edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Carter John: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and rehabilitation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9592] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I wonder now that we have dealt with the substantive part of the bill and the rest is more the machinery part whether the Committee might consider giving leave for us to consider the balance of the parts as one. I seek leave for that to happen and if members object then of course they can do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken regarding Parts 6 to 11? There is no objection.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8948] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the first amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new section 42A in clause 20 be agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:615;Page:11428] 
7.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What measures will he introduce in an upcoming taxation bill to assist small business? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In the March tax bill—which we are hoping to introduce obviously fairly soon—there will be provision that start-up businesses that pay provisional tax in their first year will receive a 6.7 percent discount designed to avoid the problem of double taxation in the second year which afflicts many start-ups. Provision will also be made for the deductibility of costs associated with patented Resource Management Act consent applications that do not proceed—as recommended by the private sector group on research and development. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What other proposals does the Government have to simplify tax for small businesses? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is considering measures for later in the year and discussing those with tax practitioners and business. Other proposals include further discussion on aligning provisional tax and GST payments allowing small businesses to base provisional tax on GST turnover and subsidising the costs of engaging a payroll firm. 
John Key 
: Does he agree with Treasury advice that under present Government policies a 10c in the dollar increase will eventually be required in all taxes including those on small businesses; and does he concur with his Minister for Small Business the Hon John Tamihere that the correct way to avoid this is to increase the age of eligibility for universal superannuation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The only party I am aware of that has been committed publicly by its leader to supporting an increase in the age of eligibility is the National Party.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19954] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Charities Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Brownlee Gerry: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21178] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask that the member circulate that speech because there are a lot of other good things in it. My real point of order though is that I have seen who the next speaker is and I am of the opinion that the whole Parliament should now go into absolute silence. This will be one of those rare occasions when we hear a speech delivered by a bloke. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3941] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 107 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9999] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I referred at the commencement of the whole proceedings this evening to your comments on 17 September which were reiterated the last time we debated this measure that because of its significance—and I am quoting you from 17 September—there must be a very full and wide-ranging debate. You will be aware that on Part 2 the Chairman allowed some 40 speakers to be heard. When the Committee moved into Part 3 I took a point of order to seek his assurance that the ruling you gave about a very full and wide-ranging debate would be upheld. He gave that assurance. I accept that the Chairperson was a different one from the one presently in the chair. My point of order leading to your recall was that the Chairman—in accepting 19 calls on a part that is more limited but still has some very important measures in it compared with the 40 calls that were accepted on the earlier part—did not seem to me to be upholding your requirement of a very full and wide-ranging debate. Hence my request for you to come back and rule given your original ruling. 
Dail Jones 
: Point of order Mr Speaker—
Carter John: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter John: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6269] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I heard you call me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I did not realise that a member over there was standing to call. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I had not finished calling. I will call the member in a minute. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You had called my name. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I had not seen there was another call from the other side. I looked at you and I was going to call but I did not. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do realise that you had not seen Mr Parker stand to call. But the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 provide that once a member is called that cannot be reversed. The fact is that if Mr Parker wants to make a contribution it would be appropriate for you now to allow me to continue and he can take the next call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: All right carry on.
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
Worth Richard: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
[Volume:613;Page:10015] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What is the consequence of your ruling for the existing convention Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling requiring interjections to be generally made from the allocated seat of the interjector? It seems to cut across that clear statement of principle which we have so often heard you announce. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not affected by it at all.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5510] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 47 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:608;Page:5164] 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Standing Order 178 be suspended until 31 December 2003 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Pamphlet—Whose Country Is It? 
Peters Winston: Tabling of Documents — Pamphlet—Whose Country Is It? 
