edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 2 March 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister 2 March 
[Volume:615;Page:11625] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 4 to Minister 2 March 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 In answer to a primary question in the House on Tuesday I said on the advice of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise that the cost of an October 2002 trip to Tongariro by Brunswick Corporation’s chief executive officer George Buckley was $4393.34 GST exclusive and that the total cost of the 2002 visit which resulted in a $56.1 million investment in Navman New Zealand Ltd and other multimillion-dollar New Zealand - based investments was $20041.35. I have been advised by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise this afternoon that these figures were incorrect as they inadvertently omitted a $239.50 reimbursement to Brunswick Corporation for a deposit paid to the Tongariro Lodge. The correct figures should have been $4632.84 and $20280.85 respectively. In response to a supplementary question I said that Navman had created 200 jobs in this country. I am now advised that the number of jobs created by Navman following the investment by Brunswick Corporation is actually more than 200 but that number consists of 63 jobs created in New Zealand with the balance of jobs in France Italy Belgium and Germany where Navman has since opened offices and in Australia the United States and the United Kingdom where Navman has expanded its existing offices. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I seek the assurance of the Minister that he will also be correcting his written replies to questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Jim Anderton indicated “Yes” to that.
Visitors — Professor Dr Herta Daubler-Gmelin 
Visitors — Professor Dr Herta Daubler-Gmelin 
[Volume:606;Page:3975] 
Wednesday 5 March 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Professor Dr Herta Daubler-Gmelin 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Professor Dr Herta Daubler-Gmelin Chair of the Committee for Consumer Protection Food and Agriculture from the Federal Republic of Germany is present in the gallery. I am sure she should be welcomed.
Prebble Richard: Business Statement 
Prebble Richard: Business Statement 
[Volume:612;Page:9249] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the two old parties are going to have that conversation then let me make it clear to the Leader of the House that under previous Governments there has been an understanding that there would be question time. The ACT party will most certainly not agree to have our debates guillotined just for question time. A true Parliament supported by a decent Opposition would insist that in return for an urgency motion there would be question time; so it is really Mr Dunne is it not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. It is a statement made to the House.
Vote: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3891] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 45 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Carter Chris: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Carter Chris: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:624;Page:19544] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 In question time today I said that I had learnt about issues under section 363 of the Building Act 2004 on 9 March. I have subsequently realised that I misread my notes and I would like to correct myself. I learnt about issues under sections 410 and 363 in January and subsequently learnt about issues relating to other aspects of the Act on 9 March after the Department of Building and Housing had done further investigative work on the new Act.
Peck Mark: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Peck Mark: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8071] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
McNair Craig: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
McNair Craig: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17914] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 6 I want to alert the Committee to clause 212 “Regulations under this Part”. I will read it out very carefully because there is something very very important in it that I think most politicians have overlooked up to this point. I believe that there are many important parts but this is an extremely important part: it has the possibility of being very very dangerous. Clause 212(1) states: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council make regulations for all or any of the following purposes:”. Members should listen to this: “(a) requiring Crown entities to include information in a statement of intent or annual report that is”—and they should listen to this—“additional …”. So after they have done everything after they have complied with everything that this Minister and this Government have wanted them to comply with after all of that the provision states they may be required to include information “that is additional to the information required by this Act:”. 
Brian Connell 
: It’s an outrage. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: That is right. I say it is a constitutional outrage of gigantic proportions. That is what it is. It is the epitome of State control. It is what Gerry Brownlee was talking about—nanny State coming in and taking control of our lives. That is what the Government wants to do. It does not just want people to have to comply with certain requirements and so on to a certain degree; it wants to go one step further. The Government wants the authority to send the KGB in with its guns and regalia in order to have a look into every nook and cranny of our lives. That is what this bill is about. 
Jim Peters 
: Draconian socialist legislation. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Draconian socialist legislation of the worst type! That is what it is. I have members over on this side of the Chamber agreeing with me on that—because they know that it is true. The members over on that side know that it is true as well. It is a fact and they know it. I want to talk to the Committee regarding clause 212 because despite all the guidance this bill is supposed to provide to State entities the Government had to add an additional clause to it. The Government threw it in when it thought nobody was looking. 
