edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22045] 
9.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Does the Government intend to make any changes to New Zealand’s nuclear-free status? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: No. The Labour-Progressive Government is proud of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status and our clear and consistent policy is to maintain that status. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Has he seen any reports of proposals to change New Zealand’s nuclear-free status? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Look on the Order Paper. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes apart from the matter on the Order Paper I have seen reports on six such proposals. One indicated that the ban on nuclear ships could be gone by lunchtime. The second indicated that the ban should go only following approval of any change from the United States and Australia. The third said that no decision could be made from Opposition. The fourth proposal is to repeal the ban following a referendum. The fifth proposal was to repeal after a campaign in favour of change. The sixth and so far the last report suggests that some or all of the previous proposals are still there but no commitment is made to any of them right now. No wonder the national council of the National Party was so concerned about Dr Brash’s tendency to flip-flop. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What is the basis of the Government’s support for New Zealand’s anti-nuclear status? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has consistently maintained a position in favour of New Zealand’s antinuclear status for some 20 years now. It is one of the distinguishing features of New Zealand’s foreign policy and is part of our general opposition to the spread of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear warfare. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the visits of any foreign warship requires the consent of the New Zealand Government; if so can he explain the purpose of the legislative ban on nuclear propulsion when the Government can accede to or deny any visit of any ship particularly in light of the Edward Somers report to Cabinet of 1992 which after a year’s study concluded that there is no environmental risk or public safety reason or justification for continuing the ban on nuclear propulsion. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The legislation does not give the Government the capacity to override the ban on nuclear propulsion. It requires the Minister responsible the Prime Minister to certify to the best of her ability that in fact no nuclear weapons are on board. In the case of the United States of course it has already stated that all its surface ships no longer normally carry nuclear weapons and therefore presumably any United States surface ships that are non - nuclear powered will be able to enter New Zealand ports on request.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:616;Page:12125] 
Voting 
Correction 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 On the last vote on the Charities Bill the New Zealand First vote should have been 13 and not 12. I seek leave of the House to amend the vote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to amend that. Is there any objection? There is not. The voting lists will be amended accordingly. I restate the result of the voting: the Ayes are 84 the Noes are 36.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8484] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to omit clause 75D be agreed to.
Hawkins George: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Hawkins George: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4924] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Veterans' Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The bill fulfils an important pre-election promise to enable veterans of working age to participate in voluntary or paid employment should they be able. Making this change and providing financial support to veterans when they are unable to work and sustaining that support while they make the transition back into the workforce will benefit their overall rehabilitation. 
This bill has the strong support of both parties within Government. I would also like to thank both United Future and the Greens for their support to ensure that the Government had the necessary support. It would be remiss of me not to thank parties from across the House that offered their support for the bill. I acknowledge the work undertaken by the Social Services Committee which is very ably chaired by my colleague Georgina Beyer the Labour MP for Wairarapa and a strong supporter of the veteran community and indeed the work of the committee as a whole. I acknowledge the officials who worked on this bill. In particular I thank the director of the Office of Veterans Affairs in New Zealand Jessie Gunn and other officials from that office. 
This bill acknowledges the special status of New Zealand’s war veterans and the ongoing impact that service in a war or emergency has on an individual’s life and on the lives of his or her family. This legislation is an example of that as it provides assistance while enabling working-age veterans to make choices and manage the impact of their service on them and their families. The intention of this bill is to provide veterans who are under retirement age with a mechanism for rehabilitation. A point of difference with this bill compared with other social security legislative measures is that it does not contain a definition of full-time work. That will allow veterans to work any number of hours depending on their capability without removing their entitlement to a veteran’s pension. 
The Government introduced two Supplementary Order Papers. The first restored in legislation for consumer price index adjustment purposes that the minimum level of the veteran’s pension for a married couple is not to be less than 65 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly earnings. The second amendment amended the schedules to allow for an increase in the rates of pay in line with the increase of 2.72 percent in the All Groups Consumer Price Index. Both changes are quite important. I am pleased that the House supported the Supplementary Order Papers during the Committee stage. 
The provisions in this bill will provide for the future needs of younger members of the veteran population and passing it fulfils another pre-election promise. I am proud to serve as Minister of Veterans Affairs in supporting the passage of this bill through its third reading.
