ruling that you appear to have imposed on the House today in respect of interjections being permissible only from a member’s own seat. The reason I raise the matter is this. During a number of debates in Parliament it is common practice when the House is not full for members to gather often around their whips’ desks and speak from those points. It means that there can be much more interactive debate and what is more if members were not allowed to interject from those points they could not really take part in the debate. What that would mean is that members would have to sit in their own seats around this Chamber and that would destroy the spirit of debate in the Chamber because some members who wanted to interact in the debate would be forced to speak from way up the back of the Chamber. I am concerned that if you were to enforce that absolutely it would be somewhat damaging to the spirit of the Chamber.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7638] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to give the members of this House an absolute assurance that every step I have taken has been after the fullest possible consideration with my adviser whom I regard as the best of any in the world and the most unbiased person whom I could ever get reports from. This reference to the Privileges Committee is not based on a breach of the law; it is about whether a seat is vacant. A seat can become vacant without any breach.
Pettis Jill: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16366] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Mr Copeland from United Future has accurately relayed the decision that was made at the Business Committee on 5 October where unanimous agreement was given that we could record votes of a party vote cast by party whips and also for abstentions to be recorded. That was the ethos behind the proposal I just put before the House. That proposal was to reiterate the unanimous agreement of the Business Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection?
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12674] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is my understanding from the Standing Orders Appendix A that these speeches are 10 minutes long. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:606;Page:3767] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
I seek leave for the time by which the Maori Affairs Committee must finally report the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill to be extended to 21 March 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Hartley Ann: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13157] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member is relitigating my decision. He knows his rights perfectly well but I will not have this point of order relitigated.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:608;Page:5085] 
Tuesday 29 April 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We in the Opposition are having some difficulty in getting replies to questions for written answer and I have raised that matter with you. We have a serial offender in the Minister of Education and I just wonder what action your office has taken in making the Minister comply with the Standing Orders in replying to written questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will examine that matter and report back to the member.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19495] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Duynhoven Harry: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21350] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Superannuation Fund 
Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Superannuation Fund 
[Volume:610;Page:7994] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
New Zealand Superannuation Fund 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Gordon Copeland seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the investment formula to be used by the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Disclosure of the formula is a particular case of recent occurrence and as the fund is owned by the Crown I accept that it does involve ministerial responsibility. I do not however consider that a decision of this nature which will inevitably be implemented over time requires the immediate attention of the House. I therefore decline the application.
Burton Mark: Ministerial Statements — Army—Vehicle Accident 
Burton Mark: Ministerial Statements — Army—Vehicle Accident 
[Volume:619;Page:14875] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yesterday afternoon two Burnham-based soldiers were killed in a vehicle accident on Banks Peninsula. A third soldier was seriously injured and is at present in a stable condition in Christchurch Hospital. The soldiers were on a driving training course when the accident happened. These two tragic deaths happened during an exercise to prepare our personnel for the often dangerous situations they face overseas. I can tell members that a court of inquiry is already under way and as is normal in such circumstances there will also be a police inquiry. Obviously therefore it is inappropriate for me to comment any further on any details relating to the accident. At this time our thoughts are with the families of the two soldiers who died and with the injured soldier as well as with their colleagues. I know that all members would join me in expressing their deepest sympathy to the families and loved ones of those involved in this tragic accident.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3561] 
7.  
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What action has been taken by the Government to “establish the world’s most business friendly regulatory regime” the key objective from theme group four of the first Knowledge Wave Conference? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Lots and lots—ranging from an improved monetary policy targets agreement that is more growth-friendly and other associated changes that I think will also help in that respect through to improved competition law improved telecommunications legislation a tertiary education system designed to drive more relevant and higher-quality skills and changes in taxation in the research and development and administration areas which have been warmly welcomed. More good news will follow at both 3.30 p.m. and 4 o’clock this afternoon. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How did the Local Government Act the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act the Kyoto Protocol the proposed review of the Employment Relations Act to cover contracting out on the sale of a business the new Holidays Bill and the ongoing delay in reforming the Resource Management Act help to achieve the objective of establishing the world’s most business-friendly regulatory regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will try to take up some of those. Even Business New Zealand could not prevent a faint cheer emanating from it over the new Holidays Bill which it said simplified the provisions enormously compared with previous law in that area. The Resource Management Act will be improved and simplified— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: When? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Very very soon. Since Dr Smith will be spending a lot more time in Opposition I am sure he will see many more Resource Management Amendment Bills from a Labour-led Government. 
