edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17949] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
New clause 2 agreed to.
Field Taito Phillip: Architects Bill — First Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Architects Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9764] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister of Justice) 
:  
I am very happy to stand in support of this Government initiative to update our architects legislation. It is much needed after 40 years. We believe the Government Administration Committee will do a good job in terms of a proper review and will perhaps come up with amendments to the legislation that will be warranted. So we are very supportive of the legislation and look forward to the select committee’s deliberations.
Mark Ron: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 7 to Minister 18 November 
Mark Ron: Tabling of Documents — Question No. 7 to Minister 18 November 
[Volume:613;Page:10138] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
In light of the questions raised in the House today I seek leave to table an email received at our offices detailing circumstances surrounding two alleged assaults. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Barker Rick: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8098] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22280] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you again Dr Smith for that consideration. The Speaker himself or herself cannot decide on the adequacy of a Supplementary Order Paper’s explanatory note. There does not have to be a note at all. It is a matter for criticism in debate and I am sure that the member will take every opportunity to raise that matter.
Robertson H V Ross: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19385] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2003/04 Financial Review) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for the financial review debate to be the Committee stage of an Appropriation (Financial Review) Bill. The debate is organised in three distinct parts. It commences with a debate on the Crown’s financial statements as reported on by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Once that debate is disposed of the Committee debates the individual financial reviews of departments and Offices of Parliament as reported on by select committees. There is a list of financial reviews available for debate on the Table. The debate on the Crown’s financial position may be fairly wide ranging but the debates on the individual financial reviews of departments and Offices of Parliament should be relevant to their performance in the 2003-04 financial year and their current operations. 
A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. Four hours is allowed for these two segments of the financial review debate. At the conclusion of the 4 hours a single question is to be put on the provisions of the bill. There is to be no amendment or debate on that question. The Chairperson will report the bill to the House and it will be set down for third reading forthwith. There is no debate on the third reading. With regard to the schedule of proposed questions I invite members to turn to page 445 of the compendium volume of select committee reports on the 2003-04 financial reviews of departments and Offices of Parliament. The question now is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Crown for the year ended 30 June 2004 be noted.
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15440] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This includes debate on schedules 1 and 7. Members please note that there are six very large subparts.
Perry Edwin: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Perry Edwin: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3418] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora tatau fellow MPs. I welcome members back to the House for the new year and I look forward to this next session. I would like to endorse the Rt Hon Winston Peter’s reply to the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday. As New Zealand First’s spokesperson on conservation I did not hear one thing from the Prime Minister about this very important portfolio. Then listening to Mr Carter’s speech last night I came to the conclusion that she had left it to Robinson Crusoe—the Minister who was stranded on the Auckland islands with Boy Friday. In his speech he was so proud that he had locked up large tracts of land and coastline. I say to Mr Carter that he should take stock of himself because if he thinks he is going to lock up 10 percent of our coastline by 2010 then I warn him that Maori and other New Zealanders will vigorously challenge him over his department’s arrogant attitude. I say to him that if he is thinking that this is an indication of how efficient he is then the Department of Conservation is in serious trouble.  
The headlines to a very very good article in the latest  
Independent 
 which no doubt everybody would have read state: “Govt’s resource grab dices with sea law”. The article states: “Conservation Minister Chris Carter is likely to face legal challenge under international laws if the government proceeds with plans to tie up vast areas of ocean and ‘no-take’ marine reserves. ‘No-take’ means no economic activity: no fishing no oil/gas exploration no mining etc.”  
Let us look at the effect of locking up 10 percent of our coastline. Members should listen to these facts: New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone is the largest in the world behind Indonesia Australia and USA at 1.3 million square nautical miles. I will give more facts. The length of New Zealand’s coastline is 5650 kilometres. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to calculate that 10 percent of that is 565 kilometres. Therefore 10 percent could be used most effectively to alienate traditional fishing grounds leaving vast areas of non-productive barrens. Where is the Government’s consultation plan for Maori? There is not one and there has not been one. I say to those Maori MPs over there that Maori will be watching listening and monitoring their progress in locking up 10 percent of the coastline. 
 I say to Mr Carter the Minister of Conservation that there has been raping and pillaging of our kai moana. In the past 2 months groups have been apprehended with large quantities of paua—for example a person had $880000 in the bank and had been on the dole for 11 years. That is what I call progress. If the Minister does not stop this locals will take it into their own hands and someone will get hurt. I listened to Mr Tamihere tonight prattling on— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: A good speech! 
