edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Duynhoven Harry: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7084] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 I will just take a very brief call on behalf of the Minister the Hon Phil Goff to respond to the comments made by Judith Collins in respect of clauses 3 to 8. I suggest that the member actually gets up to speed. If she looks on the Table she will see that there are Supplementary Order Papers and that Supplementary Order Paper 84 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff answers all her questions. The provisions on home invasion have already been taken care of in the Sentencing Act. If Judith Collins—instead of jabbering away with snide comments—looks at that Supplementary Order Paper she will see that the issue has been taken care of already.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20020] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 91 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10515] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16354] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 First of all I think that the matter just brought up by Mr Hutchison was discussed by the Health Committee. But I would also like to talk about the amendment in the name of Bill English to clause 75 “Director-General of Health to be advisory committee pending its establishment”. Subclause (1) states: “Until the expiry of 9 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent the Director-General of Health is deemed to be the advisory committee for the purposes of this Act.” Mr English’s amendment proposes that we change the expression “9 months” in clause 75(1) to the expression “5 years” which I think is a very strange amendment. I cannot see why we would delay the appointment of an advisory committee for 5 years when we already have clause 79 “Provisions to be treated as guidelines in interim period” and when a considerable lead-in is already provided for in the bill. So I really do not see any point to that amendment in the name of Bill English nor do I understand why we would want to continue with one person rather than with an advisory committee for a longer period of time than the transition period. I do not see much logic behind that amendment put forward by Bill English. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to the amendment to clause 64 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in his name be agreed to. 
to omit subclause (2)(c)(i) and substitute the following subparagraphs: 
(i)involves a contravention of any of sections 8 to 13: 
(ia)involves a contravention of section 25A:.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5261] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I was going to call questions to members but of course Mr Dunne is not here. As soon as he is here that will be able to be done. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I do raise this matter with you. I put down this question yesterday. We know as someone has just said this to me that Mr Dunne was at the select committee today. I have had a look at the Standing Orders to see whether one can—what is the word—transfer a question to another member and of course one can with regard to Ministers but when I look at the Standing Orders it does not appear that one can do so in the case of a question to a member. But that raises an interesting situation. This is no doubt an embarrassing question for Mr Dunne but I have put it down 2 days in a row and surely he has an obligation to this House to come here front up and tell the House why a petition signed by 25 percent of all New Zealand Chinese has not actually been considered especially since he is on record as saying we need 5 million New Zealanders in the country. One would have thought that he would actually turn up. But are you saying that Mr Dunne can in fact by absenting himself from the House every day make sure that he never has to answer this question?
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:7636] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have got to the point where I think we are going over the same ground again. The Speaker will always give every leeway to a member before taking the drastic step of declaring a seat to be vacant—no matter who the member is. In a doubtful case that will involve consideration by the Privileges Committee and by the House. That is what I did on 23 July.
Visitors — Japan—Prime Minister's Fellow 2004 
Visitors — Japan—Prime Minister's Fellow 2004 
[Volume:618;Page:13768] 
Visitors 
Japan—Prime Minister's Fellow 2004 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have very much pleasure in informing members that Mr Taro Kono member of the Japanese Diet and Prime Minister’s Fellow for 2004 is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Taro Kono accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Question time resumed.
Yates Dianne: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11358] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11188] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I am very proud indeed to stand to support this bill. I am pleased because it is about time we reciprocate the hard work and the contribution that our elders have made over the many years. Government members are keeping our word through this piece of legislation. We are a Government that is consistent about keeping its word and working within fiscal constraints. The bill will allow for the progressive removal of the asset testing of older people in long-term residential care from 1 July 2005. We welcome that and I am sure the majority of New Zealanders will too.
Tisch Lindsay: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7464] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 We are casting 27 votes. We are casting a vote for Maurice Williamson. We hold his proxy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is fine.