[Volume:614;Page:10444] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the details of the Labour Party’s latest propaganda campaign on talkback and radio shows and in the newspapers put out by Ann Hartley with respect to the very worthy pamphlet  
Whose Country Is It?. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question time resumed.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4956] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was set down to the Prime Minister and subsequently redirected. I seek the leave of the House to ask the question of the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10643] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6287] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13 ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
former agency 
 by adding the following paragraph: 
(c)any agency as gazetted from time to time in accord with this Act.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:612;Page:9121] 
Voting 
Correction 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a result of a misunderstanding on the part of the person in the House on Thursday afternoon I seek leave to alter New Zealand First votes on the following questions on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill—that is that Part 4 stand part Part 5 stand part the schedule stand part and the bill be divided. Instead of our votes being for the Ayes they should be for the Noes. Mr Donnelly had forecast that but unfortunately owing to a misunderstanding the vote was announced incorrectly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take the leave of the House that that change be made. Is there any objection? There is not. It is so made. The voting figures are Ayes 92 and Noes 21 on the questions for Part 4 Part 5 the schedule and dividing the bill.
Prebble Richard: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16136] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I strongly support the ruling you have made. However I invite you to think about something that might help the debate. If you were to indicate to the House that you will be taking more calls that would be helpful. One reason it would be helpful is that I would like to hear from the Government. Instead of Government members wasting their calls on closure motions if they know from the Chair that the Chair will not accept them then we might have Government members responding to some points. That would lift the standard of debate and I know that is something the Chair is always in favour of. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank all members. I am more than looking forward to the debate.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Presidential Election USA—Congratulations 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Presidential Election USA—Congratulations 
[Volume:621;Page:16595] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to join with other members and on behalf of United Future to express our congratulations to President Bush Vice-President Cheney and the Republican Party on what has been a sweeping victory in every aspect of the United States election. I want to make this point though. At a time when it is often convenient to see the world in a global sense this election reinforces the value of individual nations. This was a choice made freely democratically and quite appropriately by the people of the United States—as it should be—and to draw any wider implications or to be negative about the views of the rest of the world in this respect misses the fundamental point that democracy is the exercise of the franchise by the people of a nation. In this case the people of the United States by a clear majority have re-elected President Bush. Our congratulations are with him. Our commiserations go to Senator Kerry and his team and we express our ongoing support for the fact that the democratic ideal has been upheld. 
Motion agreed to.
Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:606;Page:3257] 
Tuesday 11 February 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Donna Awatere Huata 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised in writing by the leader of ACT that Donna Awatere-Huata has been suspended from the ACT caucus. This is an internal disciplinary matter for the ACT party and what it entails in respect of ACT caucus activity is a matter for ACT to determine not for me as Speaker. As Speaker I am concerned with the House’s rules relating to parties. A suspension of a member from caucus effects no change in a party’s parliamentary membership. For parliamentary purposes Donna Awatere-Huata remains a member of ACT. She is to be seated within the area of seating allocated to ACT—though precisely which ACT seat she occupies is a matter for the leader of ACT to determine. She is also to be included in the party vote totals cast for ACT unless she votes contrary to ACT. In that case she may cast a separate vote—see Standing Order 145(1)(d). In sum as far as the Standing Orders are concerned a member’s suspension from a party caucus has no effect on the party’s standing in the House.
Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Hutchison Paul: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10003] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I would like to seek leave to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I say that humbly and sincerely as National’s science and associate health spokesperson. During the moments of confusion that Mr Chairman you have described I observed that the members in front of me in their enthusiasm to talk on this very important debate actually made it difficult for you to see that I was seeking a call. I had not done so during this part of the debate. I have had very strong views in favour of this very important bill. I believe that there has been considerable excess of emotion in respect of the views on this bill. Perhaps partly because of that individuals such as myself who hold a strong view about this bill have been prevented from having the opportunity to speak. The Hon Peter Dunne pointed out that Part 2 had 40 speakers but this part has had only 19 speakers. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that under Standing Order 84(3) points of order are to be terse and to the point. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak and I seek leave to do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21508] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 58 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)Any District Court Judge or Justice or Community Magistrate or any Registrar (not being a constable) may issue to a member of the police a warrant to enter a place who on an application in writing made on oath is satisfied that— 
(a)there is a restricted substance in that place; and 
(b)an offence has been is being or will be committed under this Part in relation to that restricted substance in that place.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6862] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from new subsection (5) of section 41 the word “must” and substitute the word “may”.