Peters Jim: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14044] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 What a brilliant speech! It was a re-recording of comments made over the last decade by a very experienced member of Parliament who knows all the form and the drill. In fact he was actually starting to worry me because he mentioned the word “vision” and I thought hello are we going to go into another stratosphere here? That is my experience of that party over there that made all those comments about the bill and did not refer once to local government except in a very slighting and disparaging way. 
I say to those members of the Committee who have some doubts that one is convinced by the record. I am talking about roads and about coming from Northland. Over the last 3 years we have seen more additional funding put into Northland roads than ever before and that trend is still continuing. That is on the record as happening it has happened and if that is the intention of the Government as manifested in Northland then I have some confidence that this bill will be a sound local government bill. 
I want to draw attention to the term “local government”. In relation to some of the comments made I have sensed that there is no faith in local government—those who represent ratepayers—and no understanding of the considerable funding that is required from ratepayers year by year. As I said earlier for those who do not with some faith see local bodies as unitary authorities or councils at least they are a democratic process and those who do not agree with the whole thrust of local government—and we have already heard allusions made to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—have got every opportunity in October to register their democratic rights with regard to those bodies. 
 I want to say that New Zealand First supports the title because the greater funding for this bill and for the Acts that this bill will bring into being will come from ratepayers. I have faith therefore in the ratepayer groups doing what they do best and that is to represent their people. 
Secondly there is an intention in clause 2 to begin as soon as possible. If members of the Committee have been following through the steps that are already in place I have some confidence that after tomorrow morning this bill can be advanced in a fairly quick fashion. 
I say again that New Zealand First supports this bill because it is a first step. It is an opportunity to make a move and do things in Auckland that have not been done in the past. Last of all we support the bill because as I said earlier if there is goodwill and a positive attitude these things can happen. That is not just pious thinking; it is the reality of things day to day.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6862] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add to new subsection (5) of section 41 the words “unless the Court deems it appropriate”.
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10315] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Smith Nick: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
Smith Nick: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5699] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the course of that 5-minute contribution by the deputy leader of the National Party there was over 3¾ minutes of continuous shouting from members of the Government. I took note because it was just a shambles. In other words there was shouting from Government members for more than half the time. We are supposed to live in a democracy where a Government can be held to account in this House but how can that be possible when a member for over two-thirds of his speech by my rough calculation is subject to constant barraging? If our Parliament is to deteriorate to that extent we may as well shut up shop. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask Darren Hughes to cease the interjections. They were a bit loud but it is the general debate.
Maharey Steve: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
Maharey Steve: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4360] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 28 April 2003. 
 referred to the Commerce Committee 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after the words “Commerce Committee consider the bill.”.
Tabling of Documents — Question No. 3 to Minister 
Tabling of Documents — Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:606;Page:3651] 
Tabling of Documents 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Further to a commitment made by the Hon Jim Sutton during question time I seek leave to table a document that has information on the Government services trade position. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Jones Dail: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21411] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call but the Minister for Trade Negotiations has provoked me now. Is the Minister really saying that this agreement will allow the Maori language to be broadcast in Thailand that the Maori people of New Zealand will be given a great advantage in their language being broadcast there and that is what he is aiming at? What a load of nonsense if that is what he is saying. He actually does not know just what he is saying. That is the point of the matter. 
The second point regards one being able to take action if one feels that Thai goods are flooding into New Zealand contrary to one’s wishes or vice versa with Thailand. That clause is really a lawyer’s dream because so many cases will be commenced under it. If something like that is allowed to happen it will happen and lawyers will just love it. Can members imagine a smaller New Zealand trader trying to compete against someone importing from overseas and wiping out that New Zealand businessman? The small New Zealand business—and remember 97 percent of New Zealand businesses are in that small to medium sized enterprise category—would not be able to compete with wealthy Thai exporters who want to destroy the New Zealand market and to set up something for themselves in terms of getting money from overseas. That is another reason for opposing this agreement. 
We should not look at this agreement as if it is the answer to all New Zealand’s worries. In the year ended December 2004 our exports to Thailand totalled $364 million. If we had to rely on that we would not be going very far at all. However our imports totalled $659 million. I can see this agreement being rather like the Singapore one where the Singaporeans are doing better and better relative to New Zealand. The Thais have gone into this agreement for only one reason: they have pulled the wool over the Minister’s eyes and over Helen Clark’s eyes. The Thais are going to do very well out of this agreement to the detriment of New Zealand workers and suchlike. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the member supporting the bill? 
DAIL JONES 
: David Cunliffe does not care two hoots about it; he is too busy with his comparative something or other theory. However people like Keith Locke I must say and New Zealand First members have their feet on the ground and are concerned about the real workers of New Zealand.