Mark Peck 
: Does the Government believe it has a role in the economy and how does that differ from previous administrations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We believe that we have a constructive role in the economy working in partnership with the private sector. We have implemented a wide range of programmes with the Ministry of Economic Development at regional sector enterprise level to assist new businesses to become established and established businesses to grow. The Inland Revenue Department and Treasury are working on a number of potential changes in the tax area to assist business development and growth. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How many of the 162 recommendations contained in the report of the Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs delivered to the Government almost 2 years ago in July 2001 have been implemented? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the total is about half. Many more are being worked on and that is considerably more than the previous Government which introduced for example industrial relations legislation that might have reduced the number of strikes but enormously increased the amount of litigation in the industrial relations area. That litigation has dropped significantly under this Government.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9883] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 7. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Other: Paul Adams. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.
Burton Mark: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Burton Mark: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:5005] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am trying to be helpful because I know the Chair was not in the Chamber at the time so it is difficult. As I observed the process the member was asked to leave for the reasons I stated earlier. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What were the reasons? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I said there were constant interjections. Again I am interpreting what I observed. What was in the mind of the presiding officer is obviously her prerogative and I uphold her authority as she exercised it. But I say to the member that Mr Hide observed the instruction he had been given by the Chair and left the Chamber immediately. That is to his credit. I further observe that the Chair as soon as members had completed what they were saying informed the then absent Mr Hide that the withdrawal from the Chamber was for the remainder of the sitting day. That information was given. It is quite possible Mr Hide did not hear it but I certainly did sitting in the vantage position that I have here which is very close to the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member very much. I am giving a ruling. The decision was made by the previous Chair prior to the dinner break and it is my understanding that Mr Hide was excluded from the Chamber until the rising of the House this evening. There the matter rests. I warn members that under Standing Order 85 I consider the Chamber is getting close to being disorderly.
Tisch Lindsay: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9073] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. My colleague is on a roll and he has already mentioned the schedule. I would like to hear a little bit about the giant African snail and seek leave that he continue with the roll he is on and then we vote at the end on Part 5 and the schedule at that time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Well I know that the member would like that but we need to put Part 5 first.
Wong Pansy: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16776] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I think my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s various questions deserve answers because he is right. The Government has not even bothered to take a call to explain to the public the various amendments to Part 4 particularly those to the goods and services tax. I will come back to the fake invoices later on. 
Let me start off by saying that GST was introduced by a more progressive liberal Labour Government in the 1980s. The Government that introduced that broad-based indirect tax was a much cleverer Government. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague Richard Worth notes that that was in the 1980s. The David Lange Government understood that bringing down individual personal tax and bringing in a consumption tax was a much better fairer tax system. It was not like this regressive minority Labour Government at the moment which has increased personal tax. Today in question time my colleague John Key brought up the issue that this Government is daily raking in an additional $8 million of tax from direct-source deduction. We want the Minister in the chair the Hon David Cunliffe to take a call and explain to us whether Part 4 in any intentional or unintentional way might distort that broad-based consumption tax GST. After all there are quite a few amendments—to the definition of goods and services in relation to financial services to what a special return is etc. While on this side of the Chamber the National Party is very supportive of GST we feel that the Minister to earn his salary should at least attempt to take a call to explain what the consequences of those amendments are. 
I would like to repeat some of the concerns raised by my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith about the implication of GST on fraudulent invoices. Would the Inland Revenue Department have got the input and output tax reconciliation when fraudulent invoices were issued? How do they get picked up? Do the trusts furnish a GST return? If that is the case what is the implication if fraudulent invoices are GST inclusive? Would the Inland Revenue Department have started to demand that the proper tax be deducted? Would the trust actually be entitled to a refund? Did it furnish that tax in the correct taxable period? I really think the Minister who receives a ministerial salary should at least attempt to take a call to answer what the implication is of GST on fraudulent invoices. Does the fact that it is a fraudulent invoice mean that the input tax—in this case it is probably an output tax—has been deducted and furnished to the Inland Revenue Department and what implication does the amendment in this part have in those circumstances? 