English Bill: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
English Bill: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13235] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am afraid that that is not good enough. We may have been granted leave for the opportunity to debate the reports before they are reported back but in my 14 years in the House this is without precedent. 
We have come to this particular debate with select committees having not completed their work. If it were now to be a matter of course that we grant leave to debate reports that have not been reported back then why would select committees bother to meet any kind of deadline? The Opposition cooperates with the Government in order to get to the deadline. If it is now to be the case that the deadline does not matter then I for one as a member of the Education and Science Committee would like a great deal more time to do proper financial reviews of the entities that come before our committee. 
I think that in the first place the House deserves an explanation and it has to come from the Government. This is Government business. The Government ought to advise the House as to why it is managing its own business in a way that is unprecedented in the House.
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6456. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I ask you to guide that member because the comments I am referring to were his oral answers to questions which were then followed by my tabling a document that completely disproved what he said. If that member wants that left on the record fine and he can pay the consequences of that. I do not have a problem over that. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am ruling on the point of order. That is a debatable matter.
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
[Volume:617;Page:12539] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member did not say that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well he’s saying it now. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is far too much interjection. While I am on my feet there will be none. The member has had his only warning for the day about interjecting while I am on my feet. He will be out next time. That is the only warning. The member asked for leave; leave was denied.
Worth Richard: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Worth Richard: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4528] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports Part 2 of the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a short part that contains only two clauses. The first has consequential amendments and the second appropriately deals with consequential repeals. I express dismay that the Hon George Hawkins who is the Minister in charge of this bill—the Minister in charge of Veterans Affairs New Zealand—has not taken it as a responsibility to speak in support of this bill. After all there are two Supplementary Orders Papers—the first is Supplementary Order Paper 53 and the second is Supplementary Order Paper 67—that stand in his name. It is a pity that a Minister with responsibility for legislation does not see fit to add his contribution to this important legislation. I would welcome some explanation from the Minister as to why he is not prepared to participate in this debate. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Power Simon: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17449] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 My understanding of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings is that these matters become matters that you need to rule on if an individual member takes offence. At that point if the member takes offence the member has a method at his or her disposal to raise the issue with you and at that point if the member has taken offence you would probably require the offending party either to apologise or to withdraw and apologise. I think that if we work on the basis that if a member takes offence the member can raise it at that point we will get ourselves out of what has turned into a small quagmire.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21212] 
12.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any overseas expert reports on the Government’s KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. The prestigious London-based Pensions Policy Institute has praised the scheme and said that it has many design features that could be useful in Britain. That follows the World Bank report last month recommending a multi-pillar approach to pension provision—all pillars that are reflected in the policy framework introduced under this Government. 
Mark Peck 
: What features of KiwiSaver were identified by the Pensions Policy Institute as appealing and what might threaten these in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The automatic enrolment the flat-rate $1000 Government incentive the low administrative cost the holistic approach to saving and the help towards first home ownership are all identified by the institute as being good design features. The biggest threat of course would be a National Government as National has refused to back the scheme and said in any case that it would certainly dump the $1000 Government contribution. 
John Key 
: Why does the State sector retirement scheme not comply with the KiwiSaver vehicle and does he intend to rectify the State sector retirement scheme so that it does? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I anticipate that during our third term the State sector scheme will be brought up to the level to qualify it for exemption within the KiwiSaver scheme. Of course if National were elected the KiwiSaver scheme would go down the tubes to pay for tax cuts. 