Brian Connell 
: They hide it in a huge bill. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The Government hid it in a huge bill when it thought no one was looking. It was hidden in a bill that is 400— 
Brian Connell 
: 500 pages. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
:—exactly 500 pages long. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How does the member know that? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Because I just read the page numbers. I read the bill unlike some members on the Opposition benches who have not even read the bill but who are supporting this draconian legislation. It is an outrage and it will provide more power to this Government to have more impact on our personal and social lives.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Transpower Financing Deal—Tax Significance 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Transpower Financing Deal—Tax Significance 
[Volume:626;Page:21057] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You raised an interesting question when you said “regardless of the matter of ministerial responsibility”. I think that should be something on which you might like to reflect and give a considered opinion to the House. This clearly is a State-owned enterprise entering into very significant financial transactions that could mean that the New Zealand tax base is deprived of rightful revenue. The question could arise as to whom in that event is responsible. That is the sharp point in all of this. 
A further point Madam Speaker is that you will have noticed in question time today that the Minister of Finance was completely unable to give the House any information about the possibility of New Zealand - based tax entities avoiding their responsibilities by entering into this deal. I think that is the public concern here. It is the reason why we sought the debate. This Government has steadfastly said that it will not sell State assets yet this is a transaction that on the face of it because of the long term involved is the sale of a State asset. Further to that it is a transaction that will deprive some tax base of its rightful revenue. The question that has just come into the public arena now is whether the New Zealand tax base is being deprived. The Opposition has used parliamentary questions to ask questions of the Minister and as we suspected this morning he is unable or unwilling to give us an answer to those questions. Therefore it seems that a debate would be a way in which the Minister may be brought to account. 
We accept Madam Speaker that you have made a ruling for today but I do not think that this will be the end of this particular matter. We would like you to consider the question I raised at the start of the point of order about who is responsible in this case. Surely it should not be at the discretion of a Minister to say that an issue is operational and that therefore he has nothing to do with it. We do know that this matter went to Cabinet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member may have misunderstood me when I was reading the ruling so I will repeat it. I said: “Regardless of the matter of ministerial responsibility—that is whether the financing deal is a particular case of recent occurrence—I do not consider that the taxation implications of it require the immediate attention of the House.” It was the latter point upon which the ruling was made. I thank the member for his comments.
Duynhoven Harry: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19906] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Railways Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
McNair Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16580] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I appreciate getting the call because this is a very important bill and I believe that this is a very very important part. 
I want to ask the Minister in the chair a question and to see what his response is. Before I was shut off last time I was starting to elaborate on the fact that when the Government first introduced the 19.5 percent tax rate for certain Maori authorities I had introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to make that rate available to all New Zealand organisations or outfits similar to the concept that the Government had put in the legislation. The question I will ask the Minister and I am sure he is able to answer it is whether if I introduce that same Supplementary Order Paper again it will go to the vote or be subject to the financial veto. That is a question I am hoping the Minister will answer for me because I think it is very important that the Government addresses this issue and at least fronts up to the fact that it was a very reasonable Supplementary Order Paper that I put up on behalf of New Zealand First to make this tax advantage available to all New Zealand authorities of a similar type in a similar circumstance. Instead of the Government spending taxpayers’ money on a whole lot of other issues and projects like the arts hip-hop trips or $21 million on advertising the Government’s Working for Families package it could put more money in the pockets of New Zealand authorities that would be available to all New Zealand races not just to Maori. We do not have a problem with Maori authorities having this tax break—we are for it. But we also want to make it available to all New Zealanders. 
As well as allowing more money to be put indirectly into the pockets of New Zealanders by allowing my Supplementary Order Paper the Government could also be helping couples get into their first houses. That is another issue but it is by the by. I am just hoping the Minister will be able to answer my question. If I put up a Supplementary Order Paper making this tax concession available to all New Zealanders will the Minister veto it with his powers of financial veto?
Visitors — Islamic Republic of Pakistan—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Visitors — Islamic Republic of Pakistan—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
[Volume:625;Page:20573] 
Tuesday 17 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Khurshid M Kasuri Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish to welcome him.
Brown Peter: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13283] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just as a point of clarification will you confirm that new Part 3A is embraced in this Part 1 or is it separate? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is clear from the bill that it is in this part. New Part 3A is part of clause 8 in Part 1.
