edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Gallagher Martin: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12255] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. I note that the previous speaker was at the opening of the Maori Television Service. I commend her for being there but the Maori Television Service will not be the only broadcasting entity under threat should there be a change of Government. I call on members opposite to deny categorically right now that they will do to Radio New Zealand what I think they want to do to the Maori Television Service. I want you also to deny that you will do to Television New Zealand what you intend— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I challenge the Opposition National Party to categorically deny that it will hock off Radio New Zealand just as it will hock off Kiwibank hock off Television New Zealand and hock off a number of other State-owned enterprises in this country. I admire Georgina te Heuheu for at least being at the opening of the Maori Television Service. I know she believes in that service and I know that in her heart of hearts she believes in Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand but the rest of her colleagues do not. Although we are hearing a lot of mealy-mouthed words about the Radio New Zealand charter it is all just pinpricking. I believe there is a real threat that right now National in its policy rooms and back rooms is hatching a plot to hock off Radio New Zealand. This Government will save Radio New Zealand and keep it being the cultural icon of this country.
Tabling of Documents — Allegation by JohnTamihere 
Tabling of Documents — Allegation by JohnTamihere 
[Volume:624;Page:19033] 
Wednesday 9 March 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Tabling of Documents 
Allegation by JohnTamihere 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 John Tamihere the member for a northern Maori seat laid an allegation against me in this morning’s paper that I think is somewhat scurrilous and untrue. Rather than bother you with a privilege procedure I simply wish to take this opportunity to table for the House my identification tag for the Hui Taumata presented to me by the organisers when I arrived and worn by me for all the time that I was there. The fact that Mr Tamihere has no recollection of my being there will be of no surprise to this House. He is the man of course whose recollection of the past is so poor that he now has the Serious Fraud Office helping him to remember it. 
I seek leave to table the identification that proves my presence at the Hui Taumata. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Could the deputy leader of the National Party also supply evidence as to when he actually clocked in at the conference? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave was sought and it should have been taken. Leave was sought to table the identification. Any objection? Yes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take it now that the requirement of the Prime Minister—the dictatorial Prime Minister that she is—that I should provide evidence of my clocking in is no longer required. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a valid point of order.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8832] 
8.  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: When will the new Electricity Commission first meet and what will be its immediate priorities? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The Electricity Commission is meeting for the first time today. Its top priorities are to improve New Zealand’s electricity supply security to get necessary transmission grid investment under way and to improve competition amongst retailers and in the hedge market. 
Mark Peck 
: As far as improving supply security is concerned will the commission be limited to contracting new generation or might it also consider how to reduce demand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The latter. If it is cheaper and more effective to meet New Zealand’s electricity supply needs through demand reductions and better energy efficiency then the commission will have this option open to it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that if the commission is required to provide sufficient reserve capacity to meet demand in a one-in-60-year dry year that will increase power bills more than would a solution that incorporated some special conservation measures into the dry year plan; if so will he amend the Government policy statement so that it does not outlaw conservation as part of a dry year security plan? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is confusing ordinary conservation with conservation in difficult times. The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is to indicate to her that the commission is entitled to use the full range of demand side measures available to it including a conservation campaign when there is no shortage of water in the lakes. 
Gordon Copeland 
: In the event of a dispute arising between say Transpower and a local line company concerning the transmission of electricity will the commission have the authority to tell one or the other of them to get on and make the investment so that electricity can reach consumers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes it will as soon as it has completed an early piece of work that it must do which is resolving transmission-pricing methodology. That work must be resolved according to the Government policy statement by December of next year.
Hartley Ann: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18817] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: This debate includes debate on schedules 1 and 2.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18745] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is an issue here to do with question No. 2. I asked the Minister of Education about what was on the record of the House that he had said about his knowledge of scholarship rates. I have checked what he actually said. The member’s claim about what he said to the House turns out not to be correct—at least on the existing record of the House. The response he made in the House yesterday to my question was: “At no stage did I cover it up. I want to make it clear that on the evening of the Cabinet meeting that made the decisions as to the extension I was briefed and I received a piece of paper.” His public statement later in the day is much clearer and says: “On the evening of January 25 I was shown the table that reveals the variability between subjects for the first time.” In his statement to the House he actually said it was the next day the 26th that he discovered that. So Mr Speaker I would be interested in your guidance on when we can get a certified record of the proceedings yesterday to check whether the Minister correctly represented what he said because it was a critical point in the debate going on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is on the website at 5.30 p.m. on the particular day. [ 
Interruption 
] I beg your pardon! I have just been advised that it is on the website at 5.30 p.m. I have to accept the advice I was just given. An uncorrected version is on the website at 5.30 p.m. Then members are sent their  
Hansard 
 
they can change it and then there is a corrected version. This is debating material; it is the member’s opinion about it only. I cannot actually rule on that. The member has made his point and he has been able to make it quite fully but that is not something that I can specifically rule on.
