edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Beyer Georgina: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11482] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak to this bill on its first reading and I certainly support its passage through to a select committee. This bill of course arises from the first full review of the sexual crimes part of the Crimes Act since that Act was passed in 1961. The aim of this bill is to more comprehensively modernise and strengthen the law on sexual crimes. This bill addresses the archaic attitudes that exist in the Act towards the possibility of sexual offending by women and reflects the principle that all persons should be treated equally before the law regardless of their gender. Anomalies are to be replaced and the offence penalties are to be increased to provide an updated and a more consistent approach to the law relating to sexual offending. 
I commend the bill to the House and I hope it has a safe passage through to the select committee.
Shirley Ken: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19895] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is very pleased to support this legislation. We recognise that this is a particularly good example of bottom-up decisions from a number of interested and affected parties on the ground rather than being some sort of centralised bureaucratic answer to what is a very important area for us all. We note that eight new marine reserves 10000 hectares are involved. I was very pleased to serve on the Fisheries and other Sea-related Legislation Committee on this bill. I actually urged that the committee travel to look at all those nooks and crannies down there and I am still very disappointed that my other colleagues on the committee were not so keen. I would have been very pleased to look at the area closely on the ground. I think it is important for a member of Parliament to do that especially when it involves such a special part of our heritage. 
It is great that the stakeholders have had such an influence in this proposal and as the point has been made a new phrase has come into the lexicon—“gifts and gains”. It is a very good concept. It acknowledges that there is a place for compromise. Nobody got all that was wanted but it is something everyone can live with and it is a pretty good framework in any open democracy. 
Certainly the fishing industry was rather terrified as to what might happen if exclusive reserves were put right across Fiordland. It now has special areas in which to operate its important industry and to put its crayfish pots. At the other end of the scale one could say that we have very good protection for what are called the “china shops”—these special unique areas. I am reluctant to call anything unique in an ecology but the area certainly has a very special ecology with its black corals and other areas that are very vulnerable to disturbance by anchors chains fishing gear or whatever. They now have the protection they need. It is quite nice in this House to have a bill that seems to have the support of the whole House. I certainly commend it to others. It is a very good framework for a bright future in managing Fiordland.
Vote: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19931] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to the amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 354 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “awarded by overseas agencies”.
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Personal Explanations Microphones 
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Personal Explanations Microphones 
[Volume:608;Page:5241] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not too sure whether the microphone system is working properly today. Those of us in this area of the House are finding it very very difficult indeed to hear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will try to see whether anything can be done about that matter. Thank you for raising that with me. It means we will have to be that little bit quieter.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5915] 
12.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he have any concerns regarding the Government’s relationship with Maori given that Whanganui River Trust Board chairman Archie Taiaroa said yesterday that Maori were losing confidence in their MPs and “Maori are saying ‘Where are the politicians?’ I know our people are wanting them to come out and start talking.”; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 There are approximately 15 Maori MPs in the House at the moment. This Government has a good relationship with Maori and as with all relationships we must keep working to ensure that the relationship is strong and beneficial to all involved. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Does he support the Government’s stated position that the nationalisation of oil and gas reserves took place in the public interest and does he believe that this position provides the “best benefit for Maoridom”; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In the sense of the historical redress claims related to petroleum those things are being worked on. The framework for contemporary settlements is an issue that we are continuing to work on as a Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked a very specific question and no doubt it was for his Maori seat colleagues as well. He was asked what his position was and he did not in any way address that issue. It is a highly political question I know but he is bound to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a specific question. I would like him now to address that question. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes and we are considering the details in the report that has just been presented. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does the Minister think that MPs should be vociferous in advocating on behalf of their electorates? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: On behalf of all the Maori members seated in this House today I say that they have to be vociferous and that they are hard-working conscientious members. 