Sowry Roger: Urgent Debates Declined — Energy Crisis—Management 
Sowry Roger: Urgent Debates Declined — Energy Crisis—Management 
[Volume:608;Page:5105] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened to your reason. Last night on television the Minister and in fact the Acting Prime Minister emerged from Cabinet which he chaired yesterday to announce that the Government would be looking for much greater savings—unprecedented savings of 10 percent for ordinary New Zealanders and 15 percent for the State sector. That seems to me to be a decision that was taken by Cabinet. It was certainly announced in a way that indicated it was a decision taken by the Government and we want to know from you if we cannot have the opportunity to debate this now at what point do the announced savings get to such a level that you deem it is the Government’s responsibility? Your ruling was not that it was not important enough to debate because of the time it would take the House; your ruling was that it was not a Government decision. Well surely it was a Government decision because it was announced post-Cabinet as a Government decision. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I ruled—and I said—that as there is no particular case of recent occurrence the application is declined. Of course if anything significant comes up in the future I will look at this matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is not a debatable ruling. I have ruled but I want to finish what I have to say and that was that as far as I was concerned this did not meet the test.
Cullen Michael: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Cullen Michael: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17249] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6800] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: My call on this occasion might be brief because I want to limit it to just a couple of issues. First of all I want to get some clarification from the Minister of Immigration as to when she gave the instructions and why the instructions were given with regard to the court decision. From my understanding on reading this bill it is clause 6 in Part 2 that refers to the court decision— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Clause 3. 
DAIL JONES 
: Is the Minister saying that clause 6 does not refer to the court decision? I would have thought that clause 6 was the court decision. She is saying that clause 6 is not the court decision with regard to points and suchlike! 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Clause 3. 
DAIL JONES 
: She is saying that only clause 3 refers to it. As I read it clause 6 is the one that must relate to the court decision. Is she saying that the instructions with regard to clause 6 were given a long time ago? Well before the court decision instructions were given to draft clause 6(1): “All applications for residence visas or residence permits made before 20 November 2002 …”—which is the date as I recall that was constantly mentioned in the court case. Was not 20 November 2002 a feature of the court case? So she is telling the Committee and all the other people involved in this area that the Government had made up its mind probably during the process of the court case before the decision was made that it was going to do the things set out in clause 6. That is how I understand it. So that point has been cleared up and it is an interesting point because that is not the way I had understood it to be. Perhaps those people who are very closely associated with clause 6 will take that into account. 
The only other brief point I will make is about the Minister’s reference to Mr Legget and his desire to bring skilled people to New Zealand. Well that is a New Zealand First policy. The only question is we do not want to see 190000 people coming into this country of whom barely 10000 have any skills which is what happened in the year ended December 2002. Our policy is skilled people for skilled work not 190000 people 65000 of whom are here on a temporary basis and about 75000 of whom also are not here on a skills basis.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:625;Page:19782] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions at the Business Committee this afternoon and unanimous agreement and on the understanding that all business in the urgency motion down to the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill will be completed by 6 p.m. on Friday I seek leave for there to be questions for oral answer on Wednesday and Thursday of this sitting. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7642] 
2.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What pilot initiatives is the Government supporting to assist more families to achieve homeownership? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Last Friday the Government announced a 2-year trial initiative with Kiwibank to make homeownership easier for modest-income households. The $5.3 million trial will assist about 1800 families into homeownership. This is a pilot but it extends good opportunities to families to borrow outside the normal lending criteria. If it is successful we will look at expanding the programme. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Who will be assisted by the mortgage insurance trial? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The programme should attract first-home buyers on a modest income with little or no deposit multiple-income households such as extended-family households second-chance buyers such as those who have suffered a relationship breakdown and State-house tenants paying a market rent who wish to buy a home. Housing New Zealand Corporation will be writing to market-rent tenants next week to gauge their level of interest in the programme. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How does the Minister explain the inconsistency of his housing policy which bans State-house tenants from buying their homes but allows families with $100000 of income to be able to get a subsidised or mortgage-guaranteed loan and why would the Minister not allow State tenants to buy their homes recirculate that capital and get the waiting list down? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We do not have many houses left to sell after the National Party sold 13000 of them. But we now want to offer some of those people who are at a market-rate level the opportunity to move out and buy a house and then we can rent to somebody else. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does he think that giving people low-deposit home loans will make much difference to those really in need of housing when in many urban areas where work is likely to be available repayments will be prohibitive because of the high cost of purchase? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I do think it will make a difference. What we are doing here is offering the opportunity to buy a house up to $280000. People who come into the programme will have to of course have the ability to repay the loan. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What has been the reaction to the mortgage insurance trial? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The reaction has been very very good indeed. For example the mortgage broker Mike Pero has said: “Good on them. It’s a positive move and will certainly help those who couldn’t otherwise get a loan from the bank.” And perhaps another gauge is that 4300 calls were made in one day to Kiwibank when this programme was announced.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8799] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any further assistance. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It is a fresh point of order.
