edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cullen Michael: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3889] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I think the member has raised a couple of quite reasonable questions and I apologise for not having been in the chair. I have been to the dentist so I apologise if I am slightly incomprehensible; the effect of the injection I had is still wearing off.  
I am perfectly satisfied about the consequence of the removal of paragraph (b) in subsection (6) of clause 4. That means that the full amounts will be paid. Certainly the Government Administration Committee was told that there could be a conflict of interpretation between paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) but clearly the full amounts will be paid backdated to 1 July 2002.  
The fiscal issue is quite an interesting point but it is not affected by the short-term performance of the fund. Indeed an appropriation had to be made for that particular provision in any case—obviously in the 2002 Budget—because it comes into force on 1 July. The technical issue surrounding it was whether we had to accrue the full long-term net present value if one likes of the change in benefit. That would have been counted—I think it was $25 million—in one lump which would have been quite difficult to do in any one year. In the end it was determined that under the accounting rules it could be done on an annual basis—I think between $2 million and $2.5 million. But it is fully an appropriation because it would not under any circumstances affect the amount to be transferred from the fund so the additional amount has to be borne by the Crown account.
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17362] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of points. Regarding the partnership point the member has actually got it around the wrong way. The repeal of the provision was in order to remove the requirement to go back to the High Court every 4 years in relation to a special partnership. The select committee decided in the end to take that out because on the advice of the Ministry of Economic Development a fuller review was taking place on special partnerships. So probably we will come back to that issue later. It was designed in here to simplify things—not in any way at all as a tax grab. On the other matter I refer the member to subsection (4) of section 45 inserted by clause 134. The 8-year period remains where the overpayment is the result of a clear mistake or a simple oversight.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10506] 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Can he confirm whether the soon-to-be-announced transport package will include an extra tax on petrol; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No I cannot confirm that. Announcements will be made on Friday when the details have been finalised. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister confirm whether that package will include a diversion of petrol tax—which currently goes into the Crown account—into roading to what degree it will be and whether it will be ongoing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot confirm that. Announcements will be made on Friday when the details have been finalised. 
John Key 
: Why does the Minister support an increase in the petrol tax in relation to Auckland when the current funds available from Transfund coupled with any catch-up funding from the Government and the assets of Infrastructure Auckland could not possibly be spent in the next 10 years on new roads in Auckland without changes to the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Nobody in Auckland local authorities would accept that last assertion. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that if an announcement is made on Friday about an increase in petrol tax the increase will be distributed regionally and not used only for Auckland roads? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Details are yet to be finalised but I am sure the member’s excellent suggestion will be taken fully into account when they are. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that if such an announcement is made all the additional tax raised will be spent on roads? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I say the details have not been finalised but that even more excellent suggestion is likely to be agreed to I am sure.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Speaker of the House of Representatives Australia 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Speaker of the House of Representatives Australia 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6037. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Neil Andrew MP Speaker of the House of Representatives Australia accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon Neil Andrew accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Gallagher Martin: General Debates 
Gallagher Martin: General Debates 
[Volume:613;Page:9962] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 In the words of Donna Awatere Huata the ACT party quite rightly stood by Owen Jennings when he was taken to court and found guilty of defamation. It stood by him while he launched and lost his appeal. It stood by Rodney Hide when it was alleged that his support for a Fiji investment conference had cost investors their life-savings. It also stood by Muriel Newman when she and her husband were accused of misusing a boatbuilding permit by building a house. That was in a press release by Donna Awatere Huata. 
There is a sniff and a whiff in this Parliament from that party that Don Brash is claimed to be its ninth member. The ACT party is supposed to try to represent the battlers. I say to members that we should listen to Queenslander Trish Clutterbuck aged 61 who according to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 “sent away $173.81 to Australian Roll of Honour to have her husband Ben included in National Honours and Awards’’ and then said “she was ‘amazed’ that his partner was an MP. How she ever got into Parliament without this being dug up it’s absolutely astounding. I’m absolutely amazed to find that she’s an MP. I can’t imagine her lasting very long.” 