Stephen Franks 
: Is it fair to summarise the debate that there may have been between those hard-working vociferous members as being about whether the Prime Minister was right to state a principle that means “That was then; this is now. This is embarrassing so let’s move on.”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. Can I repeat that we have a proud record of relationships with regard to the historical redress claims. The contemporary issues are things that we as a Government are working on at this stage. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Given his earlier answer why did he refuse to appear on Linda Clark’s radio programme this morning regarding the petroleum claim and does he believe that his Associate Minister of Maori Affairs Tariana Turia should have broken ranks against the Prime Minister; if so why? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have a well-set diary over a long period of time and Minister Turia did not break ranks.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8704] 
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 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9025] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank members for the way they have raised this point. It is an interesting one and I have noted the comments made. It has been the custom to put the Minister’s amendments en bloc last. The Chair ruled this on 9 September in respect of the Gambling Bill  
Hansard 
 at page 8469. I think however that the member is right with regard to Standing Order 301. Amendments from a Minister in the same place should be taken ahead of other amendments. There are two Minister’s amendments that fall into this category relating to clauses 2 and 3. The Minister’s other amendments are not at the same place and are not affected by Standing Order 301. Technically then the Minister’s amendments to clauses 2 and 3 should have been taken first but the votes have been taken and the Committee can now go back only by leave. If leave is not forthcoming votes shall be taken on the Minister’s clause 2 amendments first then her clause 3 amendments then the remaining amendments together. If anyone wants to seek leave they can do so before we proceed.
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19879] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows well that this House has sought to have the rules enforced rigidly. I have been attempting to do that but obviously with a modicum of common sense. We know that when people are asking questions there are to be no interjections or chipping across the House. It was on that basis that I gave my ruling. The member also knows that members cannot argue with a ruling on a point of order. I have heard what he said. Now I ask him to ask his question.
Donald Rod: Tabling of Documents — Licensing Trusts: Letter from Rod Donald 
Donald Rod: Tabling of Documents — Licensing Trusts: Letter from Rod Donald 
[Volume:625;Page:19864] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 During the debate on the second reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill in the middle of my speech there were some interjections from New Zealand First members saying that the Green Party had not supported the licensing trusts problem being addressed by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. I seek leave to table the letter I sent to the Hon George Hawkins supporting the use of a Statutes Amendment Bill to address the licensing trusts problem. That should clarify the matter and I hope the New Zealand First members recognise that they made a mistake. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21493] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)Section 13(1) of the principal Act is amended by repealing paragraph (aa).
Prebble Richard: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
Prebble Richard: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11123] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Peter Dunne’s microphone light appears to be on. It may just be an accident but if it is on— 
David Benson-Pope 
: They’re all on. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No they are not all on. Ours are not. I just want to make sure that Mr Brown’s speech will actually be recorded not some sigh from a ghost of Peter Dunne. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I am sure those things can be checked out.
Bradford Sue: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19829] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 We are for the Minister’s amendment and opposed to the part.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:607;Page:4344] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time.
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15270] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I have this afternoon been given some correspondence and information from a mussel spat farmer in the north of the North Island. He wrote to Phil Heatley. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Whereabouts? 
JILL PETTIS 
: Around about Kaitaia. He wrote to Mr Phil Heatley. I will share it with members. It starts off with a Freudian slip: “Dear Pil. Further to our conversation— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Say that again—that’s no mistake. 
JILL PETTIS 
: “Pil”! He states: “Further to our conversation recently I have since read comment made by yourself relating to mussel spat during the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3).” He quotes Mr Heatley here: “ ‘Thirdly we have no idea why the Government wants to put innocent little mussel spat which drifts around the ocean minding its own business into the quota management system in order to feed the coffers of three families on the west coast of the north of the North Island.’ You are obviously referring to myself in those ‘three families’ who incidentally not that you seem to care one whit for the truth of the matter would not be the only recipients of quota should mussel spat be entered into the quota management system. You would obviously rather tender the quota when it inevitably enters the QMS and hand the property right to big business against whom we could not financially compete. I find your arrogance and ignorance relating to mussel spat absolutely astounding.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I didn’t hear that last bit. 
JILL PETTIS 
: He was concerned about Mr Heatley’s arrogance and ignorance. He goes on to state: “Had I known just how narrow your blinkers were set I would not have wasted my time talking to you today. I have been an admirer of Mr Brash’s style but the trash you have been spouting lately will definitely result in a rethink of my position. Mr Brash’s judgment must be brought into question if he chooses to surround himself with people of your calibre.” 