Newman Muriel: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Newman Muriel: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18938] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I urge Parliament to support the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill. It is a worthy bill that is to be sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I urge parties to put aside any party political views and to look at the merits of the bill which restores sentencing back to the judges where it should be instead of putting it on to the probation service and probation officials. We need sensible sentencing which this bill will deliver. I urge members of the House to say yes to this bill to let it go to a committee for it to do its work and to judge it on its merits. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask Dr Newman to indicate which select committee the bill would go to. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I intend to move that the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18655] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order relates to Supplementary Order Paper 327 proposed by the Hon Margaret Wilson which was seen in the House for the first time today. That Supplementary Order Paper talks about the preamble. It states that we are to insert after what is described as “recital 10 of the Maori text (after line 29 on page 7)” new recital (10A). A Maori text follows that. 
My first point is that I am just a little uncertain about what the Minister means by recital (10) in the preamble. If we turn to page 7 of the bill we see that there is no recital (10A); there is certainly a recital (10). If this is to be something new I would have thought there would be a corresponding text to go into the preamble printed in English in the pages that follow. I do not see that from the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. I also find that there is no recital (10A) in the English text either. 
So there are two points: firstly can we have an explanation of why there is just a Maori text for a new recital (10A); and secondly can we have a translation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. The matters he has raised are debating matters and I have no doubt that the Minister if he wishes to will answer them as we get into the bill.
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:623;Page:18583] 
6.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Is he satisfied that the regime to test for hearing and vision difficulties in children is adequate; if not does he have any plans to do something about it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Not entirely and yes. The member will be aware of the hearing screening project under way in the Waikato which I trust will give us good information on what steps if any need to be taken to further improve provision. On the subject of vision and hearing I have read the member’s articles over this summer and invite her to submit her source data from the Castlecliff School study to me so that we can take a look at it. 
Judy Turner 
: If after viewing the 2-year trial at Wanganui’s Castlecliff School he is able to confirm that 40 percent of the children who passed the Government-funded screening test actually needed glasses and that 23 percent needed retesting a year later and given that the Health Committee has voted against an inquiry will he initiate a ministerial inquiry into the performance of that programme as those results suggest that as many as 22000 new entrants tested each year could be getting a false result? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the situation is as serious as the member suggests we probably would not need an inquiry. But why do we not take a good look at the source data and like any other experiment assess it objectively? 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Health cannot tell us how many children complete their eight well-child checks—which this screening is part of—because a system to track that kind of information was put in place only 6 months ago; if so does he think it is acceptable that the Government has no idea how many children have missed out and are still missing out on this care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I cannot but that does not mean that the member’s assertion is wrong. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Health has not formally evaluated the effectiveness of the National Vision Hearing Screening Programme since its inception; if so is he content to stand by while our children’s educational and social development is being jeopardised when other screening programmes have been scrutinised much more seriously? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I was advised today that the National Audiology Centre which curiously looks at both hearing and vision testing considers that things are moving satisfactorily. But I said in my primary answer that I am not entirely sure that they are. 
Judy Turner 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Castlecliff School vision testing report as requested by the Minister. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18380] 
10.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent reports if any has he received on average student loan repayment times? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received a report that indicates that $250 million has been written off student loan balances thanks to Labour’s “no interest while studying” policy. That fact and the buoyant economy mean that the average student loan repayment time has decreased from 14.8 years in 1999 to 9.3 years now. I thank Steve Maharey. 