Pettis Jill: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Pettis Jill: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10860] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Given that we are probably 30 seconds away from the House rising I seek leave that the House adjourns early in view of the very good progress we have made today.
Hartley Ann: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14235] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Keith Locke was speaking. He is not here. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Madam Speaker—
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9967] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move  
That the order of the day for the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Health Committee 
.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21397] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 96 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 23 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Points of Order — David McGee—Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Points of Order — David McGee—Clerk of the House of Representatives 
[Volume:627;Page:22163] 
Points of Order 
David McGee—Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps I could use this moment to take the liberty of referring to the fact that yesterday Mr David McGee achieved the position of being the Clerk of the House for some 20 years. Perhaps colleagues might like to join me in noting that fact.
Locke Keith: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19089] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to have Nandor Tanczos’ amendments put during this vote. There was an objection from the Chair to this course of action. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think that we have now agreed that they will be put.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:5038] 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: How much does the Government invest through the New Zealand Economy Research Fund and how has the level of this investment changed in recent years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Since assuming office this Government has strongly supported this excellent fund established by my excellent predecessor Maurice Williamson. New funding has more than trebled over that time and some existing funding has been shifted across. In all the fund has grown from $5 million to $55 million in 3 short years. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What are some tangible results from this investment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are many and they are coming thick and fast. In the last 3 years for example New Zealand science has made huge strides in identifying how genes control heart-muscle growth how chemical technology can improve the properties of paint and how we recognise speech. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Given that  
Forced 
 told the  
New Zealand Herald  
in January: “There is little hard evidence that the public investment in RST is driving high and sustainable economic growth.” what hard and objective evidence can he give that his Government’s nerve for investment will drive high and sustainable economic growth? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One answer is international comparisons. It is very clear that those countries that invest in research and development put themselves on to a growth path better than those that do not. The second answer is the foundation’s own progress and achievement reports which have been instituted since I have been the Minister and which are progressively showing firmer and firmer—but still not firm enough—data on the linkages. 
Rod Donald 
: How much of the fund has been allocated to date to support the development of renewable energy technologies and if none has been will any funds be made available for this purpose in the near future to help address New Zealand’s energy problems? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not know the answer to the first question. The answer to the second is that the new Economy Research Fund is given out on the basis of the quality and relevance of the bid not on some predetermined predilection for some technology.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed Bill—Availability of Supplementary Order Paper 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed Bill—Availability of Supplementary Order Paper 
[Volume:621;Page:16875] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it would be worth the House taking a moment for the Leader of the House to explain exactly what he means by a redline version of the bill that would be as the select committee might have reported back. The fact is that the select committee did not report back.
Burton Mark: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12416] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Indeed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised that members can seek leave in relation to the Committee stage but the Government notice of motion is another issue. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If I can clarify I am indicating to the Committee that once we return to the House I will seek further leave from the House to complete that intention. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Robertson H V Ross: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8212] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that. Could the Sergeant-at-Arms check that out please. I call the honourable member Steve Chadwick. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was not here at the commencement of this debate but you took Mr Dunne’s call as the third speaker in this debate. He spoke after Lockwood Smith Mr Carter having opened for the Government. With respect we will not accept that order in this House on such a critical issue—an issue that this party has staked its reputation on and campaigned on and one about which there is a lot of interest in this country. Mr Dunne’s party did not get third in the last election. We did and we will not accept you or your senior making up the rules as you go along. 