I have to say that that is a letter from somebody who really understands the industry quite unlike Mr Heatley who is a boy on a man’s errand. What is happening with this bill is that the Government is providing leadership to protect the future of our quality natural environment and we are working in partnership with the commercial and recreational needs of the sector. Heaven help the oceans and the fish therein if Mr Heatley got anywhere near the decision-making process! But those of us who have been here a year or two know that hell would freeze over before that ever happened because he is just a mouthpiece for others in that party opposite. We know that Mr Heatley will never ever be anywhere near any decision-making process so the fish are safe for a while. I am pleased to participate in this debate.
Simich Clem: Election of Speaker 
Simich Clem: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18950] 
Hon CLEM SIMICH (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Madam Speaker-Elect congratulations on your election to the Speakership. I look forward very much to working with you and for the members of Parliament. 
I want to thank all members for giving me the opportunity to be in the contest for Speaker. I am humbled by the process but I think all members have found it an important event. To be here in the Chamber to see that process and see the Speaker elected is very important for all of us. It shows to others the better face of this Chamber. 
Madam Speaker-Elect congratulations and best wishes in your role. I look forward to supporting you. I want to say to your predecessor the Rt Hon Jonathon Hunt that I in particular have thoroughly enjoyed working with him. I could not have had a better mentor and indeed a better friend over the time that I have been one of his workers. I also thank all members of the Chamber again for that opportunity.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18852] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11546] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3939] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill. It is about security and safety for all New Zealanders and it also provides important safeguards to ensure that New Zealanders’ privacy continues to be protected.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6418. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Because this question is directed to the Prime Minister I seek leave for the question to be held over until she can be here to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14353] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Food Safety be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Vote Food Safety agreed to.
Brown Peter: Voting — Correction 
Brown Peter: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to change the New Zealand First vote on the question that the Commerce Committee have the authority to meet to consider the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). Our vote was incorrectly delivered at the time.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:14661] 
Thursday 5 August 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the completion of the remaining stages of the Building Bill the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill and the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Having noticed the extraordinarily large number of second readings and Committee stages on the Order Paper and having seen the number of bills at select committees that are due back in the House very very shortly I ask whether he expects that in the next 3-week block of Parliament there will be extended hours so that the Government might advance its business. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At the moment I regard the Order Paper as manageable but I am always open to offers for extended hours.
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4571] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
Noes 17 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8736] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. I will not have debate on my ruling entered into in this way. If the member wants to put down a motion he can do so and that is proper. He is invited to do so. As far as I am concerned I have made a ruling and at this time I do not want to have that ruling challenged.
Personal Explanations — Apology—Withdrawal of Comment 
Personal Explanations — Apology—Withdrawal of Comment 
[Volume:620;Page:15945] 
Personal Explanations 
Apology—Withdrawal of Comment 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Yesterday during the general debate I attempted to interpret an allegation made by Mr Tanczos and cast over all members of this House—an allegation to which I took personal offence. In doing so I unintentionally caused offence to another member of this House the Rt Hon Winston Peters. That was unintended on my part. I wish to withdraw that comment and to apologise to Mr Peters for any personal slight or incorrect inference that could be taken from my comments yesterday. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether that fish and chip throwaway called the  
New Zealand Herald  
which wrote that stinking editorial byline this morning could possibly do the same tomorrow and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If you can instruct the New Zealand press on what to do then you are slightly better than I am.
Carter John: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Carter John: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:5004] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to speak on that issue— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that I have ruled on that issue. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes you have. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It cannot be relitigated. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No but I want clarification of it now. Are you telling me that once the decision has been made by the Chair that a member is excluded from the Chamber for a certain time that decision cannot be revisited? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes that is what I am saying—exactly—as the Chairperson of the Committee on the bill. Normally in these circumstances when someone is ordered from the Chamber there are discussions between the whips concerned or between the Chair and the whip about how long the exclusion is to be. I cannot comment on how long that exclusion was for because I was not in the Chair.