Moana Mackey 
: What feedback has he received on student satisfaction with Government student support policies? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am pleased to report that students are much happier than they were 3 years ago. I thank the New Zealand University Students Association for its survey where it asked students about them. It asked whether they thought Government policies treated them fairly and 62 percent agreed that Government policies did. That is a huge improvement from when National was in Government and only 15 percent thought they were treated fairly. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister explain whether his figures include loans from parents loans from banks bank overdrafts and loans from other facilities all of which have increased since 2001 according to the same New Zealand University Students Association report that he has been quoting and have been adding to the steadily increasing average student debt? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That could well be the case according to the survey. Unfortunately the New Zealand University Students Association included overseas students in its survey this time which totally distorted the numbers. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Has the Minister accepted the offer from Camilla Belich Co-president of the New Zealand University Students Association to brief him on the accurate figures for student loans following his recent embarrassing blunder on National Radio; if not why should we rely on his figures today? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am to have a meeting with Ms Belich at some stage and I will be able to provide her with the facts on which I base my answers. I think it might reveal to the New Zealand University Students Association and to the public that things are not quite as black as she pretends. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is the Minister aware of the New Zealand University Students Association research released in January that indicates that two-thirds of school leavers are concerned about being able to repay student debt; if so what does he believe are valid reasons for students getting a student loan in the first place? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and I think it is fair to say that the student loan policy has helped drive a massive increase in participation rates in tertiary education institutes and private training establishments—something I think that member approves of.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17577] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Simich (P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton  
Gosche (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Coddington  
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui  
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English (P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland  
McNair  
Sowry(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
O'Connor  
Tamihere(P) 
Jones  
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Newman Muriel: Points of Order — Broadcasting—Sound System 
Newman Muriel: Points of Order — Broadcasting—Sound System 
[Volume:615;Page:11314] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that significant resources have gone into improving the sound system in Parliament but I am not sure whether you are aware that there are still significant problems with the system.
Jones Dail: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12317] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 1 is the part to which the amendments from Marc Alexander on Supplementary Order paper 199 apply. The first inserts the definition of a “players’ committee” which means “a committee of players in the Orchestra established for the purpose of player representation” and the follow-on amendment to schedule 1 requires that “the Minister must ensure that the membership of the board includes at least 1 person nominated by the players’ committee.” New Zealand First supports that concept. I am rather surprised that the Government which usually tries to have a union representative involved in various boards and suchlike has opposed that view. I look forward to hearing the Minister indicate whether she supports or opposes the concept. In particular if she does oppose it would she give us a reason for doing so? 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Budget Debate 
Robertson H V Ross: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21082] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I say I have been asked to advise the House that New Zealand First will split its 10-minute speech with two members having 5 minutes each. The bell will ring at 4 minutes so the members will know they have 1 minute left. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I move that both speakers speak together to save themselves some time? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. I thank the member very much.
Wong Pansy: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8385] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I join other members in expressing what a pleasure it is tonight to take part in the third reading of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. The passage of this bill advantages New Zealanders but the redeveloped Auckland War Memorial Museum will be even more of a showcase to international visitors to New Zealand and especially to Auckland. As the National Party spokesperson on tourism I can say that we appreciate that international visitors always visit museums in the various countries they visit to gain a sense of the history and culture of that particular country. 
 The Government Administration Committee met and received submissions at the site of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the excitement the enthusiasm and the very creative ways of the board and its team convinced us that when the work has been carried out it will indeed do New Zealand proud and showcase the new site and the content of that site to our international visitors. 
It is indeed rare to see all political parties assisting the passage of legislation in unison so I hope the Labour Government takes note that given reasonable consultation Opposition parties will cooperate. I know this matter has been raised with the Business Committee and we have no hesitation in supporting initiatives that are constructive and important. 
Like all the other members I am looking forward to the completion of the redevelopment work. People will be able to visit a museum with sheltered car parks and other additional facilities. Above all I am very pleased for the Auckland museum staff who deservedly will be able to work in a facility that has space for their dedication. One cannot but have admiration for the type of creative work that has been carried out by the dedicated staff at the Auckland museum given the inadequate work space they currently have to put up with. 
On behalf of the members of the public who appreciate the wonderful presentation of the treasures we have in the Auckland War Memorial Museum I want to say that a better environment for the team will lead to added attractions. The team will be able to show even more of its creative powers and visitors will have more treasures to enjoy. It is a great pleasure to be associated with the passage of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. 