I was here when the first MMP Parliament was started and when Peter Tapsell was in the Chair as the then Speaker of this House. I know full well what the rules were then. They did not go on the idea that one could somehow conveniently sell or give away one’s spot—most certainly not under an MMP Parliament. Just in case anybody has forgotten I can recall when there was— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just make the point that the point of order should be terse and to the point. That is in Standing Order 84(3). 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no my point of order is very serious and I will not give it up like that. We will not have the people’s will set at the last election changed by this Parliament or by anybody inside it. That goes to the heart of this democracy—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to rule on this. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have not finished yet. I have one last point to make to you. My last point is this. In this Parliament there used to be the right to concede a part of one’s speech for a colleague and I know full well when that happened—in 1995. This Parliament through its Speaker decided to rule that out. Now this is a very very important issue. This Parliament decided that that could not be done even though other Parliaments allow a member to yield and the time to be given over to a colleague. Now of course that has all been changed again so parties can make their arrangements internally and we have not argued against that. If the Greens want to run their two speakers in a 10-minute slot of 5 minutes each that is fine by us. That does not foreclose on the 2002 election results. But this decision today does do that. I am outraged and insulted that on an issue that is so important to New Zealand First and given that we were third at the last election Mr Dunne should be the third speaker in this debate—or be way above the New Zealand First position. That is wrong.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20256] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill — Third Reading 
Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8805] 
Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill 
Third Reading 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Business of the House Allocation of Questions 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Business of the House Allocation of Questions 
[Volume:606;Page:3901] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a question with the Leader of the House. Having approached the Clerk’s Office about the format for tomorrow in respect of member’s day and the Budget Policy Statement debate we were told that the ordinary debate for members will go on. However having read Chen Palmer and Partners’ latest epistle of 28 February I find on page 2 that on Wednesday a 2-hour debate will be held on the Budget Policy Statement. We would like to know what is going on and how it is that that firm knows before the rest of us. Perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us what will happen tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is automatic under the Standing Orders if the member would care to consult them.
Simich Clem: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15862] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. The member is quite right. There are two sets of amendments and that is what the typescript amendments refer to. There are the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 and the typescript amendments. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That is what you refer to as the typescript amendments?
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12991] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I want to draw to your attention a concern I have and ask for your indulgence. I know that this is a very comprehensive bill and right now I know that you are looking for new material. A lot of people are seeking the call. We are all seeking to have an opportunity to take a call. However I am struggling with the time frame that we have had with the number of these Supplementary Order Papers the complexity and the detail to get through this Part 1 and to get through every amendment and their implications. I ask your indulgence to give us the time. I am mindful of the Government’s attempt by taking closure motions to shut this down but seriously I have got only to page 2 of the Supplementary Order Papers and the changes and deletions of definitions there are substantial. I ask you to give us the time to debate this comprehensively because some of us simply will not have the time to read through this Supplementary Order Paper if a closure motion is taken. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There will be ample time for debate. There are three parts to the bill and I am also mindful of the proportionality of the Committee. I am giving that very serious consideration each time I take a call.
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16361] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to address the title of the bill. It was originally based as has been said on the United Kingdom’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990. I want to explain that I deliberately chose the term “Human Assisted Reproductive Technology” for the title of the bill. The bill that followed it in 1998 in the name of Doug Graham the then Minister of Justice was the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill. I deliberately put the word “human” before the word “assisted” even though it should be “Assisted Human Reproductive Technology” strictly speaking. I thought it made it easier to say—it is easier to say “HART” because we know that a huge title like that is very difficult to talk about—but I also thought that it is important that the word “human” comes first. We are talking about human beings what it means to be human and what it will mean to be human in the future when we are talking about anything to do with gene technology reproductive technology and human beings. That is why I deliberately put the word “human” first. 
I also mention that in the bill as introduced there were more restrictions around both research and consent. As Sue Kedgley mentioned the original British bill had greater controls and in the schedules greater emphasis both on what happens to embryos in regard to research and on the consent of the people who donate.
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Cullen Michael: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:608;Page:5122] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2002/03 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations for the 2003/04 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 
. This motion brings before the House the recommendations from the Officers of Parliament Committee in a report presented on 25 March 2003. 
Section 17 of the Public Finance Act together with Standing Order 191 set out the procedures applying to votes for Offices of Parliament. Specified information is provided by the chief executive of each office of Parliament for consideration by the House. The Officers of Parliament Committee examines that information and makes recommendations to the House. The House recommends to the Governor-General by way of an address alterations to votes for offices of Parliament during a financial year and estimates for the next financial year. The Officers of Parliament Committee is chaired by the Speaker. All parties in the House except the Progressive Coalition are represented on the committee and the committee was unanimous in its recommendations.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20252] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Cunliffe David: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7325] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 Madam Chairperson— 
Stephen Franks 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I wanted to ensure that I did not get into a position where I was debating or questioning the closure motion but I do ask that before you take the next speaker you consider that Supplementary Order Paper 107 effects a change in the Department for Courts and there will be no opportunity for select committee discussions on that. This will be the only time that Parliament can debate the detail of that particular change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I was going to call the member next but David Cunliffe has called. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Horomia Parekura: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5278] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 No.