Craig McNair 
: Does the Government have any intention of raising the KiwiSaver scheme to a more realistic level of assistance instead of the very small amount proposed at present? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Maybe the member has been too long in this House. For many modest-income New Zealanders a $1000 upfront contribution is actually quite a lot. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has he received any overseas reports on the Child Trust Fund set up by Labour in the UK an incentivised savings scheme designed not only to make tertiary education more affordable but also to enable young adults to use the funds to buy a house or start a business; if so why will he not open up the proposed tertiary savings scheme to those alternatives and align it to the KiwiSaver scheme—a cradle to the grave savings scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have. The problem is that in terms of the proposed tertiary education scheme we are looking for an equity element and a public contribution element which will enable us to spread the resources more fairly. The KiwiSaver scheme is about people saving for their own future not for anybody else’s.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4287] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I seek leave to ask question No. 11 of the Minister of Health. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask question No. 11. Is there any objection? There is objection. Please ask the question as stated.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15013] 
1. JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received any recent reports on economic and regional growth; if so what do these indicate? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes. The latest reports on economic development in New Zealand show that the New Zealand economy is among the best-performing in the world. Year-on-year growth to June as reported by the latest National Bank regional trends survey is at 4.3 percent. Regions like the member’s region of Wanganui-Manawatu and others like Otago and Southland which suffered negative growth under the previous National-led coalition are now averaging over 5 percent year-on-year growth. All regions in New Zealand are in positive growth mode under this Labour-Progressive Government. 
Jill Pettis 
: Do these reports suggest to him that economic development in New Zealand has meant that our economy is standing on the edge of a slippery slope as reported in Australia last week? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I cannot possibly imagine who might have tried to mislead our Australian cousins in such a way. No reports based on fact could possibly suggest that conclusion. New Zealand’s annual economic growth has outstripped both Australia’s growth rate and the OECD average over the last 5 years of this coalition Government. To suggest otherwise would be to mislead our Australian cousins. Whoever is trying to malign New Zealand in Australia should I suggest give some real growth comparisons such as the fact that in the last 5 years New Zealand’s GDP per capita has increased by a cumulative 14 percent in comparison to 11.3 percent in Australia. In the previous 5 years of the National-led Government the figures were 16.9 percent for Australia and only 9.9 percent for New Zealand. I suggest that Mr Brash quit while he is behind.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16496] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I am pleased to be here to speak to the Committee stage of the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Part 1 is likely to be the part that generates the most discussion this evening. It is the part that confirms the annual rates of tax. It is worth noting in relation to this part that the Committee has before it a Supplementary Order Paper from United Future that seeks to index income tax thresholds from $38000 to $43000 and from $60000 to $68000. I need to inform the Committee that that Supplementary Order Paper has attracted a financial veto on the basis of an unbudgeted fiscal cost of $900 million per annum. This is of course particularly important given that the projected cash surplus is limited to some $520 million per annum. 
The other parts of the bill are largely taxpayer friendly and are likely to attract somewhat less debate I suspect. They reflect the main themes of the Government’s tax policy work programme: promoting growth and innovation; simplifying tax especially for small businesses; reducing tax-related compliance costs; and protecting the revenue base. The rest of the bill which we will discuss later removes some tax obstacles and closes a couple of loopholes.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Viet Nam—Commission on Petitions and Aspirations National Assembly 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Viet Nam—Commission on Petitions and Aspirations National Assembly 
[Volume:627;Page:21819] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing the House that the members of the Commission on Petitions and Aspirations from the National Assembly of Viet Nam led by the Hon Le Quang Binh are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21479] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this Committee of the whole House debate on Part 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) to explain the effects of Supplementary Order Paper 377 and the tabled amendments in my name. Firstly the bill was originally intended to extend the powers of customs officers under section 36 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to all precursor substances. However the bill as drafted did not accurately reflect that intention. Section 36 of the Misuse of Drugs Act makes certain powers under the Customs and Excise Act 1996 applicable when dealing with controlled drugs. Those powers enable customs officers who are investigating drug importation offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act to question persons undertake searches and obtain documentation using their Customs and Excise Act powers. The amendment to section 36 of the Misuse of Drugs Act was intended to extend that application of Customs and Excise Act powers to investigations under the new importation offences involving precursor substances. The bill as written however confined those powers to pseudoephedrine and ephedrine— 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:8008] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Bill read a third time.