ACT dumped Owen Jennings and another member of Parliament as well in order to bring a couple of people higher up on its list. Dr Don Brash while you last as the leader of the National Party Opposition do you honestly in your heart of hearts— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will address the Chair. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I ask Dr Brash whether in his heart of hearts he honestly wants that lot as his key coalition partner. I ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters can you honestly contemplate ever— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is warned for a second time that he must not speak in the second person. His time is ebbing away. The member should carry on. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters whether he wants that lot to be in a future centre-right Government. That is what I would say to Dr Brash and the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Quite frankly I think this country is sick and tired of ACT having the gall and the temerity to lecture to us about being the perk-busters and the great high moral guardian taking the high moral ground and being the watchdog of the public. If a watchdog is needed it should be one appointed to oversee the activities of the ACT party. I think it is very very rich that ACT members have suddenly discovered their morality. They have suddenly discovered that for now Donna Awatere Huata no longer suits their purpose. The reality is that in 2001 when they named Donna Awatere Huata to go back on their list they knew the deal. Yet she was still reappointed to the ACT list. Now it all comes out. In the grubby gaze and glare of publicity the ACT members run like scaredy-cats—like the scared hares that they are.
Burton Mark: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Burton Mark: Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine  Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19897] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I want to make a very brief contribution in my capacity as Minister of Tourism to congratulate the Hon Marian Hobbs and all those involved. As the gallery is full of media which we would expect when this degree of cooperation is being witnessed in the House I just note that this Parliament can from time to time find agreement on a matter that is of huge long-term interest and importance to our nation and to future generations. So I really do want to congratulate Marian Hobbs and all those who have worked with her on this achievement. 
Bill read a third time.
Wilson Margaret: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Wilson Margaret: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20559] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is a matter for debate but I thank the member.
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Allegation by JohnTamihere 
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Allegation by JohnTamihere 
[Volume:624;Page:19033] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take it now that the requirement of the Prime Minister—the dictatorial Prime Minister that she is—that I should provide evidence of my clocking in is no longer required. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a valid point of order.
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Point of Order—Maritime Security Bill 
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Point of Order—Maritime Security Bill 
[Volume:611;Page:8620] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 It is the same for National. We voted 27 in favour of the bill being referred to the select committee. We also seek leave that the vote be changed and accurately recorded. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will get the list but I am advised by the Clerk that that apparently was not the case. But certainly I will get the list and there is a perfect right to have that changed.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10945] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement the first readings of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill and the Meat Board Restructuring Bill and progress on the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill and the Crime and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Copeland Gordon: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Copeland Gordon: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:608;Page:5130] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I could refer to the three votes in question in a general way as Stephen Franks has—as the watchdog functions of the New Zealand Parliament. I could also perhaps describe them as being a kind of triple bottom line accounting for the affairs of this nation: Vote Audit to ensure that the income and expenditure of the Crown has been accounted for in accordance with international best practice and the ethics that relate to good stewardship of those resources; Vote Ombudsman to ensure that the overall apparatus of the Government adheres to the principles of justice fair play and openness which is so much at the heart of our society; and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—which completes the troika—to ensure that all of us remain aware that we are merely guardians of the precious and beautiful environment that makes New Zealand not only the most beautiful country in the world but also a country that is great to live in to raise a family in and to come home to. 
Speaking about the Commissioner for the Environment I would like to endorse the comments made by Stephens Franks on behalf of the ACT party concerning the nonsense of having perfectly viable hydro electricity schemes in this country turned down by people who claim to be guarding the environment or to have an interest in conservation whilst concurrently this winter we will be importing fuel oil and coal to generate electricity. The reality is that the water in our rivers and lakes falls from the sky and is completely free and hydro is completely in line with very sensible conservation outcomes—by which I mean the management of natural resources in a way that enhances the environment. With those comments I signal United Future’s support of this motion.
Hartley Ann: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16018] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before giving the member the call I shall rule on a matter that arose immediately prior to the Committee reporting progress when it was last considering this bill. On a point of order an entitlement to a consecutive call for the first Opposition speaker was claimed. There is no such entitlement. The revocation of Standing Order 178 removed the requirement for the Chairperson to give preference to a member who had not previously spoken. The Chairperson now has the discretion to give consecutive calls. This does not mean that a member can claim a consecutive call as of right. 
The giving of a call is always a matter entirely for the discretion of the Chairperson; it is not a matter for debate. Where a member seeks a consecutive call and another member from the member’s own party also seeks the call the Chairperson must also take into account the factors set out in Standing Order 102. The Chairperson has to have regard to proportionality as well as the seniority and interest of the member with the call. Giving a consecutive call might ultimately be at the expense of the member’s party colleagues. 