While National continues to support GST—a good indirect consumption tax which is a much fairer tax—we want to know whether the amendments in Part 4 in any way have tainted the legislation.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Debate on Iraq 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3941] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to be clear here. There was a Business Committee meeting this afternoon. My understanding from Dr Cullen was that that would be a suitable motion. I wonder whether the Labour whips might want to discuss it.
Beyer Georgina: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6524] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to make a very brief contribution to the debate on this bill which I primarily support. I was compelled by the contribution from the honourable member Richard Worth whose speech drew me from my office to the Chamber. I am so pleased to have this brief opportunity to speak. It was compelling stuff from Mr Worth and let it never be said that he is a second-hand rose. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Law and Order Committee. referred to the Law and Order Committee
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16148] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to sections 50A to 50J in clause 15 be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:613;Page:9837] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I always have done except that time. As this ruling involved the ACT party I felt obliged to call the acting leader of ACT for a point of order first. But I take the member’s point. He is technically correct.
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15424] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to take up the issue regarding the historical setting that we see ourselves in with the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act in 1992 and also to pick up on Gerry Brownlee’s point particularly his earlier point about precedent-setting. We in the National Party know that although this Maori Fisheries Bill states in some clauses that it is restricted to the matters that it deals with and cannot cast any precedent on future Acts and legislation or past Acts and legislation the structure set up under it will be the structure utilised in other settlements. In the case of aquaculture we know that the give-away by the Labour Government of 20 percent of aquaculture space to Maori will utilise the same governance structures allocation structures and iwi business models that this bill uses. As the Government talks about seabed and foreshore being entrusted in the Crown we know that it is going about negotiations with three different Maori groups throughout New Zealand on their own private settlements to do with the seabed and foreshore—unbeknown to all other iwi groups in the country. We know that those settlements will use a similar structure to what is outlined in this bill. 
We talk about the patronising nature of this bill about the distance between the Maori beneficiaries who are supposed to receive the settlement—the power the monetary value and the mana of the settlement—and a sum of the settlement assets particularly those in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd. I have talked about five layers. There are the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd board of directors who select the Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd board of directors with the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd directors having already been selected by the trustees of Te Kawai Taumata—that is three layers—who are selected by iwi representatives and of course those iwi representatives are selected by the people. That structure is highly bureaucratic and it will be utilised not just in this Maori Fisheries Bill but in the 20 percent aquaculture space give-away as well. So any bureaucracy that Maori unnecessarily face through this legislation or any patronising approach that Maori have to face through this legislation they will also have to face when it comes to the aquaculture settlement or to any seabed or foreshore deal. 
That is why this bill is so significant to the National Party. We want to see the bureaucracy and the unnecessarily patronising approach in this legislation removed because all that they will do is give lots of lawyers lots of work amongst Maori who will see their financial benefit disappear in the courts as they argue about 250 pages of legislation. Maori unfortunately will be forced into the position where they argue about clause upon clause—over 169 clauses. There are lots of subclauses lots of layers and lots of accountability. In fact the accountability goes far above that of any normal mainstream organisation that Maori would have to appease.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12327] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by adding the words “ one of whom shall be representative of the permanent players of the orchestra”.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
[Volume:608;Page:5677] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a couple of points I would like clarification on. You will recall yesterday that question for oral answer No. 4 from the Hon Bill English to the Prime Minister attracted quite a considerable number of supplementary questions and ran to some three pages of  
Hansard 
. The result of the afternoon investigations I suppose by the Prime Minister led her to make a personal explanation in the House at 7.30 last evening that in many ways vindicates the lines of questioning that were being taken yesterday. We fully accept that. The question we have for you is this. Having looked at  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and the Standing Orders it seems very unclear just where a personal explanation leaves off and a ministerial statement begins. It would be an interesting point for you to tell the House that a Minister decides when to make a ministerial statement but there can be nothing personal about a Minister coming to the House after a question that has been in the system for some 4 hours and then that Minister clearly making what we will call a mistake in answering that question. That cannot be personal to the Minister. Surely it is a matter for the Minister’s department or his or her advisers who we all know are very very involved in the process of putting together answers to those questions. 
