edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:610;Page:7874] 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Maori Language—Interpretation 
Points of Order — Maori Language—Interpretation 
[Volume:615;Page:11435] 
Points of Order 
Maori Language—Interpretation 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the last sitting day during question No. 11 the House got into some difficulty with regard to a question to Minister Horomia. You undertook to reflect on it over the weekend. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is quite a complicated matter. I am dealing with it this afternoon and I will make a ruling tomorrow.
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8795] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I share the concern of the member but given that my integrity had been challenged and that the challenge had been specifically put to me across the House to table the minutes and that most importantly I did so by seeking leave of the House—the House can give leave for anything—I therefore tabled the minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is right. I do not need any further assistance on this issue.
Burton Mark: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Burton Mark: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18701] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 That was Pansy Wong from the National Party. One does have to admire anyone from National who can speak for 10 minutes trying to explain National’s position—because of course it has so many positions—and say nothing. The criticism of the Government— 
Pansy Wong 
: You did not listen. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I listened very carefully to the member and Pansy should pay me the same courtesy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister should use the member’s full name. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member’s critique at best seems to be that this Government when it has something to say to people has the gall to be upfront look people in the face and say: “There’s something to do and it needs to be resourced. We’ve got to fund it and here’s how we’re going to do it.” That is the criticism—as opposed to National’s strategy which is: “We’re going to spend more on everything but we’re going to tax less and we’re not telling you where the money’s coming from and anyway we’d better be careful because the leader Dr Brash doesn’t say much any more.” 
Don Brash has not flip-flopped in the last week and a half because he has not said anything. He has not done anything. He has sat in the House like a vegetable. I have been here only 11 years and you Mr Assistant Speaker have been here a little longer—but I should not bring you into the debate so I will not. But I have to tell my colleagues that in my 11¼ years in Parliament I cannot recall any Leader of the Opposition coming to the House plonking himself in his chair and saying nothing—not a question not a word not even an interjection. 
Government Member 
: Was he awake? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do not know whether he was awake. I presume he was. 
This bill is about fairness and security. It is about providing a more secure funding base for those things that we all know have to be done. I am pleased to support the progress of the bill.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3918] 
12.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Official Development Assistance) 
: What recent decisions has she made about funding New Zealand non-governmental organisations which work in emergency situations? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Official Development Assistance)) 
: 
 Last month I approved an increase in funding of over $1 million for New Zealand non-governmental organisations working in emergency situations abroad. This follows on from a decision made by this Government in 2000 giving New Zealand non-governmental organisations access to additional funding available through the Emergency Disaster Relief Fund. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What kind of work do New Zealand non-governmental organisations undertake overseas and why is it so important? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: New Zealand non-governmental organisations contribute to a wide range of emergency and disaster relief efforts overseas including cyclone relief in the Pacific and landmine education in Afghanistan. Non-governmental organisations play a unique role in emergency assistance as they work directly and often quickly with local communities. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: When will the Government use the full range of non-governmental agencies to deal with the most critical issue in the South Pacific which is the failing state of the Solomons? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: At the moment I have in front of me a paper which I have been trying to read during question time on working with unilateral organisations to deal with exactly that situation in the Solomons. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What support does the Government provide to non-governmental organisations undertaking development once the immediate emergency or disaster has passed? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Government provides over $15 million a year to non-governmental organisations that work in poor and developing communities all around the world. That is particularly pertinent at this time given the current situation in Iraq. Should war eventuate in Iraq we have already stated that New Zealand will contribute to any post-conflict relief effort in Iraq.
Vote: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9575] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Heather Roy to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “and Rehabilitation”.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16286] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14312] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I just want clarification of the number of speaking spots for each speaker. I understand that normally we would be able to have more than two. You indicated that each member could make a maximum of only two speeches. I seek clarification on that point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is two speeches on each vote. However the member could seek leave to have more if that was where he— 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: When we look at the categories of votes we see that there are a number of separate votes under each of them. In the first group of votes—those under Mr Speaker—there are five votes. We could have our speakers speak 10 times? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes that is right—twice on each vote.
