edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Kelly Graham: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Kelly Graham: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6762] 
GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour) 
: I am very pleased to support the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) and I do so for a very fundamental reason. For years and years we have had good people qualified people coming here but there has been a mismatch in terms of where they go because they go where jobs may not be available. They have tended to congregate in the north of New Zealand—in Auckland—and we know about the problems the infrastructure difficulties that this Parliament is going to have to address because Auckland has grown faster than the rest of the country. This bill will promote balanced growth around the country. Regions that need skilled people will get skilled people. Those people will not end up in one part of the country as they do now. 
This bill will provide what employers want. Employers have said to me and I guess they have said it to every other member of the House that they find it difficult to get this or that sort of specialist person. It has simply driven them mad over the years with frustration. The bill will end that. The regional inconsistencies that Ken Shirley talked about will disappear because there will be a consistent approach to filling a need—to matching skills with the vacancies that exist. So we will not have our industries congregating in Auckland and closing down in other areas. 
The good immigration consultants are in favour of this bill. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s right. 
GRAHAM KELLY 
: They are in favour of it. I shall finish by mentioning one story. I was recently in Canada which was proposing at the beginning of last October to change its immigration laws so that its immigration policy would target outlying areas where populations had decreased. Immigrants would have to live there for 10 years. I discussed that with the Minister shortly after and I think that what we have done is even better. In Canada there is no guarantee that immigrants’ skills will match what employers want. What we are doing with this bill will give us the best of both worlds. I am very happy to support the bill.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17376] 
4.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: How many prison inmates are receiving counselling for trauma and for how long has each been receiving such counselling? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I regret that I am advised that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) does not collect this information in a form that would allow me to provide a reliable and accurate answer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Government support double-murderers getting ACC counselling for trauma when they also receive extensive support from the Department of Correction’s psychological services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As has always been the case under accident compensation legislation a person in prison is entitled to receive medical treatment physical rehabilitation and counselling. 
Helen Duncan 
: Is a person entitled to receive all accident compensation entitlements while he or she is an inmate in a penal institution? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No. Under the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act a person is not entitled to receive entitlements such as weekly compensation grants assessments or payments of lump sums while he or she is an inmate in any penal institution. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that there are some legitimate law-abiding New Zealanders who struggle to get through the accident compensation system yet this Government is allowing payments to be made to people in prison who have committed heinous crimes; how does she sleep at night knowing that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first question can be answered. The second is not really ministerial. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I certainly hope that all claimants are treated in the same way and receive their entitlement as outlined in the legislation. 
Stephen Franks 
: What evidence is there that counselling for prisoners makes the slightest bit of difference to their mental health; is it not simply a way of making them feel better than they would otherwise feel during the time they are in prison? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think that is a genuine debate that is occurring not just in the case of counselling for prisoners but in the case of counselling for all people. Accepted best practice currently in New Zealand is that counselling is beneficial. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why do double-murderers get ACC-funded counselling for trauma but their victims who suffer every day do not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In the same way as has always been the case under accident compensation legislation entitlement is available only for claimants. I can confirm also that the ACC-funded counselling is not related to the crime. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How vile a crime does a man need to commit before this Government will stop that person from receiving ACC-funded counselling for trauma? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As has been the case for 30 years under all previous Governments during that time a person in prison is entitled to receive medical treatment and rehabilitation.
Peters Winston: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5444] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
:  
I asked Mr Anderton to tell me not whether he was here but whether he is here in terms of Standing Order 157(3)(a) “present within the precincts of Parliament”. That is not a past tense. It is now.
Benson-Pope David: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
Benson-Pope David: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
[Volume:615;Page:10999] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am prepared to accept Mr Hide’s assurance as to the comment he made and I apologise unreservedly for any offence he may have taken.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13165] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7795] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13029] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 79 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1).
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9895] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19814] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4683] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I certainly want to congratulate Damien O’Connor on the introduction of this bill. I believe that he as a relatively new Associate Minister of Agriculture is beginning to make his mark in that portfolio and that he is doing a very good job. As the member for Hamilton West I want to commend him for his great work. 
It is relevant that I reflect on a visit I made to Australia the other year during which I spent time with my federal member friend the member for Bendigo Steve Gibbons. Bendigo is a large provincial city in the state of Victoria where orchards and the fruit industry are quite important. He conveyed to me the significant grower sensitivity about any New Zealand fruit imports. I was aware of some of the sensitivities around biosecurity and other issues not all of which I agreed with at the time. 
I draw members’ attention to one aspect of New Zealand fruit exports to Australia be they kiwifruit or any other type of fruit. The previous speaker said that if an exporter exports a poor-quality product the exporter will eventually go broke and the market will somehow self-regulate. The reality is that if one has poor-quality fruit going to the state of Victoria or anywhere else within the Commonwealth of Australia we as a country will in terms of our brand name go down the tube. Quite frankly the previous speaker’s contribution was in my view—and with due respect to him; I am not questioning his sincerity for one moment—somewhat in a fruity way nutty. I commend this bill and I commend it to the select committee.
Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16504] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10409] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 2; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9; United Future 2; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Hunt Jonathan: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17639] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is actually part of the Standing Orders. It can be done very easily. I have already been advised by one party that it will split some of its speeches. All the member has to do is to advise me and I will announce that there will be two 5-minute speeches. I will give a brief ring on the bell at 4 minutes and then at 5 minutes I will give a longer ring.
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:608;Page:5543] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 To the first part of the member’s question I do not anticipate that the Budget will require any legislation or urgency.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:14156] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I understand there have been discussions amongst the whips and accordingly I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 27 July 2004. This is in relation to a visiting UK delegation. I believe there has been discussion amongst the whips. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: We’ll do it later. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am happy to do it later but perhaps not with the member sitting in the chair. It has to be when the member’s party— 
Hon David Carter 
: It hasn’t been discussed. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No not with the member but there has been discussion with the whip. I am happy to come back and do it again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It will be done later? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is agreement. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can see no reason why this matter cannot be dealt with now and I would be happy to seek leave myself for that to happen. As I understand the motion the House would rise at midnight tonight and—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask for leave for the Deputy Leader of the House to explain the matter to me more clearly. I would be very happy to come back at the ringing of the bells tomorrow. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. If the Minister wishes to seek leave— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I am happy to leave it.
Officer Presiding: Election of Speaker 
Officer Presiding: Election of Speaker 
[Volume:623;Page:18951] 
Madam SPEAKER-ELECT 
: I wish to thank all members for their very generous comments and to assure them that the game will be allowed to flow as long as the odd goal is scored from time to time. I did not think it was necessary to do so but I assure everyone that from my perspective the role of Speaker is gender-neutral. But if the leader of the ACT party has any concerns I can reassure him that he is directly in the line of sight of the Speaker.
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 Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before we go to the next part I especially thank Mr Stephen Franks for obliging the Chair during that part.
Alexander Marc: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19284] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not hear one of the comments and I want clarification. Was that an open mind or an empty mind? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think the member heard it.
Pettis Jill: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20999] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I shall take a very brief call because I cannot tolerate the sanctimony that has been going on around this Committee for much longer without responding for a couple of minutes at least. When the previous National Government was in power for 9 long years it let more people out on parole and it never ever built enough prisons to cope with the number of people who should have been locked up. The difference between the National members and us is— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The honourable member is supposed to be addressing Part 3. Part 3 is concerned with four or five statutory changes. We are nowhere near that issue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. The previous speaker did indeed stick to the part. I know that the current speaker is just leading into it. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I was just doing a bit of rebuttal. Opposition members should not try to appear too holier-than-thou when their own history is not very long ago. This legislation will provide victims with opportunities for assistance that they have never had before. I remind Opposition members that some people’s memories are a bit longer than theirs and I say they should be aware of the sanctimony of what they are saying.
Barker Rick: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9294] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill or “ROLD” bill is a non-controversial bill. I would suspect that the Leader of the Opposition sometimes wished that he was a non-controversial Bill but I guess he will just settle for not being rolled! 
The point of this bill is that it is non-controversial and by agreement. The amendment moved in the name of Nick Smith does not meet in my view four of the points that are important about a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Firstly to be in such a bill an amendment must be of a technical or administrative nature correcting oversights errors or omissions—this amendment does not—or it must be to remove from land restrictions that are no longer relevant. This amendment does not do that. It must be non-controversial and have the consent of all the parties. It does not meet those criteria. In relationship the land must be owned or administered by the applicant and on this occasion it is not. So I think that the amendment is in fact out of order and should be struck down but if it is not then we will be voting against it.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:615;Page:11303] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do I take it that the inference around that statement is now struck out of the  
Hansard 
 record? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has withdrawn and apologised and I think that is the main thing. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: So he is able to use the floor of Parliament to accuse an honest man of lying and then have it put in the record of the House? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The issue has been dealt with and it is up to the individual member and the Hansard Office as to how it is actually dealt with. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was aware of course that one could not use that word in relation to comments that members have made in the House. I wonder whether you could rule on what redress members have when someone says outside the House as Dr Brash did something that was untrue; something they knew to be untrue and later apologised for. What redress do we have in this House and how can we draw attention to those sorts of inconsistencies of approach? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The party that is under attack should be able to contribute to that point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just want to rule on it and if the member is not satisfied he can come back to me. No matter what is said it is a personal reflection upon another member. It is covered under Standing Order 116 and members know full well under Speaker’s ruling 40/3 that calling a member a liar is an offence against the dignity of the House.
Stewart Barbara: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11270] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 2 is the heart of the bill. It outlines the operation of the National Cervical-screening Programme. It is really pleasing to see in section 112M inserted by clause 4 that women having their first test will be fully informed about the procedure and the programme by the person taking the specimen. This information is absolutely essential to ensure that there is no decrease in the number of women on the screening programme. We must continuously try to reduce cervical cancer morbidity. 