So we are asking you to consider the Speaker’s rulings that are around both the personal explanation and the ministerial statement—there is very little around a ministerial statement—and the Standing Orders themselves and perhaps come back to the House with a new ruling about where a ministerial statement should supersede a personal statement. This matter arose in question time in the House and that is a time when a Minister is being questioned by the Opposition and is asked to be accountable for the way in which he or she is conducting his or her role as a member of the executive. It would seem that if a Minister can give answers in the House that are quite clearly wrong and then at a later time under the cover of a dinner break make a personal explanation and have that as the end of the matter that is not appropriate. We think it should be subject to a ministerial statement. That is our first point. The second point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like to hear the first point one at a time.
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12790] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Parker David: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11022] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I too support the bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This 350-page bill will get good scrutiny in the committee and some of the issues raised by Mr Key will be dealt with.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Minister's Comments 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Minister's Comments 
[Volume:608;Page:5458] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you have made your ruling. I made a decision not to raise it with you as a breach of privilege. If I had done that I would have had it to you by 2 o’clock. My difficulty is that I do not see how we can bring a foreign Government into an issue on a breach of privilege. To make it clear it concerns a statement— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and that makes no difference to the issue. Please be seated.
Brownlee Gerry: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21172] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why did the last speaker get 10 minutes? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: He had the right of reply as it is a member’s bill. That is my understanding.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11508] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the total costs including legal disbursements or consultants’ fees since 1 January 1998 paid by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust in association with the Volcanic Interior Plateau Project Taumata and to what matters do those costs refer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 My role in the trust is limited to the appointment of three Crown trustees. I have no power over or direction capacity in relation to the trust an organisation independent of Government control. As a consequence neither my office nor Treasury holds the information the member seeks. I can refer the member to the trust’s latest report which shows it disbursed $10.581 million to the Volcanic Interior Plateau Project between 1990 and 31 March 2003 roughly half of which was in the last 2 years of that period. It is not possible to determine from the report how the disbursements have been applied or whether other expenditure by the trust has directly or indirectly benefited the project. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister consider that it is in any way remotely reasonable for the beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of this trust to be given no accounting whatsoever as to the detail of their expenditure even to the extent that certain claimants as proprietors have never been informed of what portion of their claim in terms of itemised costs is against their account and how can that be fair in respect of the Maori people or for that matter the taxpayers of this country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The taxpayers do not provide funding now to the trust and have not done so for a long time. Its income comes off the old Crown forest and the rentals thereon. There have been a number of questions surrounding the operations of the trust and the select committee did an excellent inquiry into that. There have as I am sure the member is aware been some recent significant changes in the operations of the trust. External governance advice has been brought in and certainly I will be maintaining closer contact with the Crown-appointed trustees over the next year to ensure that those reforms continue.
Woolerton R Doug: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11694] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Carter the chairman of the select committee is right. I might add that he did a very good job. He is right to identify that area of unfairness or seeming unfairness. I do not think that anybody would deny that there was unfairness when a recompense comes back and is put against future levies in the industry. For whatever reason those people who have sold out of the industry feel slighted in some way or done in the eye. 
In primary production areas and my experience has largely been in the dairy industry it is quite common that those who are elected to—and this is a fact; it is not a matter of contention—represent people in the industry can only and in my view should only and this is where the difference comes with my colleague Ian Ewen-Street represent those who are in that industry at that point. Those people are not elected to represent people of a bygone time be it only 2 years ago. They are elected to represent those who are in the industry at the present time and to a degree to look after that industry as it goes forward. 