The call once given cannot be taken away. During the point of order Brian Connell sought to yield his time to the Hon Roger Sowry. Yielding is not a way of transferring one member’s speaking time to another. It is a way of providing time during a speech for a member to ask a question of the member with the call. But a member may choose not to continue his or speech. Brian Connell could surrender his call if he so wishes. It would be then for any member to seek the next call. 
The question before the Committee now is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part and Brian Connell has 5 minutes remaining if he so wishes.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
[Volume:615;Page:11008] 
3.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any suggestions regarding tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I receive suggestions regarding tax cuts very frequently indeed from many different people usually of quite different types. The most recent of those was a suggestion yesterday to set the company rate at 30 percent and to lower both the 33 percent and 39 percent personal rates to 30 percent. That came from Dr Brash who said that it could be done because we ran a $6 billion surplus last year. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is the $6 billion Budget surplus that was achieved last year available for spending? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. As with everybody else’s income last year I suspect we have spent it all in one form or another. The $1.2 billion cash surplus was used to retire debt. For the current year as a brief check of the December Economic and Fiscal Update would show Treasury is forecasting a cash deficit of $1.1 billion. Finally as the Leader of the Opposition ought to know any excessive fiscal stimulus will only lead to higher interest rates being imposed by the Reserve Bank and to more pressure on the dollar. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister noticed reports in the  
Australian Financial Review 
 of Thursday 12 February outlining that the Australian Labor Party leader Mark Latham is considering reducing the top personal tax rate in Australia from 47c to 35c in the dollar; if so what does he consider will be the economic impact on New Zealand when Australia has a lower top personal tax rate a lower company tax rate and a US free-trade arrangement to boot? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Only somebody whose nose was rather close to Australia could possibly think that it got a United States free-trade agreement—it was a trade agreement not a free-trade agreement. When Australia also abolishes its capital gains tax and payroll tax and when it restores accelerated depreciation for companies then perhaps we may talk about comparability. The fact is that at the moment Australia has a higher top tax rate a payroll tax a capital gains tax and generally speaking Australians are more highly taxed than most New Zealanders. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister give further consideration to adopting New Zealand First’s policy of gradually transferring more of the petrol tax which goes into the Crown account into the National Land Transport Fund so that it can be invested in roading for safety purposes and for our economic well-being? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am pleased to inform the member that we have already done that once and we are planning to do it again. That was part of the Auckland—and indeed the New Zealand—road transport package announced just before Christmas. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table the  
Australian Financial Review 
 of 12 February outlining Latham’s new tax-cut push. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Black Caps—Test Win Over South Africa 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Black Caps—Test Win Over South Africa 
[Volume:616;Page:11825] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That this House congratulate the Black Caps on its historic nine-wicket second test win over South Africa on Monday and further that this House congratulate Chris Cairns in particular on his achievement in making it into the 3000-run 200-wicket club during the same match.
Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10042] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 As has been indicated National supports this bill. It might be fairly said that this is not bowel-gripping legislation; it is technical and formal. The purpose of the bill is to confirm and validate subordinate legislation made under the various Acts the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has described. 
 Clauses 4 to 10 confirm and validate certain subordinate legislation that will lapse unless it is confirmed or validated by statute. The subordinate legislation referred to in clauses 4 to 7 is confirmed and the subordinate legislation referred to in clauses 8 to 10 is both validated and confirmed. Clause 11 from a lawyer’s perspective is interesting in that it provides that the validations effected by clauses 8 to 10 are for purposes only of preventing expiry of the enactments and not to cure any invalidity that may exist. Finally clause 12 repeals the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act of the previous year. 
As the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has said the legislation was referred to the Regulations Review Committee—one of the finest committees I would say in the entire Parliament. That committee asked for the views of the relevant Government departments and they provided those views which were found to be in order—certainly to the satisfaction of the Regulations Review Committee. The only other matter that I would raise is that this type of legislation perhaps should be reviewed as to the necessity for it. It may very well be that other mechanisms can be more usefully employed and that the time of Parliament need not necessarily be taken on confirming and validating provisions. That said National supports the speedy passage of this bill.
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14873] 
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 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1: Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20389] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification on this part particularly of clause 33B. The Minister does not need to make a speech about it; he can just nod in agreement or shake his head. I understand that the provision here is directed at police officers who to get their money out at the age of 50 years will perf in order to get their superannuation but who then cannot be re-employed. I do not know whether that is correct in fact and I ask whether the Minister if he is able to could shake his head or nod in agreement to confirm that the changes that are being made will allow members to access their funds and receive a lump-sum payment without being disadvantaged. Am I correct in that assessment of what Part 7A and specifically clause 33B is about? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to any of those clauses? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I just wondered whether the Minister could give me a nod about that. I ask whether I am correct in that assessment. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I just want the member to repeat the question. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The situation as I understand it is that when police officers turn 50 they will be able to access their funds. Rather than being able to do that at present they perf in order to receive their superannuation but then they cannot be re-employed. I understand this clause will allow members of the police to access their funds so that they will not be disadvantaged. All I want is clarification about that point. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: My officials advise me that that is correct. 