Tisch Lindsay: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16852] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Government has very generously given us the opportunity to have a split call on this legislation with this being the final of the 12th speech but under Standing Order 117(2) split calls cannot be between two parties. We want the Government to be able to take the other 5 minutes of this 12th speech and so I seek leave that that occur. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Burton Mark: Sittings of the House 
Burton Mark: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:14156] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I understand there have been discussions amongst the whips and accordingly I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 27 July 2004. This is in relation to a visiting UK delegation. I believe there has been discussion amongst the whips. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: We’ll do it later. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am happy to do it later but perhaps not with the member sitting in the chair. It has to be when the member’s party— 
Hon David Carter 
: It hasn’t been discussed. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No not with the member but there has been discussion with the whip. I am happy to come back and do it again.
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16675] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is opposed to this legislation and one of the main reasons for our opposition is that it does not do anything new. All it does do is alter some of the provisions that exist in the law today and then go on ad nauseam in explaining what happens in the Family Court today. 
Part 3 is one of the best examples of this volubility on the part of the Government. Part 3 talks about evidence. It talks about reports from the chief executive reports from other persons distribution of reports costs of reports and publication of reports. That is all stuff that one might expect would be in the regulations. Why waste the time of the Committee with this? If members have read the Guardianship Act of 1968 and if they have any familiarity with the practice of the courts they will know that these sorts of things get done automatically as part of general rules and regulations of the court today. The Government seems to be of the view that if one presents a report that is hundreds of pages long it must be good whereas if the report is short and precise it must be bad. 
Currently the Guardianship Act is a short precise clear piece of legislation and we have worked very well with it over the years. Some improvements were needed and the question of opening up the courts is one of those areas. We in New Zealand First have said that this bill should have taken into account bringing domestic violence legislation within the scope of this bill and this Government has failed to do the only thing that is really necessary to improve the current Family Court structure. 
As I say this bill is just a waste of the Committee’s time. It was a waste of time for the select committee and the submitters and New Zealand First does not want to waste any more time on this stupid part of the legislation. I have nothing more to say about it.
Hunt Jonathan: Budget Debate 
Hunt Jonathan: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5781] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I asked—and the Business Committee agreed—that there would be not entirely no interjections but a reasonable amount of interjection. I want to have quiet so the Rt Hon Winston Peters can start his speech in silence.
Perry Edwin: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Perry Edwin: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9460] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 As previously mentioned in this debate New Zealand First supports this bill. There is not a lot more that I would like to say but it would be wrong of me to mention that New Zealand First did not have some concerns with this bill as it traversed the select committee. One concern that we promoted was people being DNA-tested on arrest but as we have heard today that was overturned for the reasons mentioned in the Chamber by the Minister. New Zealand First pushed the second issue—the issue of burglary—in the select committee and we are pleased that it has now become part of the bill. We believe that burglaries are an apprenticeship to crime and we are therefore pleased that the bill addresses the issue. 
Just recently in the Wairarapa a heinous crime was committed in respect of little Coral Burrows. I was involved in the search which for me lasted approximately 6 hours. I believe that DNA will probably play a very important role in supplying further evidence in that case. Even though someone has already admitted to it he has yet to be convicted. 
DNA was mentioned here today by one of our colleagues with regard to the drug P. Again I believe that DNA will play a very important role in the fight against that drug. The positives out of this bill are that it will lower the crime rate—or make criminals aware that they will not get away so easily in respect of some of those heinous crimes—and there will be a large cost-saving to the police so that their resources can be spent in other areas to combat other crimes. It will also prevent the locking up a large number of staff in investigations as is currently happening in solving some of these crimes. Just recently something like 20 detectives were put into the Wairarapa to try to find that little girl Coral Burrows. 