Cullen Michael: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4046] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I consulted the United Future members in the House at the time about their voting for the amendment. The indication was that they were going to vote for it. I think they might be confusing it with their opposition to the bill itself.
Newman Muriel: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15933] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee to correct the vote of the ACT party on the last part. I inadvertently voted the wrong way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I voted eight opposed to Part 2. It should have been six opposed and two in favour.
Connell Brian: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21566] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Perhaps Mr Jones could point to the Standing Orders that state that only spokespersons get back-to-back calls.
Jones Dail: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: 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:10007] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You cannot rule that this is not a conscience issue when it is a conscience issue. As far as the Opposition side of the Chamber is concerned this is a conscience vote. How can you say it is not a conscience vote when we regard it as being one? The Labour members have been drilled into having the vote as a Government vote and that is a different matter. But you are taking part in the debate if you start to make that ruling and I believe you are not supposed to do that. It is not up to you to decide whether a matter is a conscience vote; that is for the members of Parliament to decide on. We in New Zealand First regard this as a conscience vote. You are entering into the debate which you should not be doing. You should be here on the benches if you want to do that type of thing.
Tamihere John: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tamihere John: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15137] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20438] 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will he consider across-the-board tax cuts in light of the Australian Government Budget decision to provide across-the-board tax cuts for Australians; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The member will have to wait until next week’s Budget for an answer to that question. 
Rodney Hide 
: How is it that Australia can afford across-the-board tax cuts with a Government surplus of just 1 percent of GDP but that this finance Minister is running around telling New Zealanders that this Government cannot afford one with a surplus of four times that amount? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: When next week’s Budget comes out the member will find that he will have to revise his numbers. 
John Key 
: Is it acceptable that approximately 585 people emigrate from New Zealand to Australia every week; and when will the Minister wake up and realise that Peter Costello’s Budget is a clear example of Australia launching a full-scale charm offensive on New Zealand’s most productive workers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At least he is not launching it on John Howard; I think that that has become fairly clear over the last week or so. The main result of the changes made by Mr Costello is that 80 percent of Australians will pay a tax rate of no more than 30 percent. However they will pay that rate plus 1.5 percent for Medicare and plus a surcharge of 1 percent for those earning over $50000 a year. In New Zealand 75 percent of taxpayers pay no more than 21c in the dollar. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree that Australia’s tax rates are still more progressive than New Zealand’s rates with the top marginal rate at 47c in the dollar and no tax on the first $6000 of income; and would he consider adopting the Green Party policy to make the first $5000 of income tax-free and to introduce a suite of eco-taxes including a carbon tax to pay for that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The approximate cost of making the first $5000 of income tax-free is about $2.5 billion a year. The net revenue from the carbon charge is about $322 million. It does not matter how often the Greens recycle that $322 million; it does not add up to $2.5 billion. 
Kenneth Wang 
: How big does the surplus have to be before the Minister will proceed with tax cuts for all workers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will have to wait till next week. I can tell him as I have already indicated on the basis of the December Economic and Fiscal Update that the surplus is out in the forecast of the projection periods. It is sufficient only to keep the growth in the debt to GDP ratio constant once provision is made for capital spending such as the contributions to the superannuation fund.
Worth Richard: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7395] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I rise on a question of clarification. That vote of course has now been taken but I would be grateful to learn from you whether what has happened is an unusual occurrence whereby for non-urgent legislation the select committee may sit during a period that the House is sitting. I am saddened to see that United Future and one other party joined that vote.
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14548] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The title of any legislation should be designed to give people a fair indication of what the legislation is about. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) will not suggest to many people what this legislation is about whatsoever. But as a member of the Primary Production Committee I can tell members that the committee knows very well what the legislation is all about because we have been working on the issue for years. The issue has been going on for years. The issue is of course the scampi fishery of New Zealand. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Oh what? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is right the scampi fishery of New Zealand. Members of Parliament suddenly know why we are debating this today because they know that this issue has a huge history and is hugely controversial. I say to the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope that we should be honest with the people of New Zealand and call this bill the “Scampi Bill (No 1)”. Let us hope this bill tidies up scampi completely so that we will not have any more legislation. We will not even need the “No 1” because we will not have to have another bill for scampi at all. If it is done properly the scampi issue will be tidied up by Parliament in this legislation. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Is the member supporting the bill? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister will have to wait to find out whether the member is supporting the bill. I know he will be keen to know. 