Barker Rick: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15010] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill is excellent legislation. I commend it to the House.
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13512] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 7; United Future 8;. 
Noes 40 
New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9364] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 14E be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
14EUnited Nations Security Council information insufficient 
Section 31(1) of the principal Act is deleted.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:615;Page:11077] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for members of the Local Government and Environment Committee on a site visit related to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill outside Wellington on Thursday 19 February to be regarded as present within the parliamentary precincts for the purposes of the Standing Orders. It is very clear that no meeting of the select committee is being held during that time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Worth Richard: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Worth Richard: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12879] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We are dealing with Part 1 of the Judicial Matters Bill that National and other parties strongly oppose. I made the point in my first call on Part 1 that this bill takes away from members of Parliament a significant constitutional right that they have enjoyed from the earliest days of the New Zealand Parliament. That is a shame as we come to celebrate 150 years of parliamentary democracy. 
I shall make two points in this call. The first point centres on clause 11 “Who may complain”. The clause in its unaltered form represents a failure by National to persuade other members of the Justice and Electoral Committee that there was a case to change that particular clause. Clause 11 is headed “Who may complain” and states that any person may make a complaint under section 10 about the conduct of a judge. That means any person. I suggest that the only person who should be able to complain about a judge is a person who is aggrieved. It should not be the media or a person in Northland in respect of a case heard in the Christchurch District Court. It should be someone who is clearly impacted by what he or she asserts to have been less than satisfactory treatment at the hands of a judge. 
My second point is to trace through this new process. We know the process at the moment. It is simply that an MP puts a motion to the House for the removal of a judge. What will happen now? Here it is. Step 1 the Judicial Conduct Commissioner receives a written complaint about a judge. Step 2 the commissioner acknowledges receipt of the complaint and notifies the judge. Step 3 the commissioner undertakes a preliminary examination of the complaint. Step 4 the commissioner concludes that an inquiry is necessary and recommends to the Attorney-General that a Judicial Conduct Panel be appointed. Step 5 the Judicial Conduct Panel conducts a hearing to examine the matter. The contemplation is that the hearing will usually be in public. Step 6 the Judicial Conduct Panel reports to the Attorney-General first its findings of fact; second its opinion as to whether the conduct justifies consideration of removal; and third the reasons for its conclusion. Step 7 the Attorney-General decides whether to initiate a complaint. Step 8 there is a motion in Parliament for an address to the Governor-General seeking removal of judges in the High Court Court of Appeal Supreme Court and Employment Court. Step 9 the Governor-General removes the judge from office. That is why I said in my first call that we have established a costly and unnecessary bureaucracy to deal with a problem which in fact is not a problem at all.
Hartley Ann: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
Hartley Ann: Points of Order — Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:615;Page:11342] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member could seek leave but nobody voted. There was no vote—that is what I am saying. So the member would have to seek leave for there to be a full vote.
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:613;Page:9936] 
1.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to  
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
:  Is she concerned that the payment of taxpayer funds to anti-smoking groups for the purposes of lobbying members of Parliament and media to support smoke-free legislation will have an undue influence on the consideration of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: 
 No. I have confidence that MPs are capable of forming their own opinions. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the member assure the House that in her roles as both the sponsor of the bill and the chairperson of the Health Committee that considered it she did not at any stage advise the Ministry of Health or groups such as Action on Smoking and Health that they ought to start lobbying members of Parliament to support this legislation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot answer the question as the chair of the select committee but she can answer as the member in charge of the bill. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: No. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the member concerned that the hospitality industry which organised vigorous postcard campaigns and vigorously lobbied MPs on the bill may have unduly influenced the consideration of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: No. All sides of the debate and all points of view were put to all members of Parliament. 
Rodney Hide 
: Supplementary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have awarded two supplementary questions to members. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very important issue. I am waiting to ask my question. Where does it say that the ACT party is not entitled to ask a question of this member? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is entirely at my discretion. The member should read Standing Order 2. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to use your discretion and allow ACT to ask a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow ACT to ask one supplementary question on one of the three questions to members. Does the member wish to take it on this one? 
Rodney Hide 
: No I will defer to my good friend Heather Roy.