EDWIN PERRY 
: I said he was prattling on. He became so excited that he forgot who he was. He needs to consider whether he is the true role model for our youth.
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:6322] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18854] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 16 be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:624;Page:19679] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Does the Leader of the House intend allowing the House to have question time next week on Wednesday and Thursday which is the time when the Opposition has an opportunity to question the Government about the way in which it is running the country?
Hunt Jonathan: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Judicial Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8405] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Stephen Franks has given notice of an amendment to omit all the words after the word “consideration”. The question is that Mr Franks’ amendment be agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10104] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Referral to Local Government and Environment Committee referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee Instruction to Local Government and Environment Committee 
Cullen Michael: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) — Referral to Local Government and Environment Committee referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee Instruction to Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3495] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Certainly the select committee is confined in that respect subject to two considerations: firstly I will be seeking leave after this motion is passed if it is passed to expand the scope; and secondly of course it is perfectly open for the Government at some point to move a motion in the House instructing the select committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is correct. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Minister of Finance Republic of Chile Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia Minister of Agriculture Australia 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Minister of Finance Republic of Chile Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Aging Australia Minister of Agriculture Australia 
[Volume:614;Page:10569] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Nicolas Eyzaguirre Minister of Finance from the Republic of Chile is within the precincts of this Chamber with the Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
His Excellency Mr Nicolas Eyzaguirre accompanied by the Acting Prime Minister entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 108 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 108.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10320] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
House resumed.
Donald Rod: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Donald Rod: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3919] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in favour of the third reading of this bill. Surviving spouses will be pleased to see it finally passed as 800 of them have been materially disadvantaged by the unfairness of the current rules. 
I would like to declare an interest at this point. I was advised on Sunday night that my partner’s mother is a surviving spouse who has remarried and she was pressing me as to when we would pass this legislation. I think Michael Cullen has to declare an interest there as well because my partner’s mother’s former husband was Michael Cullen’s teacher at high school—so there we have it. 
The passage of this bill is being anticipated widely in the community and not just by the 800 who have been materially disadvantaged by the unfairness of the current rules. There are of course another 12000 spouses who can now remarry without disadvantage if they wish. I guess their only regret is that they will have to watch their former spouses’ hard-earned savings frittered away on the sharemarket.
Vote: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7594. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 6 (Bennett P Blue Borrows Hutchison Power Rich); New Zealand First 3 (Donnelly Woolerton Stewart); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 42 (Ardern Auchinvole Bennett D Blumsky Brownlee Carter D Carter J Clarkson Coleman Collins Connell Dean English Finlayson Foss Goodhew Goudie Groser Guy Hayes Heatley Henare Key King McCully Mapp Peachey Roy Ryall Shanks; Simich Smith L Smith N te Heuheu Tisch Tolley Tremain Wagner Wilkinson Williamson Wong Worth) New Zealand First 4 (Peters Mark Paraone Brown); United Future 2 (Turner Copeland); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3421] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. I notice that the Government has reacted very very quickly to public pressure on the Dog Bill as it is going to be called. I am wondering whether we might see similar action—that the transport bill that deals with illegal street racing known as the “Boy Racer Bill” might also be brought forward on the Order Paper so that that pressure group can be satisfied as well.
Simich Clem: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18647] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a well-raised point of order. I ask Marc Alexander to desist from what he has been doing. I have noticed the interjecting too but obviously it is louder at the back of the Chamber than from where I am sitting. I ask the member to desist from making those types of interjections. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is grossly disorderly for Mr Alexander who is in his seat to make a sarcastic remark to the effect that he now considers himself censored. It is completely out of order for any member to make a comment on a ruling made by the Chair and I think you should ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Alexander. 
Marc Alexander 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Alexander has made yet another comment. I think you should now invite him to leave the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I did not hear him but if Mr Alexander did make such a comment I ask him again to withdraw and apologise and there is to be no more. 
Marc Alexander 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Could you please advise me how long I have left. I believe Mr Prebble’s point of order was taken during my speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is right. It was taken while the member was speaking but my finger was resting on the bell.
Points of Order — Messages from Governor-General 
Points of Order — Messages from Governor-General 
[Volume:607;Page:4531] 
Tuesday 1 April 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Messages from Governor-General 
Mr Speaker read to the House messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for various bills. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Governor-General sent us a message before and we listened appropriately to that message but was that to ask the House to afford an appropriation for a bill that has not yet been passed? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has to be done or the bill cannot be passed.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4286] 
10.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What steps are being taken to ensure that accessing Government information and services online will be secure for members of the public? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I have released a discussion document seeking public feedback on four models of authentication. We need to ensure that people registering to use an online service are genuinely who they say they are and that they are secure in knowing that they are genuinely dealing with a Government agency online. 