Bill read a third time.
Points of Order — Haemophilia Foundation of New Zealand 
Points of Order — Haemophilia Foundation of New Zealand 
[Volume:613;Page:9703] 
Wednesday 5 November 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Haemophilia Foundation of New Zealand 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to do two things: firstly to table a press release from the Haemophilia Foundation of New Zealand which clearly indicates that all members of Parliament are somewhat besmirched by the rather insensitive comments made yesterday by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen Deputy Prime Minister; and secondly to seek some direction from the member as to whether he intends to apologise to the foundation and to this House for besmirching all our reputations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second matter is not a point of order but the first one is. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Ewen-Street Ian: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7129] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I would like to start my final speech on this bill by thanking the officials who have helped the Primary Production Committee. I am aware that at times I was the bane of their lives and I just want to thank them for their patience with and tolerance of me. They did fail to convince me even in the end that we were doing the right thing but they did do their best. I would also like to join my colleague Gerrard Eckhoff in acknowledging the collegiality of the Primary Production Committee. I do think we all put our heads around this bill in a very non-partisan way in order to come up with the best possible solution. 
I have always expressed my doubts about this bill. As time went by in the select committee my opposition to it grew and I have not changed my mind. I think the growers really need to be very aware of what is going on. As I said in my second reading speech I sincerely hope that I am wrong but I have very grave fears about what will happen. I would urge woolgrowers to look at the ownership of Keratec. The figures and flow charts appear to show that Keratec ultimately remains in the ownership of farmers. However if one looks through the way that governance is covered one sees that there are votes that will outweigh the ownership percentages. I just think that the potential for farmers to lose control of Keratec which is the jewel in the crown of the intellectual property of the wool industry is very real. 
I would also urge farmers to look at the mandate that the industry claims it has for this restructuring. I detailed that matter in my second-reading speech so I will not go through it again. But if farmers believe that there was any premeditation in the consultation then there is precedent in the law to say that that consultation was not actually consultation and can be legally challenged with the result that the restructuring would go back to square one. 
I do wish the industry well. My opposition to this bill should not in any way be interpreted as being opposition to the disestablishment of the Wool Board which I think is an essential thing. I am just not convinced that the structure that has been put in place is the right solution and I am particularly concerned about the very late arrival of Canesis and Canesis Venture Capital on to the scene. I wish the industry well but unfortunately I really cannot see my way clear to supporting the bill on this occasion.
Prebble Richard: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
Prebble Richard: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
[Volume:607;Page:4291] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party strongly supports the actions that the United States Britain and Australia are taking right now to enforce United Nations Resolution 1441 for Iraq to disarm. By taking that action those countries are making New Zealand and the world a safer place. We say to the people of Iraq: “Your hour of liberation is now at hand”. 
But I say to this House that our irrelevance is demonstrated by this debate. We all know that the Prime Minister learnt of the actions in Iraq in the same way that I did: she watched it on CNN. We are no longer a relevant player in the world; we are just a commentator. Regrettably New Zealand is no longer part of the “coalition of the willing”—those nations that have been prepared to take action to uphold liberty. I say to the Prime Minister that it is pleasing that she will give some assistance after the war but we should be giving assistance now. That is when we were asked for it. That is when the people of Iraq really need it. That is when the world needs it. 
We need now to turn our attention to the post - Saddam Hussein world that is coming rapidly towards us—a world with a United Nations that is not prepared to enforce its own resolutions a world where old alliances are now gone and a world where we are not one of the 35 nations prepared to take action for the freedoms and values that this country believes in.
Vote: Income Tax Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Income Tax Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12098] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses A1 and A2 Parts A to Y and Schedules 1 to 23 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clauses A1 and A2 Parts A to Y and Schedules 1 to 23 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported withamendment.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
[Volume:608;Page:5457] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Following discussions at the Standing Orders Committee last week—and I want to say that these discussions ended up in a unanimous decision—I wish to advise of some change I am making to the procedures for the ringing of the bell. In order that members and others within the parliamentary complex are aware that the House has risen the bell will be rung for 10 seconds whenever the House adjourns such as at 10 p.m. on a Tuesday or Wednesday 6 p.m. on a Thursday or when a sitting of the House is suspended such as 6 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday and at midnight and for the lunch and dinner adjournments during urgency. This change will take effect from today.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20981] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 17(1) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d).