Baldock Larry: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14269] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to indicate United Future’s support for the third reading of this legislation. We listened to the debate throughout the Committee stage and did not hear any arguments put up by Opposition speakers that would cause us to change our position of support. The bill was in large part guided through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by the Hon Peter Dunne who has a vast amount of experience in foreign affairs and we in United Future stand behind him in supporting the third reading.
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:20990] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit subpart 2 of Part 2 be agreed to.
Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20353] 
Courts and Criminal Matters Bill 
Second Reading 
The order of the day for the second reading of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill was called. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this bill’s second reading. I thank the Law and Order Committee for its excellent work in reviewing this bill. It has made some very helpful amendments. 
Debate interrupted.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18241] 
9.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has he received any reports on the Holidays Act 2003? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes. I have seen a report stating that the 4 weeks’ annual leave provided under the Act was “a gigantic electoral bribe”. That was followed by another report from the same person stating that 4 weeks’ annual leave should be retained. Both statements came from Don Brash the leader of the National Party. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports on the Holidays Act? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In addition to the report from the Leader of the Opposition stating that 4 weeks’ holiday will be retained I have seen a report calling for the Holidays Act to be abolished. That report came from Wayne Mapp the National Party spokesperson on industrial relations. Given the events of yesterday my advice to Dr Mapp is to be very afraid. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is the Minister aware that the Restaurant Association showed that 30 percent of all cafes and bars throughout New Zealand were closed on statutory holidays as a direct result of the Holidays Act 2003 and how does that meet the Prime Minister’s goal of boosting productivity in the tourism sector? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen lots of claims about what happened over the Christmas period. I have seen lots of people make allegations about what happened. There is no formal information about that. We are doing a report to see what did happen but in the meantime that member has to work out whether or not he is in favour of the Holidays Act. If he wants it to be abolished against the wishes of his leader then it would be a bit rich for one spokesperson to be sacked for opposing the leader and another to be retained for doing the same thing.
Simich Clem: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21448] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9062] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Cullen Michael: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Dog Control Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13234] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The new Standing Orders provide for the debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises to be a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. The debate on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2002-03 financial year and their current operations. A member may have no more than two calls for each financial review. Three hours is allowed for the debate. At the conclusion of the 3 hours the Chairperson will report to the House. 
There is a list of the financial reviews available for debate on the Table. Only those financial reviews reported by select committees are available for debate. Two reviews are not yet reported. They are the financial reviews of Industry New Zealand and the New Zealand Teachers Council. I understand it is the wish of members to debate groups of financial reviews and that the first entity they wish to debate is Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17754. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Pettis Jill: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7313] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brown Peter: Motions — Polish Children—60th Anniversary 
Brown Peter: Motions — Polish Children—60th Anniversary 
[Volume:621;Page:16781] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First totally endorses the Minister’s comments and sentiments in regard to those young Polish people who came here so many years ago. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party joins with the other parties in congratulating those former refugees and the Polish community as a whole on the tremendous contribution they have made to our country. It also congratulates the New Zealand Government of the time on accepting that first important batch of refugees. We have taken many refugees since but it was a challenge then—as it is a challenge now—to get our whole community to fully accept people from a quite different cultural background and to understand fully that they have fled persecution and need a new home. Many of the Polish refugees whom we are commemorating today as has been pointed out were driven from their home following the division of Poland between Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia and they suffered dreadfully in Stalin’s labour camps. Just as we opened our hearts and our homes to Polish refugees 60 years ago it is important that we open our hearts and our homes today to many of those who have suffered harassment and torture at the hands of repressive Governments be they in Iran Burma Somalia or Algeria.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12380] 
11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 on behalf of  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What advice has he received regarding the daily percentage share of the total television audience achieved by the Maori Television Service as measured by the Nielsen Media Research Television Ratings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Maori Affairs 
: None. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister consider it to be good value for the $45 million of public money that in the latest ACNielsen survey which was carried out during the first week of broadcast for 7 days for 24 hours a day and involving 1100 viewers not one person—zero—was found to be watching any of the Maori Television Service programmes. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is surprising since I have met a number of people I know who have been watching the Maori Television Service programmes. Of course other people may have been watching the nightly news to see how the member was getting on with his legal problems. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister should withdraw that comment and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Apologise? He was convicted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What does the Minister think about the Maori language programming that has been broadcast so far? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Maori Affairs is very happy with it. The Maori language programmes that he has seen such as Korero Mai are entertaining educational and informative. He says that even those people who can count to 10 in Maori on the  
Holmes 
 show will get something out of it. 