Helen Duncan 
: Will authentication be required by members of the public in order to access every Government service? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No the e-government portal launch late last year provides a one-stop shop for more than 3500 Government services. The State Service Commission estimates that around one-third of services that become available will need some form of authentication—for example registering a birth making an accident compensation claim getting a replacement driver’s licence. The idea of authentication is not new. People have had to do it for years in order to join libraries apply for passports or join up to a bank online.
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6191] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 19 
Adams 
Copeland 
Ogilvy 
Tamihere (P) 
Awatere Huata 
Dunne (P) 
Peck (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Baldock (P) 
Duynhoven 
Samuels (P) 
Turner 
Carter J 
Gallagher 
Smith M 
Teller: 
Choudhary (P) 
Laban (P) 
Smith N 
Yates 
Noes 96 
Alexander 
Dyson (P) 
Key (P) 
Ryall (P) 
Anderton (P)  
Eckhoff (P) 
King 
Scott (P) 
Ardern (P) 
English (P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Mackey (P) 
Simich  
Barnett (P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Smith L 
Benson-Pope 
Field (P)  
Mahuta (P) 
Sowry 
Beyer 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Stewart (P) 
Bradford 
Franks 
Mapp 
Sutton (P) 
Brash (P) 
Goff (P) 
Mark (P) 
Swain (P) 
Brown (P)  
Gosche  
McNair (P) 
Tanczos (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Goudie 
Newman (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Burton (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
O’Connor (P) 
Tizard (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
Okeroa 
Turei(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
Paraone (P)  
Turia (P) 
Catchpole 
Heatley (P)  
Parker (P) 
Ward (P) 
Chadwick 
Hide (P) 
Perry (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Peters W (P)  
Wong (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Pillay (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Cullen (P) 
Hughes 
Power (P) 
Worth (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Prebble (P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Hutchison (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Donald (P) 
Jones (P) 
Robertson 
Donnelly (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Duncan (P) 
Kelly (P) 
Roy 
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to an amendment in the name of Marc Alexander providing for it to be unlawful to be a client or provider in an act of prostitution. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to insert new clause 9D be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 9C the following cross heading and clause: 
Prohibition on persons being client or provider of sexual services 
9D 
Being client or provider in act of prostitution 
Every person who is a client or a provider in an act of prostitution by any person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to— 
(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months; or 
(b)a fine not exceeding $5000.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16527] 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: What witnesses have appeared in the committee’s “Inquiry into the revenue effects of fraudulent investment schemes” and on what dates? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 The previous Finance and Expenditure Committee heard evidence from the Securities Commission and the Serious Fraud Office on 15 May 2002 from the Securities Commission and the Commerce Commission on 22 May 2002 and from the Serious Fraud Office on 29 May 2002. The current Finance and Expenditure Committee heard evidence from Mr David Henderson on 11 December 2002. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the committee given any thought to inviting John Tamihere along as a witness given his expression as being a tax expert in his book  
Black and White 
; if not why not? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No we have not. That would be a matter for the committee. I simply ask this of the member: why does he not open his books and tell us what he received in Fiji in the scam? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the committee propose to call Rodney Hide as an expert witness in particular in respect of his international experience? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may answer only in so far as the question relates to the actual job of the chairperson. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No As I am sure the member will know the committee is prevented under Standing Order 199 from inquiring into allegations concerning identifiable individuals. However the committee has received compelling evidence in respect of Mr Hide’s participation in a Fiji scam conference including an affidavit. As to the interpretation of that evidence that is a matter for the committee to determine taking account of the appropriate Standing Order.