Some very positive things are coming out of this bill and New Zealand First supports it. It will curb heinous crimes and capture within its provisions those criminals who may still be in prison and who have yet to be DNA-tested for some crimes that are still unsolved out there in the community.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:627;Page:21897] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Noticing the controversy that has arisen in the last couple of days around access to the Australian market for New Zealand apples I wonder what the Government’s intention is for item 19 on the Order Paper the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill given that this would appear to be one of the major blocks to allowing Australian apples into New Zealand. Could the Leader of the House perhaps tell us whether this bill would allow that particular problem to subside?
King Annette: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
King Annette: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3965] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I want to comment on clause 15 which as it stands at present provides for the distribution of profits from the board to the racing codes. It currently provides that unless each of the racing codes otherwise agrees the board surpluses must be distributed amongst the racing codes in the same proportion that the board considers are the proportions to which the codes contributed to the New Zealand turnover of the board. That was how the clause was in the bill as introduced. When the bill went to the Government Administration Committee the Racing Industry Board the Totalisator Agency Board and the three racing codes supported the clause as drafted. However during the select committee stage there was some opposition to it particularly from some within the thoroughbred code. So the Government has moved a Supplementary Order Paper that will enable some of the flexibility Mr Tisch was talking about in terms of changes to the funding formula. 
The Government’s Supplementary Order Paper allows flexibility for the new board to depart from the statutory formula for distributing betting profits but it has to have the agreement of at least two of the three racing codes. So it does allow for more flexibility. It is saying that when two codes—for example thoroughbred and harness—agree that there should be a change in the distribution then that can take place. It seems to us that that not only gives some flexibility but also ensures that one code cannot at some stage out-vote the other two codes and put in place a funding that disadvantages the other codes within that group. 
We think that the provision does provide some flexibility but that agreement is needed. It seems to us that having two of the three codes agree gives that flexibility and a democratic approach to those changes.
Locke Keith: Motions — Bali Bombing—Second Anniversary 
Locke Keith: Motions — Bali Bombing—Second Anniversary 
[Volume:620;Page:15997] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party adds its voice to the preceding speakers in extending our sympathy to the families of the New Zealanders and the many others who died in that horrific bombing and whose families are suffering so much 2 years later. We also congratulate the Indonesian and Australian police on working together to track down the perpetrators of this vile crime and bringing them to justice. 
Bringing individual such as these to trial is not enough. As we have seen there will be more bombings until we can remove the grievances that unfortunately enable such terrorist groups to recruit new bombers and commit new atrocities. Therefore actions such as the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan would go a long way to further isolating terrorist groups in the Islamic world such as in countries like Indonesia and reducing the threat from these terrorist groups.
Vote: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20604] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9061] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Peck Mark: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peck Mark: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9886] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Duynhoven Harry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Duynhoven Harry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15541] 
11.  
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Labour—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: How has the Government responded to the claims of dioxin contamination in the Paritutu area of New Plymouth? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 In 2001 an all-of-Government approach to organochlorine issues of which dioxin is one was implemented in New Zealand due to public concern. In the same year the Ministry of Health commissioned the Institute of Environmental Science and Research study the first part of which was released today. Following community consultation blood serum testing was deemed the best way to assess exposure so the institute designed the study accordingly. The report released today shows the results from the first group of people tested as part of the study. There is a second group of people yet to be tested. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: How can affected people or those with concerns that they may have been access advice and help over possible or proven dioxin contamination? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Institute of Environmental Science and Research will complete the serum dioxin study. In the meantime an 0800 line and web page on the Ministry of Health website have been established to ensure that everyone has access to the information and advice they need. Local medical officers of health are available to discuss people’s concerns. General practitioners around the country have been provided with information and people tested as part one of the study will receive a personal follow-up. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why was the incinerator at the Dow AgroSciences chemical plant which produced the dioxin that poisoned these people given an exemption in just the last few months from the new environmental standards on dioxin that allows it to continue indefinitely to emit more dioxins than any other incinerating device? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Indications from this interim report are that it was not the incinerator at all that was the cause of the leaks of emissions. In fact at this stage that seems to have been from fugitive emissions over a long period at a very low level of concentration. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you think about whether that was an adequate reply? My question did not ask whether the incinerator was responsible; it was about an exemption from new regulations to allow the incinerator to emit dioxin. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not judge on the adequacy of the reply. The Minister certainly addressed the question and gave an opinion.