Brown Peter: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10294] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just draw your attention to the fact that you have given United Future two calls. They were— 
Phil Heatley 
: Three. 
PETER BROWN 
: I believe two but I stand corrected but at least more than one whilst I see that New Zealand First a much larger party has had only one call.
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:20971] 
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 11 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
11Court or tribunal must not accept specified claims for filing during restricted period 
No court or tribunal may accept a specified claim for filing during the restricted period.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14880] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 Mr Brownlee talked of “Opposition parties” so I thought I should rise on this matter. The Standing Orders are quite clear. Speaker’s ruling 144(2) states: “An answer to a question ought to be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest; an answer can be absolutely refused if in the opinion of the Minister interrogated the public interest would be imperilled by giving the information sought.” The Minister actually told the House—not today but yesterday—that he will have to consider this matter and given that it is not proper for him to give an opinion now before the parties have had an opportunity to make a case to him. I would have said—taking Mr Brownlee’s point—that Mr Peters knew yesterday that the Minister would give that answer. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that you Mr Speaker should order the Minister to give an answer when it is clearly in the public interest that he consider the matter properly. I say to Mr Peters that for all he knows the Minister of Finance might give an answer eventually that he likes.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20444] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The remedy the member has—and I think that he knows it—is to raise the matter by way of privilege as we did against Mr Key when he misrepresented a statement made by a member on the Government side of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And I am sure that the member can write to me about it. He may like to write to me and put down the details with the document which I have not had a chance to look at.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7442] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member is trying my patience now and being silly.
Simich Clem: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Simich Clem: 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:9968] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That request is out of order.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10581] 
7.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What has the Government done to reduce the costs and improve the processes associated with applying for resource consents? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Many things. Most significantly we have put $5.6 million into the Environment Court since 2001. This has enabled the Environment Court to hear cases more quickly reducing both the delay in reaching resource consent decisions and the associated compliance costs. The Environment Court is now disposing of more cases than are being lodged and has already halved the backlog it inherited when this Government came into office. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What evidence is the Minister able to provide the House that increasing the Environment Court’s resources is reducing the amount of delay in resource consent hearings? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Digital evidence recording has resulted in a 50 percent time saving on hearing days for the Tongariro power station case currently under way. This new way of recording evidence is a world first and according to judicial officers quoted in the  
Dominion Post  
on Monday is the biggest advance they have seen in 20 years. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If the Environment Court is doing so well in advancing hearings why has she introduced a draconian bill to this House that exempts only the Waitaki River from its plan being appealed to the Environment Court; is it because the Waitaki River is viewed by this Government as of lesser environmental importance than others or why do we not have the same rules for all rivers in this country? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. The Minister may comment on two. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: When the member reads the legislation he will find out that the process inside the first hearing of either setting up their allocation plan or making the decisions is one that is more interrogative than adversarial. 
Larry Baldock 
: Given the progress that has been made in the Environment Court as a result of additional resourcing does the Minister have any plans to seek further additional resourcing in order to continue to speed up the process? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. Over the next 2 financial years an additional $3 million will be available to update the court’s information technology systems enhance case management processes provide additional hearing days provide training for Environment Court commissioners—for instance in mediation services—and provide digital evidence recording systems. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table clause 32 of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill which states that it cannot be appealed to the Environment Court for its plan. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that bill. Is there any objection? There is.
Wong Pansy: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16590] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 This part is to do with the various adjustments— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It’s very small and very non-controversial. [ 
Interruption 
] 
PANSY WONG 
: Ah! I am sure members of the public are waiting patiently holding their breath and I am sure the Hon Richard Prebble will make his usual forthright contribution in a very appropriate manner in terms of GST. I am not sure whether the trust has anything to do with GST but I do point out that in Part 4—[ 
Interruption 
] There may be invoices and interestingly I understand we are not sure whether GST was properly treated on five or six invoices that were issued by the Waipareira Trust. 