Barker Rick: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Barker Rick: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10556] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3668] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). This is in order to be consistent with the previous bill which we want considered at the same time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:623;Page:18879] 
10.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What measures have been adopted by the police to reduce the incidence of crime? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that police have adopted a wide range of measures targeted at reducing the incidence of crime. They have focused on reducing violence burglary vehicle crime and organised crime. The statistics released today show police are doing a very good job with crime dropping by more than 8 percent. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What indicators are available to show that the police are having an impact on crime? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Commissioner of Police has released the 2004 police crime statistics that show total number of recorded crimes is down 8.2 percent since the previous year—that is a drop of 36000 crimes. That means nearly 700 fewer crimes are recorded each week—nearly 100 fewer each day—which results in fewer victims. I congratulate the police. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If this is having an impact why can people not get a response when they dial 111? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Nearly 500000 111 calls each year are answered very satisfactorily. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to prevent crime is to increase the police presence on our streets; if so will he commit to increasing the number of sworn police from one officer for every 525 people to one for every 450 similar to the ratio in Australia; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Since becoming the Government we have added over 1000 extra staff. When we look at the Australian states we see that they all have their own bureaucracies built into their own administrations and we are not comparing apples with apples. 
Ron Mark 
: If a burglary occurs and a set of keys to a vehicle is stolen from inside the house and the offender then goes to the garage steals the car finds a wallet in the car steals the cash uses the ATM card at 10 different ATM machines withdrawing money from the victim’s account on each occasion—a crime that happens on a daily basis in New Zealand—why is it that rather than reporting 13 different offences the police policies running at the moment that produce these wonderful statistics record only one or two offences; is that all part of the good news electioneering statistics? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The way the crime statistics are gathered has not changed for years.
Power Simon: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Power Simon: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18846] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the risk of seeming churlish I wonder whether you could advise the Committee. I have a list of ministerial delegations only from August 2004. Could you please confirm to us that Mita Ririnui who is sitting in the chair is a Minister of the Crown. We are having a discussion over on this side of the Chamber and we do not know. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. Mita Ririnui is the Hon Mita Ririnui and he is a Minister of the Crown.
Obituaries — Wayne Allan Kimber 
Obituaries — Wayne Allan Kimber 
[Volume:617;Page:13215] 
Tuesday 25 May 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Wayne Allan Kimber 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 22 May 2004 of Wayne Allan Kimber who represented the electorate of Gisborne from 1990 to 1993. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21917] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — Tertiary Education Savings Scheme—Government Policy 
Urgent Debates Declined — Tertiary Education Savings Scheme—Government Policy 
[Volume:624;Page:19374] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Tertiary Education Savings Scheme—Government Policy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Peter Dunne seeking to debate a decision not to establish a scheme to assist parents to save for their children’s tertiary education. The application relates to a newspaper report that a scheme that was to have formed part of the next Budget is not to go ahead. Had such a scheme been announced in the Budget it would at that point of course have been a particular case of recent occurrence within the terms of Standing Order 373. But a Government deciding not to initiate a new policy if that is indeed the case is not a particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised for debate under the Standing Orders. The application is therefore declined. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just make it clear that the report on which the member relies was grossly inaccurate. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Like the rest of the House I am obliged to the Minister but if he is going to make that much of a statement why does he not make a ministerial statement and tell us what the real situation is? I am sure the whole House is just waiting to hear. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but that is not a point of order.
Carter David: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Carter David: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22246] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The sad thing about that contribution from David Cunliffe is that he is so arrogant he actually starts to believe his own rhetoric. We are talking about the “chewing gum Budget” in which Dr Cullen himself generously promised tax cuts of 67c a week provided New Zealanders patiently wait for the next 3 years. But the New Zealand public will not wait 3 years for 67c a week because on 17 September they will vote overwhelmingly for a new Government that does something about the 41 taxes this Government has imposed. 
Debate interrupted.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8736] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I asked you yesterday whether you thought it was appropriate proper and fitting that you judge the situation you said: “No I will not. The House will judge it and that is where it should be.” That is precisely my argument—that is that this House will judge it. One cannot determine at this point in time that a notice of motion is the appropriate course of action. For example I asked for the police report. I want to know why it does not square with your explanation today.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:626;Page:21446] 
Voting 
Correction 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to amend the vote taken on behalf of the National Party on the third reading of the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to amend that vote. Is there any objection? No. 
SIMON POWER 
: I incorrectly cast National’s vote as 27; it should have been 24. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That has been recorded.
Hughes Darren: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20558] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Interesting points have been raised. This is not the first example of parties doing this in minority reports. Madam Deputy Speaker the senior Opposition whip has asked for your considered ruling and that is appropriate but I do not think we need to get into a round robin submission process on that. You can undertake whether you want to give us a ruling on that and we can be guided by your view.
Paraone Pita: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Paraone Pita: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21511] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall talk to both clauses 1 and 2 and I shall deal with clause 2 first. Notwithstanding the technicalities that may prevent my suggestion I believe that this legislation should come into force on the day the royal assent is given rather than on the day after that. 