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8224] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of Pita Paraone to insert new clause 240A be agreed to.
Ryall Tony: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5541] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am much obliged to be able to take this call. This afternoon the Government announced in a pre-Budget announcement that an additional $14.5 million will be given to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for the identification of wahi tapu throughout New Zealand. The term wahi tapu came to the attention of most New Zealanders when they discovered to their horror that a group of landowners in Welcome Bay had effectively lost control of their property to local Maori. 
What became clear in the public furore that followed the Welcome Bay wahi tapu case was that the Prime Minister misled the country as to the status of wahi tapu. She appeared on the  
Holmes 
 programme and said that the fact there is a wahi tapu on this 180 hectares of land at Welcome Bay was of no consequence. She said that it was the local council that would decide. 
Progress reported.
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:13707] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 22 June because of the parliamentary luncheon for the delegation from Trinidad and Tobago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Connell Brian: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12362] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I start by clarifying an issue that I spoke about during the course of the Committee stage. I think I gave the impression to the Committee and to the Minister in the chair in particular that the Hospitality Association of New Zealand had not been consulted. That in fact was not the case. The point I was trying to make is that the association represents a minority position not a majority position as the Minister would have us believe. My point was and still is that there has not been wide consultation about the regulations aspect. 
I find myself in a position where I cannot support this bill yet there are components that I very strongly support—in particular Easter Sunday trading for wineries. But I find myself in a very difficult and complex position. I had to vote against the controlled purchase operations because I am more strongly opposed to the issues of entrapment. Despite my suggesting amendments to enable these provisions to be deleted the Committee saw fit not to agree to them. I accept that is the democracy we work in. 
I am concerned about how that aspect of the bill will operate. I have sent out a loud warning that I feel that some people in the industry and across this country will be victimised by the police. I want to put it on the record that I am a very strong supporter of the police but on this occasion I think this legislation goes too far. The ability of people in the industry to deal with the issues of entrapment I now think have been taken out of their hands and I believe we will live to regret this day. The Minister had his opportunity and decided that it was not of sufficient concern for him to take heed of what I was telling him and change his vote. 
The practicality of trying to enforce this legislation will result in it simply not working. Law-abiding citizens across this country will be turned into lawbreakers and that I have to say disappoints me immensely. Who amongst us can say that he or she would be able to tell someone’s age without proof of identity? I still beseech the House that we should have considered lifting the age limit or at least making sure there was compulsory proof of age when people go into hotels to purchase liquor. That would have taken the onus completely away from the owners and would have put the onus on the person buying the liquor. With those comments I thank members for their indulgence.
Shirley Ken: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11771] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will also support the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2). The point has been made that there was clearly mismanagement of the levying system. I think I am the only member of this House who actually sat on the committee that did the substantive legislation in 1986. [ 
Interruption 
] I am talking about the Fisheries Act of 1986 which first introduced the quota management system provided the levying procedures and indeed the resource rentals which are with us no more. 
It is regrettable that fisheries legislation has for generations been a very difficult area of public policy. It is very prescriptive by nature. Certainly in this case the regime of levies collection was not what the politicians envisaged. In other words the bureaucrats—or the Government department with responsibility for that area—departed from the intent and object of Parliament. That has been found to be so and in a way this bill represents Parliament’s attempt to remedy that. There is a bit of rough justice associated with it but having looked at the bill I think it has been done in the best way possible. So to that extent we will be supporting the bill.
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6969] 
A party vote was called for on the question That thea 
mendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:607;Page:4546] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through its remaining stages of the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill; the first readings of the Counter-Terrorism Bill the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Corrections Bill; the second readings of the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) the National Library of New Zealand (Te PunaMatauranga o Aotearoa) Bill and the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill; and the passing through their remaining stages of the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill and the Social Workers Registration Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
I move this motion in order that a number of bills can be referred to select committees this week to advance four bills to their Committee stages and to pass four bills that have been widely supported or that address immediate and pressing issues.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10750] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21448] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee to take the bill as one question and to have a wide-ranging debate.