Prebble Richard: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
Prebble Richard: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13464] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I quoted exactly from my  
Hansard 
: “I say to Mr Cunliffe the Liberal Party in Australia put forward a benefit breeding programme where the Treasurer said: ‘This is a policy that is going to encourage people to have kids.’  and what happened to that party’s popularity? It went into free fall.” I am saying to the House that nowhere in my speeches have I said what both United Future MPs have repeated to the House—that I made a statement that poor people cannot breed. I just say to the House that I come from a genuinely poor family and I find the United Future party’s attacks on me to be outrageous.
Brown Peter: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20976] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not want to accuse the member over there of misleading the Committee but I have to say that her performance today lacks the necessary decorum and it has not been as bad as that in the past. A little bit of decorum would not go amiss and a little bit of respect for other people casting their votes would be appreciated.
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18662] 
5.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received any recent reports on Government initiatives which will contribute to lifting economic growth? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Surprisingly yes. Just yesterday I co-chaired the inaugural meeting of the Food and Beverage Sector Taskforce which covers the most significant sector in our economy. It contributed over $14000 million of export earnings last year. The task force will develop strategies to increase the value of our food and beverage sector identify obstacles to growth and ultimately take action to boost growth in the sector. As with other sector initiatives we are working in partnership with that key sector of the New Zealand economy. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What specific outcomes does the Government expect from the work of the Food and Beverage Sector Taskforce? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The task force will establish a strategic plan for the development of the food and beverage sector and will work towards the implementation of policies that will improve sector growth. It will coordinate links and networks between the Government and business to further that goal. Specifically among a wide range of objectives it will develop industry knowledge and capacity broaden product range expand market penetration and market share and increase skills and capabilities in the sector. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why has the food and beverage sector been chosen for additional economic development work? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: We have targeted the food and beverage sector because almost two-thirds of our export earnings are from primary production. Building on that area of competitive advantage is an obvious place to start in order to boost the living standards of all New Zealanders.
Peters Winston: General Debate 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16338] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to give a 5-minute speech on Mr Tamihere in which I intend after 10 seconds to yield to Clayton Cosgrove. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to give a 5-minute speech. Is there any objection? There is. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Hawkins George: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
Hawkins George: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5349] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 It is almost 2 years since the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification reported to the Government. At that time it advised the Government to proceed with caution. The procedures laid out in this bill will help us to do just that. I support the passage of the bill through the House.
Cullen Michael: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10286] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Families Commission Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15656] 
2.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What initiatives does the Government have in place to help boys make a successful transition from school into jobs in industry? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 There is widespread concern highlighted by my colleague John Tamihere that we need to help boys to make a successful transition from school to work. A good example of how to do this is Whangarei Boys High School. It has complemented the very successful Gateway programme through a partnership with local engineering firms called Apprenticeships Work which was the focus of a recent  
Morning Report 
 feature. Whangarei engineering employers are so enthused about the scheme they have bought Whangarei Boys High School $100000 worth of lathes and other modern equipment for its workshops so they know that young men can take their place in industry and are trained on good safe equipment. This example of Gateway in action is indicative of what is happening now in 126 schools around the country—and I am about to announce a number more. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other initiatives are in place to help not just boys but girls as well to make the transition from school to work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Apart from Gateway which will reach 4000 students this year our youth transition initiatives include 6874 Modern Apprenticeships not to mention the 18000 young industry trainees outside the Modern Apprenticeships programme; the $56 million put into the youth transition umbrella services which will open in Whangarei Waitakere Rotorua New Plymouth and Porirua from early next year and then expand throughout the country; and the announcement today from Trevor Mallard the Minister of Education of the 75 schools taking part in the Designing Careers pilot which was a fabulous announcement.
English Bill: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
English Bill: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Military Action 
[Volume:607;Page:4290] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 It is with profound regret that we see hostilities have begun in Iraq. Our hopes are with the innocent Iraqi men women and children who are caught up in this war—a war that as the Prime Minister notes could have been avoided at any time if the leadership of that country had chosen to comply fully with the demands of the international community. 
The beginning of these hostilities reminds us of the destruction and suffering that goes with war and it reminds us again if we need it of the seriousness of contemplating the use of war. The process of disarmament that showed some signs of beginning was only proceeding because of the serious threat of the war that has now begun. We share with the Government the wish that this war will come to a swift end. 
The Prime Minister has remarked on the contributions the Government intends to make on behalf of New Zealand in the post-war period. We ask that the Government consider now the early deployment of the resources particularly the medical resources that it has already promised for the period after the war. 