Mackey Janet: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Mackey Janet: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14550] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 Having sat through the inquiry and on the Primary Production Committee which reviewed this bill I would like to say in supporting the bill that I do not give a toss what it is called. We can call it the “Chocolate Fish Bill” if members like as long as we get this stock into the quota management system so it can be managed sustainably.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8963] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is a bit rich to raise that point when a question was raised earlier in relation to why Mrs Grimsdell had not received her operation. As soon as the answer is given the Opposition gets all hoity-toity about that matter. I notice that no objection was taken to tabling the correspondence between the Minister of Health and Mrs Grimsdell. There is a word for that that we cannot use in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As members will realise this is a matter more akin to the general debate than question time. This is not a matter of order on which I can rule.
Heatley Phil: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7065] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: I am happy to support Part 2 “Amendments to Forests Act 1949”. This is the most significant part of the bill. Clause 26 repeals the redundant provisions. They are redundant not only because of this bill but because the Biosecurity Act in combination with this amendment bill effectively nullifies the need for those particular provisions. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Why? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Because sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Forests Act are repealed. Members might like to know that section 70 provides very broad regulation-making powers which are not required any more. The section states that regulations may be made “for the purpose of eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas trees tree seed timber forest or forest products.” Members who had paid attention to this bill and who had been at the Primary Production Committee as I was—diligently as is my habit—would know that the bill covers those issues with regard to forestry; they would know that it covers not only agriculture and horticulture but forestry as well. That purpose ”eradicating or preventing the spread of any disease which may affect areas trees tree seed timber forest or forest products.” becomes irrelevant with the passage of this bill. 
I am glad of that. The biosecurity provisions of the Forests Act operate as a parallel system to those in the Biosecurity Act so why have them? On top of that with the amendments we have pile upon pile of regulation-making powers that we do not require. The National Party is a party of small government of less regulation and bureaucracy and of less compliance cost. We believe that we do not need those sections any more and we are happy to repeal them. The Labour Government which believes in big government high compliance cost and lots of regulation and bureaucracy of course brought us all the way on this matter in the select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] That will come as no surprise to Murray McCully the member of Parliament for East Coast Bays. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know why the most harmless incursion to this Parliament being David Benson-Pope—the sleepiest incursion to this Parliament—has woken up and started heckling me. He should read the bill and take a call. 
All I want to say in closing is that sections 69 70 70A 71 and 71C of the Act are being repealed and the Crown has available alternative instruments to use in relation to the biosecurity of trees. This amendment deals with that. Why pile regulation upon regulation? Why pile bureaucracy upon bureaucracy? Why pile legislation upon legislation? Why pile David Benson-Pope upon anyone? The National Party will be voting for Part 2.
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:9456] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill 
that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Carter David: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Carter David: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8796] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I want to raise another matter that I think you should take into consideration Mr Assistant Speaker. It seems to me that we may well have been misled with the tabling of this document. I heard Mr Burton seek leave to table the minutes of that particular meeting. As it has now transpired he has not tabled the minutes. What he has done—according to what you have said yourself Mr Assistant Speaker—is table the draft minutes. If the Minister had correctly described them as the draft minutes he might well have found that Parliament was not prepared to accept them. It is important that when a member of Parliament seeks to table any document the document is factually described.
Maharey Steve: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 11 February 
Maharey Steve: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 11 February 
[Volume:615;Page:10997] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Last Wednesday in response to a question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters I said that for the financial year ended 30 June 2003 Television New Zealand employees had made 28 trips to international conventions and trade fairs at a cost of $380000. Now that TVNZ has had time to carefully analyse all the figures for the year I can advise that the correct figures are 38 trips at the lower cost of $340347. I take this opportunity the first opportunity I am able to present to the House the information that corrects TVNZ’s information to me.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6362] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2003/04) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister 13 May 
[Volume:608;Page:5677] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I suggest to you Mr Speaker that this is not a question that will require a great deal of consideration upon your part. Standing Order 341 states: “A Minister may make a statement informing the House of some matter of significant public importance …”. Those are matters relating for example to some kind of disaster event in international affairs and things of that nature that require to be brought to the House’s attention. [ 
Interruption 
] I assume that I will not have interjections during the point of order being addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not. There is only one warning and it has now been given. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have never seen a ministerial statement being given in relation to a Minister correcting an answer in the 21-odd years I have been in this House. It has always been done by way of a personal explanation. Indeed I am aware of Speakers’ rulings—whether or not in the record but certainly while I have been here—whereby Ministers if they fail to make a personal explanation at the first available opportunity can expose themselves to some risk. 