I say to the Minister that we should seriously think about naming this bill correctly the “Scampi Bill” because all this legislation does is take the opportunity to finalise scampi entering into the quota management system and to allocate finally the quota entitlements to the fishers who were involved in that fishery 12-odd years ago which is how long this scandal and controversy have been going on for. 
Shane Ardern 
: How long? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Twelve long years. It spans a number of different Governments—I accept that. I must say right at the outset that the Primary Production Committee which conducted the scampi inquiry acknowledged that the issue transversed a number of Governments and it worked genuinely through the issues without trying to play party politics. I congratulate all the members of that select committee on coming up with a very detailed and progressive report that has tended to move the issue forward. 
Before us today is the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) which will finally—we hope—put the matter to rest so that fishers can get on with the job of catching fish and making money for themselves and for “New Zealand Incorporated”. The Minister in the chair could perhaps take a call to give us a reason why we should not correctly name the legislation the “Scampi Bill” rather than the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). I think the “Scampi Bill” would give a far better message to people in the industry and to New Zealanders generally interested in the legislative process as to what the legislation is all about.
Horomia Parekura: Personal Explanations — Maori Language—Interpretation 
Horomia Parekura: Personal Explanations — Maori Language—Interpretation 
[Volume:615;Page:11408] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation. This afternoon following a point of order I stated that I had not used the term “you” in Maori in answer to a question. I have now listened to a tape and realised that I was mistaken. I had used the Maori term for “you”. I apologise unreservedly to the House for my error.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17760. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 6 be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
Cullen Michael: Motions — Jewish Graves and Chapel Wellington—Vandalism 
[Volume:619;Page:14715] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House deplores recent attacks on Jewish graves and a Jewish chapel in Wellington; recalls the terrible history of anti-Semitism stretching over many centuries culminating in the Holocaust under Nazi rule; and expresses its unequivocal condemnation of anti-Semitism violence directed against Jews and Jewish religious and cultural institutions and all forms of racial and ethnic hatred persecution and discrimination 
. It is a sad day for this nation when it comes to the point that it is necessary to move a motion of this sort in Parliament. It is to be hoped that the recent vandalism is the work of an isolated crank or cranks but given its nature it inevitably raises emotions and memories that are deep-seated and profound—especially for Jewish New Zealanders but for many others as well. 
There has been in recent years a revival of anti-Semitism in a number of Western countries. There is no justification and no cause for it and especially no justification and no cause for it in this country of ours. People point to individual events as some kind of explanation; the actions by Israeli agents or the reaction by the Government against those and the proposed visit by the Holocaust-denier Mr David Irving are given for example. The danger of entering into that area is that it gives some kind of rationale to something that is both evil and irrational though sadly deep-seated in European culture. For those who are survivors of the Holocaust or related to survivors or victims such actions as we have recently seen are particularly frightening and appalling. They remind us how thin the veneer of tolerance and civilisation can sometimes be even in a country such as New Zealand. They also remind us of our duty in this House to promote those values of civilisation and tolerance and I thank all parties for the support they have given to this motion being moved.
Pettis Jill: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12496] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and am pleased to support its passage through the House.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13163] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 6; 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 Marc Alexander to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (Monopoly of Functions and Other Matters) Act”.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Community Employment Assistance—Delivery 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Community Employment Assistance—Delivery 
[Volume:620;Page:15803] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Katherine Rich seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the decision by the Government to change the way its community employment assistance is delivered. This decision is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility however I do not consider that it requires a special debate to be held upon it this afternoon. The implications of the new arrangements can be explored through normal parliamentary opportunities. The application is declined.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9211. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There should be a wide discussion held but the member will not get a hundred calls or anything like that. He is entitled to only four but whether he gets that number is a matter for the Chair and the Committee to judge. As I have said there will be a wide debate. I declare the House in Committee for further consideration of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill.