Part 4 relates to GST and who is supposed to account for it and to whether there is an entitlement to a refund of any excess tax paid. New section 45 inserted by clause 134 deals with the refunding of excess tax. I find that quite interesting because we were talking earlier about whether the Inland Revenue Department can present a friendly face to the public in terms of its handling of taxation issues. Certain provisions apply when a taxpayer is entitled to a refund of excess tax. First of all the commissioner has to be satisfied that the amount represents an excess over the amount properly assessed for a taxable period and that it falls within the 4-year period. But there is a catch. Under new section 45(4) the commissioner may refund an overpayment of tax after the end of the 4-year time limit if the commissioner is satisfied that the overpayment of tax is “the result of a clear mistake or simple oversight” by the person concerned. 
 Once again in contemplating that particular section I wonder about the process the commissioner will adopt for determining whether the result is a clear mistake and how that is different from a deliberate mistake. How can the commissioner tell the difference between the two situations and what process will the Inland Revenue Department employ to identify whether the overpayment of tax is a clear mistake or simple oversight on the part of a particular person? Also during the determination period can the individual concerned really present his or her case clearly to the Inland Revenue Department? I certainly find the use of the term “a clear mistake or simple oversight” quite interesting because to make that assessment actually tends to be quite subjective. What does a person have to do to demonstrate that an overpayment is a clerical mistake? How can someone’s intention be assessed if for example one gets a bit mischievous and thinks of the latest high-profile case being debated in the Chamber involving the five famous invoices? When an overpayment of tax is involved I wonder how the commissioner will actually assess whether there is a clear mistake or just a simple oversight—the invoice might be addressed to the wrong person or the address on the invoice itself might not be a true address. 
Progress reported.
Brownlee Gerry: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18910] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 A few moments ago I raised with the Chair the issue of the use of te reo Maori in bills that come before the House. That issue was the subject of considerable discussion in this Chamber in relation to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. I appreciate the fact that the settlement bill itself was written essentially in te reo Maori and that any translation therefore had to be very very correct. But I have raised the issue of the commentary on the bill that is before us because I am concerned that on a number of occasions members of this House have been told that courts will refer to commentaries from select committees and will want to know essentially what a committee was thinking at the time of recommending that the House pass a bill. The Hon Richard Prebble has said that that is an unsatisfactory sort of practice by the courts. It is but this House is having increasing difficulty with the way in which the courts choose to administer the law in this country. I will go no further than that because it would be inappropriate for a member to criticise the courts unduly. 
This bill sets up a governance entity for Ngati Awa. It is a bill that has received considerable attention from the office of the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia. We assume that that attention was focused on assisting Ngati Awa in getting the best structure for their settlement. Of course their settlement is relatively modest when measured against for example the wasteful funding the Government has sent to Te Wananga o Aotearoa in recent years. This bill will enable Ngati Awa to collect as their settlement about one-eighth of a year’s funding to the wananga. We need to put things in that perspective. 
I have said that I worry that the organisation that once the bill is passed will become Te Runanga o Ngati Awa has it would seem authority from very few of the settled parties—in other words the members of the tribe—to stand in this position. I think it is an indictment on the Office of Treaty Settlements that we have reached this point with 70 percent of Ngati Awa not having expressed a view about the appropriateness and the acceptability of the settlement. This leaves open the opportunity for future generations to say that their people were not part of the process that the settlement was forced on them and that it is not something they are part of. Given that the settlement bill itself will legislate away some rights I think the office has been far too cavalier in telling the Minister that the mandated process has been satisfactory. 
The National Party wishes the Ngati Awa people all the best with their settlement. We do think that getting these grievances off the table and moving on is appropriate and we simply have to trust the advice before the Committee that this bill setting up this structure is appropriate and therefore wish Ngati Awa all the best with that.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17815. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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. 
Amendment agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5450] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I support the bill.