 I say from my own personal knowledge that the Prime Minister’s explanation at 7.30 p.m. was the first available opportunity in that the matter was brought to her attention in the dinner break. I say that very specifically because it was brought to my attention after the House rose at 6 o’clock and I was informed before the Prime Minister was informed. So the Prime Minister did exactly the appropriate thing. She made a personal explanation at the first available opportunity which was 7.30 p.m.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Malaysia—House of Representatives Special Select Committee to  Amend the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code Australia—Members of Australian Political Exchange 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Malaysia—House of Representatives Special Select Committee to  Amend the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code Australia—Members of Australian Political Exchange 
[Volume:623;Page:18789] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that members of the Australian Political Exchange led by Ms Catherine King MP Federal Member for Ballarat are present in the gallery and I am sure that members would wish that they also be welcomed.
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:8800] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that and I need no further assistance on it. There is no material in that point of order on which I can or should rule at all. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: But I took offence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am aware that offence has been taken on both sides on this matter which is quite surprising really—but it has. I cannot interpret it for either side and I cannot interpret it for you Mr Brownlee. It is a matter for you to sort out with those who have impugned you and I wish you would do that. I am sure the other party would be happy to talk to you and settle it. We should not need to come to this.
Hartley Ann: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16212] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am ruling on the point of order. It is my call to make and I am now asking “to the contrary”. I have not yet heard that response. 
Opposition Members 
: No! 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Ayes have it.
Cosgrove Clayton: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7765] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call and in response to Mr Worth’s contribution simply say that as we debate the title of this bill I think it is worth getting on the record this concept. Someone who holds a passport or citizenship of a foreign power is not an official representative of or an official advocate for that foreign power. I ask the member who has just spoken to reflect on that with regard to his position. I think there should be a higher standard for official representatives. He is an appointed diplomatic advocate who holds a warrant for a foreign power and he is charged with representing and advocating for a foreign nation as well as with being a member of this Parliament. On that point I conclude.
Vote: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Vote: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16378] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 3 (Copeland Smith Turner); Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 24; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 5 (Adams Alexander Baldock Dunne Ogilvy). 
Bill read a first time.
Hughes Darren: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21353] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19305] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think we have an obligation to inform the media on whether they can or cannot take pictures of the fact that the Government back-bench seats are empty. It is no good holding them up for breaking some rule next week if the rule does not apply. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The media understand the rules I am sure.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote Personal Explanations—Interjections Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members for their comments. The first point to make is that there is no right to know on a point of order who has shadow responsibilities. That is not a matter for the Speaker. 
The matter raised about addressing members correctly is one that members will of course know and I am sure note has been taken of that point by all members. 
Mr Field may have been interviewed by the police yesterday; however as I understand it that interview did not last for 24 hours and it is not for the Speaker to inquire into how members spent their time away from the House. It is for him as a member to inform the proxy holder if he was not performing his public business if he was not attending to family business or if he was not ill. The member informed the Government whip that he could exercise the proxy in accordance with the Standing Order and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter. I just add however that I shall be meeting with Mr Field after question time to clarify the position.
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:20980] 
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 16(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraphs (a) and (b).
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4923] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the a 
mendments recommended by the Maori Affairs Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes63 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Question agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives Japan 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives Japan 
[Volume:610;Page:7553] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the House of Representatives Japan led by Mr Kozo Watanabe Vice-Speaker is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that the Vice-Speaker be accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that he and his colleagues in the gallery be welcomed to the House. 
Mr Kozo Watanabe accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.