The participants in this war—our friends the United States the United Kingdom and Australia—have made undertakings about the way in which they intend to conduct this war. It is to be conducted in a way that is highly targeted on Saddam Hussein and his military capacities and in a way that will minimise civilian casualties. Today we leave with them our friends the hope that they will be able to meet those undertakings.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
[Volume:613;Page:10014] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I say that that does not advance the situation. There is no ruling that you have been able to draw attention to other than perhaps the ruling you have just given that upholds that. I was seeking some explanation of the grounds on which the ruling is made. The explanation given last night does not on reflection appear to hold water. If you are making a new ruling that means someone can be sitting in a seat other than his or her allocated one I accept that but my point really asked what the authority was on which the ruling up to this point has been made. To date we have not had an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At the start of each Parliament once the Speaker is appointed he or she allocates seats for a particular party. Any member can sit in those seats and any member of that party can sit in any one of those seats at any time and can move any motion as required. That is not a new ruling; that is merely restating what is customary practice.
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14984] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18642] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendment agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17124] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not raise this point of order and contest your decision prior to taking the vote we have just completed but I point out to you that I have been calling for an hour and a half. I was the ACT party’s member on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee but it appears to me that you studiously avoided acknowledging my call. As the person who represented ACT right through the select committee process I would like some assurance that I will get a call on Part 6 having been denied one on Part 5. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. He has that assurance. I shall do my best to be fair.
Hunt Jonathan: Third Readings 
Hunt Jonathan: Third Readings 
[Volume:607;Page:4311] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At the conclusion of this debate I will ensure that each question is put separately.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3786] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 That is a totally unacceptable suggestion from the Leader of the House. It appears he is saying to the House that if we want to debate Iraq we cannot debate his Budget Policy Statement and if we do want to debate his Budget Policy Statement we cannot have a debate about Iraq. That is quite unacceptable a total nonsense and not a suggestion that anyone really needs to take note of. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not really a point of order because of course anybody can deny leave to change that around.
Duynhoven Harry: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10525] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16523] 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What reports has she received on the implementation of the disability strategy by Government agencies? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I recently tabled in Parliament the progress report on the implementation of the New Zealand Disability Strategy for 2003-04. That report shows that a record number of Government agencies are now making a commitment to address the issues facing disabled people. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What initiatives have been introduced over the last year to promote the aims of the disability strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There is a very long list which includes: the introduction of a bill to recognise the language of deaf New Zealanders; a bill to ensure disabled people have the same employment rights as other New Zealanders; changes to the invalids benefit system that removed barriers to employment; and an additional $23 million that has gone into supporting high-needs children and disabled students. 
Sue Bradford 
: How does freezing the funding for some home-support contracts when the average hourly rate is about $10.50 an hour fit with the disability strategy objective to “Develop a highly skilled workforce to support disabled people”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The question emanated from a report that was in the  
Dominion Post  
this morning. Fortunately that report is now out of date. I will briefly quote from a letter that the Ministry of Health recently sent to home-based support providers which stated: “I am committed to working collaboratively with your association in the immediate term to find a way through the issues and concerns facing the sector.” It goes on to state: “I wish to reassure you that the letter you received does not necessarily mean that there will be no price increases for 2 years.” 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister have a similarly reassuring message for the many disability non-governmental organisations that have been holding meetings all around New Zealand about the cuts and cut-offs in disability support funding over a whole range of services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There have not been cuts or a freeze in disability support services. The issues facing the current budget are challenging but I am committed to continuing to work with the providers and with disabled people to find a satisfactory outcome.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15749] 
9.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What recent reports has he received on trends in youth unemployment in New Zealand and how do they compare internationally? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 According to a recent ILO report youth unemployment has skyrocketed worldwide over the past decade. At the same time youth unemployment in New Zealand has fallen dramatically. Since this Government took office nearly 30000 jobs have been created for young people. Key initiatives as announced by the Hon Steve Maharey to continue to reduce youth unemployment include the Youth Transitions Service which brings together central and local government; improved career guidance through schools; and the Modern Apprenticeships scheme which are all gainfully being used to help our youth sector. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What other data has he seen about trends in youth unemployment? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am advised that youth unemployment has fallen nearly 50 percent since 1998. The 1990s was one of the worst periods of youth unemployment that this country has ever seen with the added health difficulties that this creates. What is even more galling is the party that oversaw that is the only party in this House that does not have a youth affairs spokesperson. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that industry training is a vital factor to reduce youth unemployment; if so what resources will he commit to the goal of one-quarter of a million people participating in industry training by the year 2007 given the current paltry number of slightly over 12000? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: That matter falls under the responsibility of the Hon Steve Maharey. Notwithstanding that I can indicate that significant resources have been poured into the area. 