Deborah Coddington 
: On what date in respect of the Maori Television Service did the Minister first learn that there are two taxpayer-funded Maori television channels; and what action did he take? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not aware of a second television channel having started up. I am aware of a special education grant to assist with the creation of such a channel. I do not know on what date the Minister became aware of that. I assume it was about a couple of weeks ago when that entered the public arena. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that when the Minister launched the Maori Television Service he said it was a key part of lifting Maori culture and heritage does he believe that having spent $45 million and found that nobody is watching this is the best way in which to encourage Maori culture and heritage? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unlike the member I am optimistic about the future of Maori television. Unlike the member I think it is actually important to support Maori language and culture but of course there are many members of the House who do not take any interest in European language and culture either. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the ACNielsen survey data. 
Document not tabled.
Tizard Judith: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8278] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16802] 
12.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent reports has she received about the Government’s programme to assist local authorities to improve their resource management processes? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Ministry for the Environment recently conducted seminars nationwide with local government officers from 56 councils about improving resource consent - processing. Many participants said they would change their council’s processes in line with the advice that they received. That will mean less cost and delay for consent applicants such as homeowners and small businesses. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of support for the central government assistance to local authorities? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes Michael Barnett the chief executive of the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce recognised the need for training when he said recently: “The issue with the RMA is not so much the contents of the Act preventing developments proceeding but how it is administered by local authorities.” That shows that those calling for an overhaul of the whole Resource Management Act such as Dr Don Brash are out of step with even their traditional support base.
Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17917] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I cannot help reflecting on the fact that Judy Bailey was attacked by the Prime Minister for getting paid $800000 a year for 4½ minutes’ work on 5½ days a week but Rod Donald a co-leader of the Green Party just demonstrated to us that he has earned his whole year’s parliamentary salary of over $100000 by producing an amendment containing two little words—“building society”! I thought that was very interesting: if one aims low one gets to where one wants to be. That member has proposed a lot more amendments during this debate that were totally ignored. Those two little words are his Christmas gift from Dr Michael Cullen. At least he got something but the Minister would not give any tax reduction not even a small one to the hard-working New Zealanders. 
I would also like to take up the challenge posed by the United Future member Gordon Copeland. I suddenly realised that he is a sensitive new-age man. He was offended because the National Party whip Simon Power asked United Future to answer the question why United Future supported this part of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. I am feeling a bit sensitive too. Gordon Copeland and I are both members of the very prestigious Institute of Chartered Accountants. I thought that we as chartered accountants understood statements of intent and financial statements. And of course Gordon Copeland and I happen to be fellow committee members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Even Air New Zealand a publicly listed company has come before that select committee to present its financial review and we certainly have done financial reviews of Meridian Energy and numerous Crown entities for as long as the chairman has allowed us to. So what makes Gordon Copeland think those Crown entities would not supply Parliament with their financial statements and statements of corporate intent without this 500-page legislation? 
I want to raise an issue of concern and that is the overkill in this legislation. First of all clause 195 spells out what a statement of responsibility which a Crown entity has to provide should comprise. One would have thought that what it provided would be enough for the responsible Minister to get all the information he or she wanted. Further on this provision also allows him or her to interfere by directing additional responsibility. But after all those stringent requirements we then find clause 209 “Power to require output agreement”. On top of all those provisions requiring Crown entities to say what they want to produce—what sort of outcome—and how they intend to achieve it and to report whether they fail or succeed in achieving it a Minister can have the authority to “require a Crown entity to have in place an output agreement for any or all outputs that the Crown entity intends to provide that do not qualify for an exemption …”. I wonder why the Minister does not just put in a clause to say that the Minister can request whatever he or she wants!