Part 7A agreed to.
Ogilvy Bernie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ogilvy Bernie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3431] 
8.  
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree with the assessment of Bali Haque president of the Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand that the shortage of secondary school teachers at the beginning of the 2003 school year constitutes a “crisis”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: If the teacher shortage is not a crisis how else would the Minister describe the situation whereby schools were short of 388 teachers in January and now 3 weeks into the school year there are 199 actual vacancies to be filled according to this week’s  
Education Gazette? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Schools of course are closed in January at the time of the  
Education Gazette 
 therefore I do not regard that as a crisis. I am advised in fact that in February this year there are 111 vacancies 30 fewer than at the same time last year. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister please detail Government action to address secondary staffing pressures? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Speaker given your advice on brevity I will list only some of those actions. The Government has spent around $37 million over 3 years. It has targeted recruitment and provided funding to encourage New Zealand teachers to return taken graduates from around the country to Auckland created teaching scholarships to get more people into training in particular in priority subjects given a lot of retraining for former secondary teachers and provided allowances for that and provided conversion courses at full pay for primary teachers etc. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that in the 1990s the same age bulge hit the primary sector and that National successfully managed teacher supply to ensure that every classroom of children had a teacher how has he so mismanaged secondary teacher supply that for 2 years running thousands of children have arrived at school in schools all over New Zealand without a teacher? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think as the member is aware that is not correct. As he is aware this Government has increased the number of staff in secondary schools and in fact the total vacancies advertised at the peak point were fewer than the extra teachers we put in over and above roll growth. So the ratios were better this year than last. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: In the light of that how will shortages be addressed in the long term when I note that the average age of the secondary teacher workforce is 49 yet since 1999 the number of secondary trainee enrolments has declined 10.5 percent and the proportion of those who graduated has slid from 76 percent to 66 percent? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are some interesting statistics and I am willing to work with the member on them. My advice is that at the end of last year there were 1765 secondary teachers in training—up 120 from the year before.
Hughes Darren: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5118] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I have just read the select committee report and I think it is a very good report. Members from all different parties in this House came together to work on it because this is an institution that is so well respected in our country and people know what a pivotal role they play in being the keepers and the guardians of all the materials that make up the story of our country. The people who work within the library have a very special role for us in this House and for our country and it is appropriate that we update the Act of Parliament that governs that institution because the current legislation is nearly 40 years old. Parliament has come together to pass a new bill for a modern age where the kind of information the library is responsible for has changed hugely. 
When the 1965 legislation was being debated by this Parliament the idea that information would be stored on CD-ROM on websites or in an electronic form would not have been considered by lawmakers. This bill brings those forms of storing information very firmly within the ambit of the National Library just as books periodicals and magazines have been in past times. 
I am very interested in the work that the Library and Information Advisory Commission which is established under this bill will do in the future. It will provide the Minister with advice on the rapidly changing field of information—not only here at home but also abroad. The bill not only recognises all the good work that has been done by Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa in the past but also sets it up well for the future. I support the bill’s third reading and I wish all involved with our National Library the best for the future.
Hunt Jonathan: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7750] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Speaker was made the decision maker. Nothing precludes consultation. This is dealt with in the report and in my ruling. Independence does not mean no consultation.
Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6971] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: Undoubtedly over the course of the last hour or two while we have debated the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill there has been concern as to the clarity of the title and whether indeed it reflects appropriately the meaning and the content of that bill. Once again we have a title that refers to the Stockholm convention and that is quite proper. However it does not say anything about persistent organic pollutants. In the mind of the public persistent organic pollutants could be a whole variety of things whereas in this bill they are confined to a variety of chemicals that each has the characteristic of being environmentally persistent toxic bioaccumulative and able to be transported by movement or air water and migratory species to places far from its original point of release. They all have somewhat complicated chemical names associated with them. In speaking to this title and trying to make it have some meaning to the average New Zealander out there wondering what this debate is about I propose that it would be relevant and appropriate for the title to make some mention that this bill refers to persistent organic pollutants. We could add the words “Relating to Persistent Organic Pollutants”. 