So this is an unfairness that I personally have had a lot of experience of and it is something that is accepted—that is one cannot look after those who have gone before. They have chosen to sell out at that point in time they have left the industry and any benefits that are to come back to people in the industry should go to those who are participating in the present day. Therefore while recognising the unfairness of that particular decision I think that any other decision would be even more unfair. Again before I sit down from speaking on this clause I want to say that this industry is in its formative years. It is an extremely litigious industry where everything in those formative years is open to challenge open to legal challenge has been challenged and considerable sums of money are at stake. Again that is what this bill is about. Even though it is unfair I do agree that this is the right way to deal with this.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6570] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have dealt with that point of order. Is this a new point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes it is. I would appreciate it in the context of the insult offered and for total clarification for all members in this House if the Minister’s withdrawal was now translated. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have dealt with the point of order— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am entitled to ask for anything to be translated. It is the official language of this House and I would like it translated. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The comment was withdrawn and that is the end of the matter. I call the Hon Matt Robson.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Breach of Privilege—Television One 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Breach of Privilege—Television One 
[Volume:625;Page:20655] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comment. I first make the observation that it is not for any member of this House to tell the Speaker what his or her options are. I acknowledge that the member has raised the matter as a point of privilege which is the correct procedure. It is not the correct procedure to litigate a matter of privilege through a point of order which is just what has happened. I also remind members that it is for any member to raise any TV statement as a matter of privilege if he or she wishes to do so. If members do that they will do it through the correct procedure which is to write to the Speaker. The correct procedure is being followed.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:621;Page:16627] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
Hartley Ann: General Debate 
[Volume:620;Page:15480] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I assure Mr Mark that his speech certainly was not curtailed deliberately. The point is that the Speaker this afternoon ruled that any discussion on this particular case did contravene Standing Order 112(2) because of the reference to the sentence. That was ruled this afternoon. What I was trying to do with the member’s speech was to watch where that impinged because the member was speaking about both cases. I also say to Mr Mark that we are relitigating it now. But I assure him that his speech was not in any way deliberately curtailed.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7803] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8094] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make a few comments with regard to this part of the bill and in particular to the quality assurance issue and some of the comments made by the National member. We support the notion of deleting clauses 52A 53 54 and 54A for the following reasons. These proposed amendments relate to several issues. Clause 52A which provides for the disallowance of protection of an activity if a major inquiry is under way is unnecessary and may reduce safety. Firstly it is unnecessary because an inquiry or investigation into an event or issue will not be hindered by a protected quality assurance activity involving the same event or issue as the facts surrounding the event or issue are not protected. It may reduce safety because the initiation or continuation of a quality assurance activity may be essential to prevent a recurrence of the original event or issue. 
Secondly the requirement under clause 53 to have an independent person approved by the Minister to be responsible for a quality assurance activity is unnecessary and probably overly bureaucratic. It is not currently a requirement under the Medical Practitioners Act as I understand it and no reasons have been given for its inclusion. It is likely to substantially inhibit efforts to obtain protection for quality assurance activities. For that reason I support the notion of deleting those clauses.
Peck Mark: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peck Mark: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6090. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call but I heard a couple of contributions that somewhat worried me. One was from Mr Dail Jones who went on about the New Zealand First minority report. I challenge Mr Jones to read the report. One of the things he will see— 
Dail Jones 
: I read it in the House. 
MARK PECK 
: He says he read the report. Let me tell members that the only person on the Commerce Committee who asked any questions was Rod Donald. He was the only one. Everybody else just nodded away in agreement as we went through. It took us 22 minutes to hear the submissions and the hour and a bit that we took to do the consideration was basically Rod Donald asking questions about tourism. Dail Jones’ party missed the bus. Furthermore— 
Dail Jones 
: We did tourism. 
MARK PECK 
: He interjects again. What does one say? Here we have a man who does not even know what is in the bill trying to make some sense of it. At least Mr Shirley took the opportunity to read it but can I tell him that his member was a little silent at the select committee as well. 
It is a good bill. I do want to acknowledge Mr Jones’ congratulations to the committee on the work it has done. I think we probably did a very good job. Can I also congratulate Rod Donald on turning up and asking the questions.
Cunliffe David: Border Security Bill — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Border Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6836] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: It is a pleasure to follow the former National defence spokesperson who as referred to in his speech is nicknamed “Major Blunder” and to join him in praising the foresight in this bill. We do not have to go far outside New Zealand’s borders to recognise that the world is a dangerous and unstable place at the moment and that worldwide the requirements for security at borders are increasing. It is a particular pleasure to note that this bill brings in a mandatory requirement for advanced electronic information on arriving and departing passengers which quite simply allows our border protection personnel to know the details of people arriving before they do so so that the officials indeed can interdict people before they get on an incoming flight to New Zealand. It is one example of many of how New Zealand is joining the international mainstream by tightening up its border protection in keeping with the enhanced security needs of the world in which we live. I compliment the Minister of Customs on this fine bill.