Mackey Moana: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18604] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donald Rod: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Donald Rod: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18732] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I hope that the member could perhaps answer my question as well. I freely admit that my knowledge of Maori is extremely limited but in recital (10A) I can clearly see the numbers 27 and 2003 and I would therefore expect 27 and 2003 to be in the English version in recital (12) of the preamble. Furthermore I cannot for the life of me see 8 2002 or the Maori word for July in recital (10A). I am somewhat confused that recital (10A) clearly makes reference to 27 March 2003 but that it does not have any reference to 8 July 2002. Therefore I ask whether recital (12) in English is an accurate translation of recital (10A) in Maori. Perhaps the member another Maori member or our interpreter could clarify that point.
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18826] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 
61/2 from Speaker Hunt which states that no comment at all is allowed while a vote is being taken.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Alexander Marc: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20976] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just about ready to rule but I will hear the member. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I do believe that the whip of the Labour Party actually brought you into disrepute and into the debate by using the word “you” with a clear reference to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that there is such a thing as common courtesy. Members might like to look at Speakers’ rulings 61/2 and also 61/5 which actually mention that no other comment at all is allowed while the vote is being taken. I think it would be orderly to work along the lines of previous Speakers’ rulings being those of Speaker Kidd and Speaker Hunt. If members would wait until they are called it would help facilitate the business of the Committee.
Tisch Lindsay: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17949] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point I brought up earlier which my colleague Dr Smith has reiterated is whether the junior whip had authority considering the hesitation he showed at the time to cast that vote when he said: “I hope in the meantime.” Did that mean that he had authority to cast it and that the vote was in order?
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:14459] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 4 August following a parliamentary luncheon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:613;Page:9787] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Dog Control Amendment Bill the Forests Amendment Bill and the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). Wednesday is a members’ day.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Assistant Speaker Simich—Ruling Questioned by Member Ahmed Zaoui—Birthday 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Assistant Speaker Simich—Ruling Questioned by Member Ahmed Zaoui—Birthday 
[Volume:622;Page:17421] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you a point of order about questioning the decisions of the Speaker. We in the ACT party were surprised by this and I am sure that other parties will be surprised as well. On 2 December the Hon Jim Sutton wrote you a letter questioning the decision made by the Assistant Speaker Mr Clem Simich. It is a longstanding convention that a Speaker’s decision cannot be questioned. As I read the letter it definitely questions the ruling of Assistant Speaker Simich. Not only that it is written in a way that carries a veiled threat from a Minister of the Crown to the Speaker. 
I notice that the letter states that the Minister approached the Clerk about what he considered to be a failure to have his honour protected. The Clerk advised that there was a proper procedure to follow. The Minister certainly was not advised that the proper procedure was to write a private letter to the Speaker questioning the judgment of an Assistant Speaker. I make the point that we learnt of this letter only because Mr Sutton’s office inadvertently sent it to Mr Eckhoff and then— 
Simon Power 
: Outrageous! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear any word said that was outrageous. [ 
Interruption 
] If there is any more interjection the member will leave. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The letter was sent to Mr Gerrard Eckhoff and Mr Sutton’s secretary tried to retrieve it. Mr Eckhoff then wrote to you about what he considered to be an abuse of the process. You wrote back on 6 December and said that you actually encourage this! 
We would like to know when it became a rule of the House that when a Minister is upset with a decision of an Assistant Speaker he or she can write a private communication to the Speaker complaining about it. I would like to know just how many of these letters you have had and whether you intend this process to continue.
Alexander Marc: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Alexander Marc: Voting — Correction; Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:625;Page:20141] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I was not going to contribute at this point because I thought I had made United Future’s position fairly clear earlier on in the debate. However the speech made by Keith Locke for the Green Party somewhat disturbed me because I cannot see how being born in New Zealand should necessarily entitle a person to be a New Zealand citizen. There is quite a distinction between the two. 