Vote: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16212] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21668] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Simich Clem: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18723] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The matters raised by Mr Brownlee could have been dealt with when we moved through the debate on the bill. They relate to Part 2. The Committee has no power to grant leave to refer anything back to a select committee. That is a matter for the House. So we will proceed with the bill.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3757] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 58 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14493] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Ian Ewen-Street. 
Hon Member 
: He’s had a call! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Sorry the same member cannot have two calls unless of course the member seeks leave. It is then up to the House whether it is granted.
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14762] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13707] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his answer to written question number 1735 (2004) that if the ethnicity factor of school decile-funding was replaced “differences would be minor”; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the Education and Science Committee yesterday that he has not responded to Official Information Act requests regarding calculations on school funding because: “I’ve got concerns about schools being panicked unnecessarily until decisions are made.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that research by Dr Terry Crooks as reported in the select committee inquiry report demonstrates that removing ethnic data affects only 20 schools by more than 1 decile point and that most of those schools have their decile levels adjusted anyway; if so what is his response to those findings? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I can confirm that is consistent with the briefings that have occurred and the Government’s response to the findings will be announced in due course. 
Hon Bill English 
: What calculations has the Minister done regarding ethnic weighting in decile funding that lead him to the conclusion that if schools are told about those calculations they will “panic”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have no problem with schools being told the truth. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister has no trouble with schools being told the truth then why has he defied all Official Information Act requests to the point where the Ombudsman has had to approach the Minister’s office directly to instruct him to release information—as the Minister has said himself: “The Ombudsman has a view that we should have been releasing more than we have been releasing.”—and if there is no problem why does the Minister not just give us the information? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because I have no problem with schools being told the truth. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: If as seems to be the case the inclusion of ethnic data into the calculations on decile funding has minimal or nil effect why then should it be included at the risk of possibly creating some level of antagonism and misunderstanding by schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: At some time I hope to have a discussion with the Minister who was responsible for doing that and with the former Ministers who were responsible for increasing that funding—which includes the member.
Pettis Jill: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Pettis Jill: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11759] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please be seated.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18848] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Part 6 agreed to.
Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15703] 
Maori Fisheries Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 14 September. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Maori Fisheries Bill and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Maori Land Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 254. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This bill has been quite fiercely debated over the last 2 weeks in two different bites and each time the Maori Party has voted and has made it known in the House and through the media that the Greens have been carrying its proxy. I am aware that the Green whip at the moment is different from the whip who was acting on the rest of the bill and I would hate to see a member who has been opposing the bill throughout the process then find that her proxy was not being utilised. I draw that to the Committee’s attention and wonder whether the whip might have missed the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. All I can say to that is that it is up to the Maori Party as to what it does. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22325] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:613;Page:10173] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2003-04) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Child Support Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time.
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:617;Page:13311] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Secondly I seek leave to table a series of letters in which Pharmac outlines its concerns about the proposal for a joint agency. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Yates Dianne: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
Yates Dianne: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8646] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I speak as the chair of the Government Administration Committee. Throughout two Parliaments we have had two select committees work on this bill and I thank those committees for the work they have done. I thank the officials and in particular John Markland for the work they have done on the bill and for being so long-suffering over what have been very controversial issues on which many people will never agree. 
The bill does some very important things. It limits the number of pokie machines in this country it gives local government the ability to have gambling plans it does make trusts more accountable by addressing their structure and it does address the distribution of profits by making that process more transparent and can I say much more fair.
Tabling of Documents — Question No. 2 to Minister 2 March 
Tabling of Documents — Question No. 2 to Minister 2 March 
[Volume:615;Page:11497] 
Tabling of Documents 
Question No. 2 to Minister 2 March 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As many members are aware yesterday in this House I was accused by the Hon Bill English of suppressing documents. I now seek to table a letter from his office to me my reply to his office and the documents he alleged I suppressed—which are not at all related to the request he made. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6880] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of John Carter to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “1 January 2004”.
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:20982] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 17(3) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b).