Robertson H V Ross: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9024] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Speaker I have been challenged on my understanding of Standing Order 301 “Amendments of member in charge” which states: “The member in charge of a bill can require that all amendments in that member’s name to a provision be put as one question.” I pointed out that the Minister has the right to place the amendments where he or she chooses to do so and that has been the custom for some considerable time. By doing it that way it means other members can have their amendments voted on. Otherwise those amendments in turn could be ruled out of order. That has not been accepted and you have been recalled to give a Speaker’s ruling.
Burton Mark: Visiting Forces Bill — Third Reading 
Burton Mark: Visiting Forces Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14099] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I will not take up the House’s time by repeating the comments my colleague Marian Hobbs kindly made on my behalf but it is important that I add to that my appreciation of the officials and the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that dealt with this bill. It is a complex piece of work and it took a considerable amount of development and consultation to get it right. As Mr Shirley quite rightly said it will now allow the ratification of the status of forces agreement with Australia. 
I want to conclude by giving Mr Shirley some good news. He is clearly very out of date with his Five Power Defence Arrangement—“arrangement” in fact is the name of the arrangement we have. Not only is it in good shape it is more active than it has ever been. New Zealand is playing a bigger part than it ever has— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Absolute baloney! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can tell the member that I have just returned from the Five Power Defence Arrangement Ministers’ meeting in Singapore where Ministers agreed to an extension of the arrangement to incorporate the non-conventional threats that increasingly confront the defence forces of the world. Indeed down the track it is our expectation that the contributing nations are likely to see not only military elements involved in exercises but increasingly non-military agencies as well. As we all understand and as it dominated our discussions—as it did at the International Institute for Strategic Studies conference I attended at which I met with 15 Ministers of Defence including Secretary Rumsfeld Adam Ingram from the United Kingdom my colleague from Australia and many others—it is the non-conventional threats that are now the biggest issue confronting the security of nations. 
It is in that area that New Zealand is playing an increasingly important part. The strength of our working relationship has never been better. I am happy to give that good news to the ACT party and to give it an update on what is actually happening in the big world out there. I pass on my congratulations to the House on supporting this good legislation. 
Bill read a third time.
Franks Stephen: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8403] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The Judicial Matters Bill is the Attorney-General the Hon Margaret Wilson’s rambling through of the recommendations from her friend Sir Geoffrey Palmer for disciplining judges. When I spoke before I ran through the actual provisions which attempt to do nothing except allow a crony to be appointed as a judicial administrator or a judicial supervisor and then leave with the Attorney-General as it is now a discretion whether to take a judge through a process that could end up in dismissal. This is a smokescreen for a far greater constitutional barbarity. That is the sacking of our entire top court appointed completely away from the politics of New Zealand and replacing it with a completely new top court all to be appointed by the Hon Margaret Wilson with the assistance of her independent assistant the Crown Solicitor and the advice of that paragon of constitutional virtue Sir Paul Reeves who left Fiji in a completely ungovernable state. 
 The judicial matter that is not covered here is an appointment process that would have involved creating an apolitical and obviously impartial cross-party approved court. This bill might have provided for endorsement of nominees; for example by the leaders of parties representing say 66 percent or 75 percent of the members of the House; and might have provided for some other kind of process which would have an equivalent effect and achieve the kind of buy-in or support that we get for the Auditor-General’s appointment or the Ombudsman’s appointment but it does not. The Minister wants to ram this through. I say now that I will move an amendment to the referral motion to omit all words after the word “consideration” so that the ordinary Standing Orders will apply and the bill is not rammed through. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has given notice of that amendment and I will allow it to be put at the end of the debate.
Brown Peter: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Brown Peter: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8490] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand your ruling. I do not want to cast any aspersions on a personal basis— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under Speaker’s ruling 64/3(1) the member cannot do that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I listened intently to the speeches up to that time and there was very little repetition from anybody. It was an extremely good debate. My colleague took the last call and raised a very pertinent point which we were hoping the Minister would respond to. I am just asking you to take note of my concern. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Chair has given an assurance of that.