I have been troubled by the related bill the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill which is inextricably related to this bill. The Stockholm convention is very much part of this bill but so too are the Basel convention the Waigani convention and one other convention that is important. It was made very clear in the previous debate that it would be appropriate to add to the title of the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill after “Restrictions” the words “on Hazardous Substances”. But we still have the difficulty that if we confine this title purely to the Stockholm convention which is related to the other conventions; there is still no hint of this bill being applied to persistent organic pollutants which is the whole point of it. New Zealand has used them widely in the past in the agricultural sector. There is great concern about the danger of residues to people building their houses or playing in fields close to places where persistent organic pollutants have been used in the past. But this bill’s title does not indicate that the Stockholm convention is all about persistent organic pollutants. That is somewhat unsatisfactory. 
The Minister in the chair could perhaps take a call later on to explain to us why both in the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill and in this bill no mention is made that it actually concerns persistent organic pollutants. Undoubtedly they are hugely important. The Stockholm convention has wide international support and it is right and proper that this Parliament becomes a signatory to it. The National Party is happy to support that.
Dunne Peter: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12348] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Both my amendment and the other amendment relate to clause 14. I think therefore that we can simply take one debate and then recognize that on clause 14 there will be separate votes.
Jones Dail: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18568] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill going to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. As a member of that select committee I look forward to giving full consideration to it and to the submissions on it and considering it again when it is reported back to the House.
Franks Stephen: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5572] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The position that we are asked to accept the word of a member may well not govern. Even if a member does say he or she has called if the Chair did not hear that and proceeded is there any ability to go back and reopen a vote?
Ryall Tony: Points of Order — Urgent Question: Public Health Issue 
Ryall Tony: Points of Order — Urgent Question: Public Health Issue 
[Volume:606;Page:3699] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table documents that show that two scientific researchers who are working on the lake have been taken ill with symptoms consistent with campylobacter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19853] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National is happy to support this bill for the reasons I mentioned during the second reading debate. I will just summarise. The bill exempts licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts from the definition of “key persons”. This will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine profits. As I said earlier that was the case prior to 1 July 2004 when the new legislation the Gambling Act came in. That involvement was stopped so we now have the issue that we are trying to rectify. 
I made the point which was also made by New Zealand First that we believed it was important that a separate amendment bill to the Gambling Act be invoked—which is what we are doing now—as opposed to including this provision in a Statutes Amendment Bill. So we are comfortable that there is no undue influence. A trustee would not receive any monetary gain by being involved in the process and being on the committee that would distribute gaming-machine proceeds. We understand that about $25 million goes back into the community from those licensing trusts and we are happy to support this proposition. 
Bill read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8857] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I will not query the decision you have made but since this bill is probably the most controversial bill that will be before Parliament over the next few months and needs full disclosure and debate I ask that there be a free frank discussion on the commencement and on all the parts following that from all parties. I take on board the point that Jeanette Fitzsimons has made. She has been very much part of the select committee process and for the Green Party not to have had more than one call on the title was very unfortunate. We want every party to be able to have as many calls as possible— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has made his point. There is— 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: My point is simply this: I want an assurance that for the parts coming up after this clause there will be opportunities for as many speeches as possible. That is what I ask for. 
Stephen Franks 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I do not need any more assistance. I am dealing with Mr Tisch’s point of order; that is all. There is no debate on the closure. 
Phil Heatley 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No please be seated. 
Phil Heatley 
: This is a new point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I am dealing with Mr Tisch’s point of order. I take his point and tell him that certainly that will happen. 
Stephen Franks 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member whether this is a new point of order. 
Stephen Franks 
: Yes it is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Point of order Mr Franks.
Dyson Ruth: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6522] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill which I understand from the speeches I have heard given tonight has widespread support from across the House. It introduces a tougher licensing and certification regime for dealers pawnbrokers and their staff; it requires that dealers must sight ID and record contact details and the signature of all people selling to them; and it has stiffer penalties for non-compliance with the legislation. The content of the bill and the fact that it has the support of all parties in the House from what I have heard is a credit to the Minister who introduced the bill this evening the Hon. Phil Goff. 
Can I also just mention as an aside that I have heard from very reliable sources that that Minister recently turned 50 and as the Minister for Senior Citizens I am delighted to welcome him to my ranks. I look forward to sharing with him the celebration of the speedy passage of this legislation.