Being born in a particular place does not automatically entitle a person to anything other than being a member of the family he or she is born into. I was born in Japan in Kobe and lived there for a long period of time. I was not entitled to a Japanese passport and why should I have been? I do not look Japanese I do not act Japanese and I have nothing to do with Japanese culture despite the fact that I was born in Japan and lived there for 9 years before I left. I do not understand why any foreigners can come to New Zealand and arrogantly assume that just because they drop a child in our country that child automatically has certain rights and entitlements born totally and utterly out of the historicity of what New Zealand is all about. So there are differences. 
Being a New Zealand citizen is a privilege we bestow on people who come here if they are not already from New Zealand. It is a precious commodity we hold. We have the right to invite whom we wish for whatever reason into this family that we call New Zealand. To allow that right to be abused or potentially abused by people who just front up to sprog a kid is absolutely and utterly wrong. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think my comment is offensive at all. 
Peter Brown 
: That’s the Japanese coming out in you. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Obviously it must be. We have the PC brigade who are obviously upset about everything. 
The fact is that we give residents in this country a huge array of rights. They have for example the right to vote. They have a whole range of rights but they do not have the right necessarily to be a citizen unless we decide they ought to have that right. We should have the right to decide who comes here and who comes here to live. It is our home and it is our right to decide whom we invite to be part of the New Zealand community. This is not arrogance. It is not an abuse of hospitality that we extend citizenship only to those people whom we wish. We are ultimately all here from somewhere else. We have chosen to make this country our home and we are allowed to invite whom we choose. 
As I said this is not arrogance; there must be a sensible balance between the interests that we have in our own country and the interests of those people whom we want to bring in to advance the causes of our country. United Future will be wholeheartedly supporting this bill.
Benson-Pope David: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6877] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Yates Dianne: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17726] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Horomia Parekura: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16463] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Sometimes one is alarmed in this House at some of the perceptions of those people on the Opposition benches. I am alarmed because certainly this is about prejudice and loss. That member is trying to get me to talk for 10 minutes. I do not need to do that because this Government has worked very very hard with the local member to get this settlement to this stage. I am thankful that two other Maori from this side of the House have spoken—including myself that makes three of us—because that shows how much we care about this bill. Opposition members will not even let our fine friend Georgina te Heuheu stand up. 
Pita Paraone 
: Whanaunga. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There is no whanaungatanga there—none whatsoever. I am encouraged that our whanaunga from Te Tai Tokerau has seen fit to stand up because part of this bill is about people up in Te Tai Tokerau. Certainly in each settlement which is not too different from the settlements that that member was involved in we have to make sure we get there. 
This is not just about the Crown telling people what to do. This is about the Crown and this fine Government making a very very serious effort to bring this to an end. That member from the Opposition—who has disappeared like his leader—was starting to pontificate about the work issues that were relevant to the sawmill there. I tell members that for over 50 years Maori have given loyal service generally as manual labourers. They have had no recognition in management and no recognition in the down flow of ownership and the profits out of it. That member has stretched it out. I am amazed that he does not care about the environmental disaster that happened up there in that creek. It has been as black as the ace of spades for years and years and nobody has done anything about it. That member says that is OK. Lo and behold if that is what we have in the sense of representation of all those constituents in that area! 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Shut it down then. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No we do not want to shut it down. With this great economy—with the way it is travelling and is sitting fourth among the OECD countries—I tell the member that he is lucky he has this Government to ensure the booming rural economy in the Bay of Plenty. It has been created by this Government’s efforts. He knows that. This is the best time farmers have had for about 36 years. Thank goodness for this Government! It has kept all that great energy going in the Bay of Plenty. Even the performance of the Bay of Plenty rugby team has been due to the support of this Government. That is dead right. Everything that is going well there has something to do with this Government. I tell Opposition members that we will see this settlement through and we look forward to their support all the way. We pay due respect to one of Tuwharetoa’s members Georgina te Heuheu.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17551] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The first five amendments to clause 12 in the name of Richard Worth on Supplementary Order Paper 314 have been ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 12 be agreed to:
Vote: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
Vote: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12652] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 17; New Zealand National 17; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand National 10; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Question not agreed to.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4362] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I take my colleague Mr Key’s point that we do not want to delay the proceedings of the House unnecessarily. However it is important that every member who wishes to do so exercises the right to debate this bill and we are debating the title at this time. There is a disturbing trend that when we do debate bills we need to be given some idea—indeed the public should be given some idea when they read that this bill was debated in Parliament today—of what it was all about. The reality is that somebody reading the  
Otago Daily Times 
 tomorrow morning could simply gloss over the fact that an aspect that is very very important to the wine industry was debated. There is absolutely nothing in the title of this bill that would give any indication to any member of the public that these provisions which were in Part 5 of the Wine Bill are all about securing access for our wine exports to the European Union. 