But having said that I say New Zealand First considers this to be a very important bill. It is important that the title is clearly understood by everyone. Notwithstanding that some legislation in the past has included clauses that lacked definition and of course I refer to clauses regarding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi New Zealand First is glad to see that those principles are not included in this bill. It just goes to show that we really do not need those principles to be alluded to. It is more difficult to realise from the title that this important legislation relates to the regulation of benzylpiperazine and other party drugs. The manufacturers of those pills need to be able to identify easily and to understand these regulations. We understand that separate legislation for restricted substances is at least 18 months away. We will follow that development with some interest. 
It is pleasing to note that groups like the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand are already taking measures to put into place many of the community-focused measures that are covered in this bill. This legislation will clarify that benzylpiperazine is not a dietary supplement or a food. Since it is included as a restricted substance it is therefore by definition not a food or dietary supplement. That group is therefore taking voluntary steps in anticipation of further regulation under the bill once it is passed—and I am talking about the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand. The association is changing its labels so that products are no longer marketed as dietary supplements. It is also recommending three issues: firstly limiting the amount of benzylpiperazine contained in each pill to 200 milligrams with a limit of 600 milligrams per packet secondly including more explicit warnings on labels that benzylpiperazine is contained in products and they are not to be sold to under 18-year-olds and thirdly developing terms of trade to prevent retailers from selling to persons under 18. It is essential that benzylpiperazine products are manufactured and sold safely. The association remains committed to regulations that will exclude irresponsible and unsafe operators from the industry. 
This bill is an example of an evidence-based approach to policy development and of a strong commitment to harm minimisation. New Zealand First again repeats its support for the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3).
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15931] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand National 1; Green Party 9; United Future 3. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 5; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16183] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17352] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The member is wrong in his first premise. He stated that the debate on Part 1 was truncated. Debates are not truncated. Members move a closure motion and it is up to the Chairperson whether that is accepted. The Chairperson last evening decided to accept the closure motion on Part 1 because he had heard the arguments and Part 1 was short. We have had a long debate on Part 2 but the key point is that it is not appropriate for members to raise points of order to give you the value of their opinion on how long they believe the debate should run. You are the sole judge of that Madam Chairperson. If a Government member moves a closure motion only you determine whether that should be taken into account. Although we value Dr Hutchison’s opinions on other matters on procedural ones we do not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is no debate on the closure. Members should know that by now.
Franks Stephen: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6178] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to amend the original terms on which we decided to amalgamate all the votes into one process to the extent that each amendment be preceded if the mover so wishes by an opportunity to explain the effect of the amendment and in so doing to relate it to the other amendments that would be inconsistent with it. I do that because I believe that it would assist the members who will come to the Chamber to vote and who will not have been listening properly to the debate to vote in an intelligent way and may assist the Committee to make sure that it does not end up with an Act it has to revisit. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The members have already given leave for the motion on the way in which the voting should be done as put by the honourable Tim Barnett. The honourable member Stephen Franks is seeking a variation to that as he has explained. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Ward Mike: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Ward Mike: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14828] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I have a proxy vote against the bill in total. I do not have a vote on the amendment so I will withdraw that vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We will now continue with the vote.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8079] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 1 be agreed to.
Speaker’s Rulings — Question No. 2—Minister's Answer 
Speaker’s Rulings — Question No. 2—Minister's Answer 
[Volume:619;Page:14895] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Question No. 2—Minister's Answer 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Earlier I agreed to look at the transcript of question No. 2. The Minister was asked whether his officials were right or wrong to be concerned about pre-signed cheques. He replied: “They sure are” and then said: “I would endorse their being very concerned about those kinds of behaviours.” I agree with Mr Hide that the words “They sure are” taken alone could be ambiguous but the subsequent part of the Minister’s reply made it perfectly clear that he agreed with his officials’ concerns and the answer did address the question.
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15927] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There were two points that I just wanted to answer. One was the repeated assertion by Stephen Franks that there is a risk-free aspect to the technologies addressed in this bill. 
Stephen Franks 
: No risks. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well he seems to be wavering on that. Undoubtedly there is a spectrum of risk. Although at one end it is indeed serious at the other end it is minimal; hence the beauty of the way that this bill is constructed in that it allows flexibility. 