Hide Rodney: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4040] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think that Dr Cullen is absolutely right. We have got ourselves into a very interesting position. Just to pick up on Dr Cullen’s point I believe he is right that if the committee had been named in the speech and in that part of the motion then certainly it could not be changed. But I make this point: I think that raising the matter as a point of order gives it a greater significance because I thought that the point of order was to correct the speech. I absolutely thought that that was the motion we were debating and discussing. I think that we have to take a bit of time to get this issue right because it could set a dangerous precedent. I am not sure what the answer should be but I do counsel that we need to take a few minutes. Maybe I could give my speech then there could be a ruling that was well considered rather than made on the spur of the moment. I think that this is setting a potential precedent that could be quite dangerous.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:617;Page:13301] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following what I understand was the unanimous agreement of the Health Committee this morning I seek leave for the time by which the Health Committee must finally report the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill to be extended to 30 July 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? 
John Carter 
: I just need to double check. Can we put it a little later? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We can come back to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will putthe question of leave a little later.
Barker Rick: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12174] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7899] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise the issue that during the points of order and the seeking of information you asked my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith to leave the Chamber. He has an important question question No. 7 down for today and I seek your indulgence that he be allowed to come back to the Chamber and ask that question. I think that would be appropriate given that the question is about issues he has been involved with personally. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to be generous in this particular issue. I will ask the senior Opposition whip to go and get Mr Smith when question 6 is called.
Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Procedure 
Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:609;Page:7082] 
Wool Industry Restructuring Bill 
Procedure 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave that at the conclusion of debate on all stages of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) the House move directly to Government order of the day No. 11 the Wool Industry Restructuring Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. That is so ordered.
Hughes Darren: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5023] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 5 August 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 5 August 
[Volume:619;Page:14733] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 8 to Minister 5 August 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 On Thursday 5 August in response to a supplementary question regarding the Auckland Central Remand Prison I stated that the previous National Government did not fund the prison after the expiry of the current contract. The correct response was that the previous National Government did not fully fund the prison following the expiry of the current contract.
Benson-Pope David: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8403] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and recommend its speedy passage through the House.
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5143] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 40 
Noes 76 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15996] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I cannot ever recall a ruling from a Chairperson as being: “You are quite wrong. Sit down.” The Standing Orders allow a member to take two consecutive calls in the Committee stage and that Standing Order has been followed by the Chairpersons Ross Robertson and the Hon Clem Simich. I want to know why you have different rules. The point is that if you are not going to allow people to take consecutive calls when the Standing Orders state that it is allowed then I think we have every reason to ask why. 
Jill Pettis 
: My grandmother would say that your eyes are too close together. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Madam Chair are you going to sit and allow that? Are you going to allow that to happen or will you pull people into control here?
Stewart Barbara: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11283] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 An important part of any debate is the debate on the title. The title should be concise it should be unambiguous it should be specific and it should leave the reader in no doubt as to what the legislation is about. This title meets all those criteria. It is clear that this is a health screening amendment bill. It is an amendment to some existing legislation. New Zealand First supports this part of the bill.
Members Sworn 
Members Sworn 
[Volume:618;Page:14293] 
Members Sworn 
Tariana Turia was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took her seat in the House.
Beyer Georgina: Coroners Bill — First Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Coroners Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18102] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to make a brief contribution to the first reading of the Coroners Bill. Coroners inquire into certain deaths to uphold human rights. Coroners seek to establish the cause and circumstances of death in cases of sudden or unexplained deaths and deaths in other special circumstances such as where the person was in the care of the State. The Law Commission became aware of concerns about coronial practice while consulting with Maori for its review of succession law and wrote a separate report on the Act that was tabled in August 2000. This bill draws on both the Law Commission’s recommendations and the Government’s review. I suggest that the House should support this through to a select committee.
Carter John: Business Statement 
Carter John: Business Statement 
[Volume:607;Page:5033] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 This is a little out of the ordinary but I wonder whether the Leader of the House might comment on the next members’ day and the discussion about the Prostitution Reform Bill. Does he have any thoughts about how the House might handle that legislation ?
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:20993] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to.