Brownlee Gerry: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Financial Review Debate — Procedure In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11860] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I put it to you strongly that in asking that question Dr Smith who as it happens was instructed by the Chair to resume his speech and made that comment at the beginning of his speech was simply making a debating point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did he say “Aren’t you still …”? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He did—I believe the  
Hansard 
 will show that—to the Chair of the Committee and began to carry on with his speech. While it is important that Parliament does have a degree of decorum it is also important that we do not hide behind the Standing Orders to prevent robust debate and that we do not stifle the reasonable opinions of members of Parliament because they may or may not comply completely with the absolute letter of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. Dr Smith acted as he should have according to Speaker’s ruling 17/6. Because he did so that should be the end of the matter. The comment on which the Chair of the Committee has hung the decision to remove him from the Chamber is to say the least spurious. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am just about ready to rule but I will hear Dr Cullen because I heard two from the Opposition.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11837] 
8.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What initiatives is the Ministry of Social Development undertaking to assist the retail industry meet its need for skilled employees? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Tonight I will be launching Work and Income’s latest industry partnership this time with the fast-growing retail sector. The partnership is already operating in Auckland and Wellington and will be extended to the Bay of Plenty Christchurch and central regions. It helps retail businesses recruit and train staff they need and ensures that more people move from a benefit into a decent job with a career ladder. This will lead to long-term real jobs. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What if any other initiatives has the Government undertaken to assist industry to meet its skill and labour force needs? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There are other partnerships between the Government and industry. Work and Income already has programmes with the hospitality industry and truck operators and negotiations are under way with the banking supermarket and transport industries as well. By working with industry and unions to address training and skill needs we aim to get another 2500 people into work as part of the overall Jobs Jolt package of an additional 22000 jobs. 
Katherine Rich 
: When there are well over 7000 people in the Waikato region at a time when there are reports of fruit rotting on the vines because no one will pick it does the Minister admit that rather than being a Jobs Jolt it is not even a jobs nudge; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That member could not be more wrong. I have been to Nelson Hawke’s Bay and I intend to go to the far north to Kerikeri and despite having a record low of unemployment—when this Government came to power there were 164000 people on the unemployment benefit; there are now 81000—and a huge crop none of those three regions has reported a jobs shortage.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13021] 
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 Marc Alexander to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(c)prison manager and other required employees who are not required to be State employees but contracted on the basis of ability.
Cunliffe David: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
Cunliffe David: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11979] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker under Standing Order 106(2) in respect of misrepresentation. The previous speaker whom I refrained from interrupting imputed a motive to my interjection in respect of families that did not exist. My interjection was: “Let’s bring families together” in respect of Easter Sunday and I wish to make clear that in no way was I offering a reflection on that member’s family which I am sure is superb. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that.
Tamihere John: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Tamihere John: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12809] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I commend the second reading of the Judicial Matters Bill to the House and in doing so make a number of observations on the speech made by my colleague opposite Dr Wayne Mapp. I am grateful for the sake of students who are still at the University of Auckland Business School that he is no longer unleashed upon them to make the number of lectures that he does in this House with regard to constitutional matters. 
At the end of the day and that member knows it more than anyone Parliament is supreme in our constitution. Parliament today will be debating the Judicial Matters Bill in its second reading. That member knows as does the member for Epsom—they both know—that on a number of occasions there have been judges on a range of benches who have operated imprudently and at times inadequately. They have been managed by court officers and court processes. That is not the right way for a judiciary to conduct itself in any robust democracy. It is important not arrogant—and we have just heard the height of arrogance with regard to the vexatious use of the Standing Orders in questioning very good officials in respect of their contribution to this place. That is arrogance. That is trifling— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may not refer to points of order. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I conclude by stating quite clearly that this bill entrusts to the hands of Kiwis an ability for the very first time—members should read clause 11—to raise issues of complaint against the judiciary. I say: “Bring it on. That is great.”