The other point that I want to make once again is the value of the guidelines. Sue Kedgley from the Greens asked us what constitutes a serious congenital or genetic condition and that of course is extremely difficult to define. Last night on National Radio we heard a discussion on the proposed guidelines for pre-genetic implantation diagnosis in New Zealand by a variety of experts in the area including people from the disability sector. They made a very strong plea that there may be one particular condition such as Down’s syndrome where for the parents and in the circumstances in which such a child is born it is hugely beneficial for those around it. However they also made the point that there may be a condition like Lesch-Nyhan syndrome where automatically the baby will be born without any ability to have a functioning brain will tend to be self-destructive and will inevitably die. A parent who has had a child like that on two or three occasions would undoubtedly find it hugely traumatic to have a further similarly affected child. Pre-genetic diagnosis is a new technology that may avoid such a disastrous consequence. The point I want to make to Sue Kedgley is that the judgment of what constitutes a serious condition is extremely difficult and is variable so it is impossible to regulate a whole list of things that we will ban or that we will stop. Hence that is the absolutely appropriate reason for offering guidelines that the experts can then get on with applying practically. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 8(2) be agreed to.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:616;Page:12330] 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise members that the vote on Mike Ward’s amendment to clause 12(2) of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 78 Noes 41.
Barker Rick: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Barker Rick: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12863] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Mallard Trevor: Motions — Black Caps—Test Win Over South Africa 
Mallard Trevor: Motions — Black Caps—Test Win Over South Africa 
[Volume:616;Page:11825] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 On behalf of the Labour Party and the Government I wish to endorse the comments that the Hon Peter Dunne has made. This is a historic victory. It is one that you Mr Speaker have been waiting for for a very long time and I know you will make sure that this message is personally passed on to the Black Caps over the next few days. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On Friday morning!
Barker Rick: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12362] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. I thank the House for the passage of this bill and I thank the Leader of the House for giving it time. 
Easter Sunday trading was moved originally by Jeff Whittaker a former member of Parliament from Hastings. It was knocked out in 1999. After 4 years we have restored it and I thank him very much for that. 
We have also managed to tidy up provisions relating to the sale of rice wine and to transitional provisions for training. We have improved accountability for trusts and we have improved their democracy and efficiency. 
This is a very good liquor bill and I thank the House for its overwhelming endorsement of it. I encourage all members to turn up to Hawke’s Bay on Easter Sunday and enjoy a tipple of fine Hawke’s Bay wine as this bill enables them to do.
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8059] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe ki te hemana. I am pleased to stand to participate in this debate on the title. Like the previous speaker I have some reservations about this bill and New Zealand First has already indicated in an earlier debate that we will be opposing it notwithstanding that there are some Supplementary Order Papers that we support. 
I think this bill would be more appropriately referred to as the “Make Believe It Is the Medical Practitioners Act Bill” because when this bill was first conceived it was believed that it would replace the Medical Practitioners Act and be in a much better form. Unfortunately the bill is significantly inferior to that Act as a legislative regime for the protection of the health and safety of the public. In part this difficulty is probably due to underestimation of the sheer complexity of developing umbrella legislation that covers such a diverse range of professions in one go and within a relatively short period of time—groups like medical practitioners occupational therapists and opticians just to name a few. 
A number of those professional groups are somewhat disappointed in the bill as it is now presented to this House. In fact some of them wish to be exempted from it. I hope that when we come to consider Supplementary Order Papers some consideration is given to that wish given that we have a 3-year review of the Act so we can see for ourselves whether there is a need for those professions to be included. 
The bill encompasses a lot of people. It covers a lot of occupations and I believe that in essence it covers too much. The bill is a big piece of legislation and although it has been around for a couple of years I think it is too big in its entirety. However I need to concede that the original intention of the bill was a good one. 
The Health Committee reported this bill back to the House with three important and positive changes: a less restrictive though still bureaucratic quality assurance model; provision for a majority of health practitioners on disciplinary tribunals; and provision for a review of the legislation after 3 years. Although these changes are welcome they do not alter the essential nature and direction of the bill. 
I know that some professional associations have concerns about aspects of this new legislation that will bring in untested concepts undermine self-regulation bureaucratise quality assurance to an unworkable extent and allow much higher levels of political interference in professional processes. Scopes of practice is a new legislative concept but it is the basis of the bill. Wide discussion or consultation about this innovation has been somewhat limited. It is untested outcomes are uncertain and confusion remains about its definition and utility. I know for a fact that this whole issue of scopes of practice because of its untested nature in this country will pose some difficulties for many practitioners operating at the moment.