O'Connor Damien: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18729] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I really do not need any further assistance. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I rarely raise a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is true. I call the Hon Damien O’Connor. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not sure whether there are Speakers’ rulings on the situation which appears to me to be one whereby a member has stood up and made a speech and now we are seeking to have an interpretation of that speech because the member does not know what he said. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. Mr Brownlee has asked for what he said to be interpreted. I have had an offer from Mr Tamihere to do that and I have accepted that offer. In any case common sense would say that what the member said is clearly set out in English in the bill itself. Reference to that is on the back of Supplementary Order Paper 327. If the members who are raising this issue had bothered to trace it through they would have seen that. It may be convoluted but it is in the bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I am still talking albeit I am sitting down. The translation that is on the paper that was sent around was made by Maori translators licensed via the Maori Language Commission etc. I think we are getting a bit silly here. Either members want to hear a translation which I am prepared to accept—in fact I am calling the Hon John Tamihere to please translate.
Benson-Pope David: Points of Order — Debate on Iraq 
Benson-Pope David: Points of Order — Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3941] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 The offer that was made at the Business Committee by the Leader of the House was that a debate on Iraq could take place after the debate on the Budget Policy Statement. That was declined by the member who is raising the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave was sought. It has been objected to.
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10254] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a third time.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — Immigration Service—Ombudsman’s Report 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — Immigration Service—Ombudsman’s Report 
[Volume:615;Page:11387] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Murray McCully seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 a recent report from the Ombudsman into allegations involving the Immigration Service. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I consider it does require the immediate attention of the House. I ask him to move accordingly.
Goff Phil: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Goff Phil: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9465] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Very briefly in response to that member there was a problem with Environmental Science and Research because of staff turnover and an unexpected increase in work volume. She will be pleased to know that the number of staff in this area has now been increased. Environmental Science and Research aims to clear the backlog by June 2004. In fact in the last 12 months it has completed 3000 analyses whereas its projected target was only 2500. On the question of the police we have the highest number of police officers ever and the biggest budget ever.
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11655] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “next General Election”.
Parker David: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Parker David: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12981] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 What balderdash! The suggestion that anyone in this Parliament would legislate so as to include gang affiliates in the definition of a family group is so ridiculous and absurd as not to be credible. The definition of “family” in clause 3 states: “(a) any person to whom the prisoner is related; and (b) the person’s spouse or de facto partner … and (c) the prisoner’s family group”. “Family group” is then defined to include “a family group or extended family” and gives situations where those people might be members of a family group or extended family. That obviously includes biological or legal relationships but sometimes a biological or legal relationship alone is not the defining characteristic. 
For example a person could have a stepbrother or a stepsister to whom they would have neither a biological nor a legal relationship. Therefore a person who is not biologically or legally related to a stepsister or stepbrother has to be included in paragraph (a)(ii) under the definition “family group” which is a family group or extended family to whom the person “has a significant psychological attachment”. The idea that that provision is intended to extend to gang members is a nonsense. If there were any doubt as to that being the position rather than it being just hot air from the Opposition benches we would amend that definition to make it clear. There is no need for an amendment because the provision is clear already. What the Opposition says is an absolute nonsense. It is the sort of tripe that members hear trotted out from Opposition members when they have nothing substantial to say about a very good bill. 
The idea that we in the Labour Government would define the family group so as to include members of gangs because of their gang affiliations is absolute nonsense and the concerns that that member raised can be safely ignored.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 84(4) be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Speaker of Legislative Assembly Victoria 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Speaker of Legislative Assembly Victoria 
[Volume:607;Page:4669] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Judy Maddigan the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Victoria Australia accompanied by Mr Ray Purdy the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Iraq—Apology to United States 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Iraq—Apology to United States 
[Volume:607;Page:4908] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the Prime’s Minister’s decision to ask the New Zealand Embassy in Washington to apologise for some of her remarks. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not consider the matter of sufficient import to warrant the setting aside of the House’s time this afternoon for an urgent debate. The application is declined.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate —  
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7191] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just remind members that under Speaker’s ruling 56/4 and Speaker’s ruling 8/2 (Supplement) it is highly disorderly to interject when votes are being cast. In fact it can be seen as intimidation and could lead ultimately to a breach of privilege. I just caution members about that. 
Vote Pacific Island Affairs agreed to.
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9901] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debates 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:14821] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an article in that venerable paper the  
New Zealand Herald 
 by one Jon Johansson entitled “Brash’s reshuffle does much for National unity”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is objection.