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18838] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I have to say firstly that I have the privilege of enjoying the support and advice of my Labour Maori caucus members in standing as the Minister in the chair in this important role. I respond to the member who just spoke by briefly saying that statutory acknowledgment does not give priority of right over consent but it does give an assurance of notification and that links back to what I said in my earlier contribution. This is about ensuring that the historical cultural relationship of the people to certain places is understood and therefore able to be taken proper notice of— 
Stephen Franks 
: It states: “have regard to”. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes and indeed they should “have regard to”. 
Stephen Franks 
: What does that mean? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Unlike the member I have much greater confidence in the decency of New Zealanders that if they understand have regard to and are aware of these issues they actually want to get it right. I really do believe Kiwis want to get it right want to be fair want to be decent and want to do what is right. This is simply a provision that ensures that unintended mistakes are not repeated in the future.
Hughes Darren: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5324] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). I believe that the issues covered in this bill have been debated and that they have been before Parliament for a very long time. They have been discussed quite considerably. We have had people discuss the changes that they think should be made to the Resource Management Act. As my colleague David Parker says the changes brought forward by this amendment strike a very good balance bringing together environmental concerns and the ability to progress on economic initiatives. I support the bill.
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8796] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 As the House knows I sought leave to satisfy David Carter’s doubting of my word. I am more than happy to further accommodate the House and as an act of goodwill—I have no obligation to do so because I sought leave in good faith—amend the leave I sought to say that I seek leave to table the draft unconfirmed minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee meeting.
Donald Rod: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
Donald Rod: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21222] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will vote for this bill to go to the select committee but it unless it is amended we may not support it beyond that. I want to make it clear of course that we support measures to reduce compliance costs for small and medium enterprises such as lining up fringe benefit tax with provisional tax and providing a payroll agent. Those policies are just plain common sense. 
Of course the Green Party supports the introduction of a carbon tax. We have argued for it for at least the last 9 years and certainly for the 9 years that we have been in Parliament. But the tax should be brought forward to 2006 and we should not wait until 2007. Its introduction should coincide with income tax cuts especially for those on low incomes to enable them to meet the $4 a week extra cost they will face from increased power and fuel bills. Kiwi battlers need tax relief in order to pay for the increase in their living costs through the carbon tax and it would be even better if they could receive more than $4 a week—certainly more than 67c a week in 2008—so that they could invest their tax cut in energy-efficient light bulbs cylinder wraps and insulation to reduce their cost of living and to make their homes warm and healthy.  
The introduction of an excise tax on diesel should also coincide with the carbon tax. Diesel users especially truck operators are not paying their fair share of the total costs of road transport let alone of the cost of building and maintaining roads. Those users are not contributing to the environmental and health costs that the country’s diesel fleet is imposing on New Zealand. Taken together the carbon tax and a diesel excise tax would more than pay for the first year of the Green Party’s $15 per week across-the-board tax cut and still leave some money over to help businesses make the necessary adjustments to cope with the carbon tax which are contained in this bill. Other eco-taxes would fund the second and third years of our plan to introduce a tax-free threshold of $5000 of income. 
The Green Party is committed to cutting tax on work and enterprise and introducing taxes on waste and pollution. It is time for the Government to modernise the tax system so that it not only generates revenue to pay for Government services but also encourages good behaviour and discourages bad. But we do not support all the goodies the Government has put in this bill to sweeten up businesses. The Green Party’s first commitment is to help those who are most in need particularly low-income families with children. Those who are most in need would not be the only beneficiaries of our policies. Inevitably businesses would also benefit because people who are struggling to make ends meet will spend rather than save any extra income they get in order to survive. So the business community would do very well out of our income tax cuts too.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Broadcasting—Sound System 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Broadcasting—Sound System 
[Volume:615;Page:11314] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I am. In fact I have asked for this to be monitored every day. This is the first 4-week session and we will do some more testing in this area in the adjournment. If members have any thoughts or particular comments they could pop me a note about them. I would appreciate it and I do appreciate the member raising that point.