I seek leave to table a document that clearly expresses that the National Party has no concern for a youth spokesperson. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Ogilvy Bernie: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Ogilvy Bernie: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19420] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I want to talk about the student loan scheme referred to on pages 5 and 6 of the report and make some suggestions. It is very clear that in the year under review nearly 10 percent of the population had taken out a student loan. But more startling in 8 years’ time that figure will have increased from nearly 10 percent to just over 25 percent. In the year under review it appears the total amount of student loan debt was just over $5.3 billion. By 2010 it will explode; it will double to $10.6 billion. That is a huge increase. It is like a steam engine rolling down the line towards us. 
I would like to make some suggestions on behalf of United Future. We have to keep that end in mind and find a way to solve this ever-explosive situation. We urge the Government to press ahead with the hard work in designing a loan scheme that will amount to a tertiary savings programme. In the long term we will have whittled down this debt load and eventually there will be no need for any student to borrow because savings would have been built up over time. 
An article on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
stated the Government had ditched the savings plan but I understand that is not the case. United Future says it is unacceptable that young men and women have so much student debt they will never contribute fully to the workforce and will delay the purchase of their first home and starting a family. That is not the basis on which to build a society and we do not want to see that carry on. 
We need an education policy that encourages parents to save voluntarily for their children’s tertiary education—from birth. For example they could save contributions from relatives and from the children themselves as they grow up from charitable organisations and other donations iwi trusts and all sorts of things as well as some incentives from the Government to help along the way. The Government is aware of this need. It sought responses to a letter it sent out to the nation last year about a savings programme asking what people thought was the most important thing the Government could do. The most popular suggestion from 59 percent of submitters was for some sort of pre-education savings scheme. That is a huge endorsement of a concept that can be developed and worked through. 
We have the examples of Canada Sweden and Britain where Governments put in a lump sum on the birth of a child varying according to parental income thus the child receives some sort of minimum endowment. That money can be carried forward for the rest of the child’s years and built up with contributions from the parents and so on.  
United Future thinks that maybe parents could be given the option of diverting part of their family assistance payment into such a savings scheme. It would incentivise people towards a savings culture. The Government has flagged that as one of its prime issues and we give that support. If we change the culture and New Zealanders learn how to save that will produce assets for our nation.
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5435] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I would be inclined to do that but I must let the debate go on longer than that on Part 1.
Franks Stephen: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9021] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member who just spoke has no idea whether we are attempting to relitigate a ruling. I am looking at Standing Order 301 and I am now unsure exactly what it is that you wish to put to the vote in any event. It does appear to me that the Standing Order requires that all amendments in that member’s name to a provision be put as one question. Does that mean that all the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 151 are about to be voted on or is it all the amendments to a clause or all the amendments to a part? What is the provision to which the Standing Order relates? The provision will dictate perhaps whether some vote yes or no given that all the amendments are to be taken as one question. It seems to me that the contemplation of this Standing Order appears to be that a member can elect to have all his or her questions put as one. I suspect that the drafter of this rule or the practice when it happened assumed that that was all the provisions in a Supplementary Order Paper but I would be surprised if that in fact was the member’s intention. I suggest that you clarify that before we proceed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are dealing with a part by part motion rather than a provision. The reason we do it this way is that other members can have their amendments voted on. Otherwise their amendments could be ruled out.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20954] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to.
Locke Keith: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12873] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support Stephen Franks’ amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 because I think it does take us further down the track of what other speakers have talked about in terms of keeping confidential the identify of those who have provided information to the Police Complaints Authority. It does not mean that the Police Complaints Authority would bind the commission in any way. The commission would still be in charge of its destiny under new subsection (2B) to be inserted in section 32 of the principal Act by that Supplementary Order Paper. But the amendment does put a lot of pressure on the commission in terms of the acknowledgment of the undertaking to keep information confidential and it does allow confidentiality to be waived if there is informed consent by any person. But we do want to have a proper Police Complaints Authority. We want police officers or citizens to give the appropriate information and complaints to the authority and not be restrained by their names being given out and the consequences ensuing from making such complaints being bad for them. The Green Party supports this amendment. It has the best of both worlds: ensuring confidentiality and not restraining the commission in any formal sense.