We receive a lot of complaints about the levels of bureaucracy and the huge numbers of bills that we pass in Parliament and this bill is crucial as has been pointed out by Mr Keys. It is absolutely crucial to every winemaker and indeed to every wine exporter. This bill is not just about winemakers as the title would have one believe. The title of the bill is quite wrong. If I had thought about it earlier I would have put in an amendment to call the bill the “Wine Exporters Amendment Bill”. Winemakers I would hope recognise the job that exporters do in sending our good products—world-class products—to the world because that is hugely important. We need to inform the public when we debate bills like this one that their titles are entirely accurate. I do not think anybody here would say that the title of this bill is entirely accurate. The word “exporters” should be included in the title of this bill somewhere along the line in order to ensure that the wider public do understand exactly what is being reported when they read the paper as they do on a regular basis and see that “the `Winemakers and the Potential to Export Wine Bill’ came before the House on this Tuesday and was debated very vigorously and very soundly by all members present.” 
I would just like to make that one point: that regrettably the title of this bill does not accurately reflect what these provisions are really all about.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:611;Page:8183] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Immigration Amendment Bill the completion of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the first reading of the Judicial Matters Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I want to confirm with the Leader of the House that there will no urgency during this session. I wonder whether he might give us some indication of when he would expect to progress the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill which I understand is due to be reported back to the House about 9 September. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes I can confirm that there is no intention at this point to take any urgency in this 4-week period barring any untoward judicial decisions that might occur between now and the end of it. I anticipate getting the second reading of the Organisms and Other Matters Bill done in this 4-week session but probably there will not be a great deal more progress than that.
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: 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:10004] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. There has already been a ruling on this. A number of rulings outline that a member may sit in any block of seats that are held by that particular party. I now intend to put the vote.
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15407] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I have some corrections. I actually have what my honourable colleague Jim Sutton said here the other day. When he quoted material about the benefits for the upper part of the catchment he was not giving his opinion but quoting from a study. If the member looks at the study he will see that. 
The second thing is that I have just heard the last speaker show he is completely confused about Part 4. That part in the original legislation was about setting up a panel. There was a board to make the policy around the issue of water allocation and a panel made up of people from the local community to hear the different applications. In Supplementary Order Paper 244 that panel is wiped—it is gone. In other words what that member was talking about—the decisions going back before local bodies—is in the Supplementary Order Paper. In this legislation we are dealing with the setting up of a board but not of a panel. Part 4 is about dismantling the panel.
Prebble Richard: Business Statement 
Prebble Richard: Business Statement 
[Volume:616;Page:12515] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 As I foreshadowed yesterday I seek leave for the Government’s foreshore and seabed legislation to become Government order of the day No. 1 so that we can hold the debate and the vote today. I think it is desirable for the country to know whether the Government does command a majority. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10105] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 7. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10453] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a report from Brian Easton dated April 1997 that states the net social cost of tobacco abuse amounts to almost $22.5 billion. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12997] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new paragraph (c) from subclause (1).
Robertson H V Ross: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: 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:10004] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. I just say to members that members may seek leave but leave has been denied on a number of occasions already this evening. I remind members that constantly raising points of order can itself be seen as being disorderly. When a matter has been the subject of a decision of the Committee that situation stands. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.
Scott Lynda: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15942] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Part 4 which deals with the regulations and transitional provisions the role of the Director-General of Health and compliance is different from what was originally proposed in the first two bills because of the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act. Previously the two bills that were adapted by the Supplementary Order Paper had a quite considerable amount in them about licensing of the actual facilities that are performing fertility services. One member made the point that we have been boxing along quite nicely for all this time and we have not had any legislation in this area but of course science is moving on and developing and there is the possibility that cloning could occur in New Zealand. If other countries in the world stop those procedures then people will look to a country that did not have— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported.
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17183] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and the Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill 
 divided into Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill 
 pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 305 
.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:6030] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2002/03 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
Noes 48 
Bill read a second time. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Mackey Moana: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12149] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.