New Zealand First was very pleased too to see in the Supplementary Order Paper that an independent review of the National Cervical-screening Programme will be carried out every 3 years. We believe that an independent review is absolutely essential for the credibility of the programme because it is only then that the women of New Zealand can have absolute confidence too in the process. The requirements for the review as set out in sections 112OA to 112OD inserted by clause 4 are very clear. In this way New Zealand women can have confidence in the report that will be produced and provided by the Director-General of Health. 
As has been mentioned by the previous speaker and the Minister of Health we have been reassured by Ministry of Health officials that access to women’s primary health records will be controlled and that a member from a practice will be present or will locate that information when the evaluation is carried out. The women of New Zealand can have absolute confidence that auditors will look only at the relevant information. These audits are needed if we are to have some confidence in the system. It does need that check. Above all we want to ensure there is not a decrease in the number of women participating in the National Cervical-screening Programme which would mean a reduction in the number of women being screened. 
This screening programme is absolutely essential for the health of all New Zealand women. The whole aim of this legislation is to ensure that the programme is safe and that all components are safe. Therefore primary-care records need to be subject to evaluation as do the other components of the screening programme. Participation in evaluation is for the benefit of all New Zealand women. New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation.
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:20979] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following typescript amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Hughes Darren: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6850] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hartley Ann: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19908] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to take Parts 2 to 4 including the schedules as one question. Is there any objection? There is not. That is agreed to.
Ward Mike: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Ward Mike: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14828] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have here the Maori Party proxy vote to be cast against the whole bill. I do not know how that party stands on this vote so I will cast it against on this occasion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is casting one vote against? 
MIKE WARD 
: Yes indeed.
Vote: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4876] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 80 
Noes 26 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 20; ACT New Zealand 6. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 73 as amended in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to and clauses 1 to 147 and the schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Hide Rodney: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4046] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think we are in a very tricky situation because I do think United Future is genuinely confused over this. [ 
Interruption 
] I am being helped by the Hon. Roger Sowry. I went over and spoke to Paul Adams and he said that no United Future did not want the bill to go to the Commerce Committee; it wanted it to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think Dail Jones was saying that also. I consulted the Clerk about how the votes would be put and I had an assurance from the United Future Party that that was how it would be voting. That is absolutely correct; I do not see anyone there who is going to take a point of order to disagree. 
This is important. United Future cast its vote as it intended. As it cast its vote Dr Cullen—I do not think it was intimidation; he is not a very scary guy actually—did go red in the face and did start waving his hands in a circular motion indicating that United Future had got it wrong. I do not think he will deny that. Then he started to mouth—I could pick it up from here—“You voted the wrong way; we are upset.”; that is what I understood the mouthing to be. Then he took a point of order to say that he thought there had been some confusion on the part of the United Future Party. The United Future Party members quickly looked confused then one of them jumped up and changed the party’s vote. That is a corruption of the voting process. I do not think there was any mistake whatsoever. United Future had told three political parties how it was going to vote 5 minutes before it voted as it had said it would. Then it wanted to use a point of order to change its vote.
Brown Peter: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Brown Peter: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8476] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I invite the member to table that press release. It is of considerable interest to New Zealand First. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order.
Benson-Pope David: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5416] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is an interim report from one official to another. It would be most unusual for an urgent debate to be given on it. I looked at the circumstances discussed the matter with my advisers and made my decision.
Hutchison Paul: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5400] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Undoubtedly the title of a bill should reflect the reality of the situation. I think it is summed up in the article in  
The 
Dominion Post 
 on 9 July last year that stated: “Smokers and drinkers need not fear sharp increases in tobacco and alcohol prices during the next 3 years” Finance Minister Michael Cullen says.” That is the reality. The article went on to state: “Dr Cullen who increased tobacco excise in May 2001 said yesterday it was ‘most unlikely’ there would be any increase in tobacco and alcohol excise other than the 6-monthly adjustments for inflation.” To be appropriate and realistic there is no doubt that one of the alternative and much more realistic titles for this bill would be: “Dr Michael Cullen (I Don’t Mean What I Say About Alcohol Taxes) Bill.” 
But let us go a bit further and into one of the serious reports that was provided to this Government some years ago. Of course I am speaking of the McLeod report which quite rightly suggested that excise taxes should be phased out. Perhaps the appropriate title for this bill would be the “Dr Michael Cullen (Let’s Ignore the Advice of Tax Experts) Bill”. I can see the Hon Ruth Dyson smirking but that was a very serious comment to this Government which propounds economic growth as being important but does the exact opposite. But let us go on. It is now 11 minutes past midnight and we are discussing this bill which is undoubtedly a tax grab so let us call it the “Dr Michael Cullen (Let’s Grab the Tax Under Extraordinary Urgency) Bill”. 
One of the things that I was quite deeply impressed by was the Hon Jim Anderton coming into this Chamber and saying in a somewhat mysterious and moralistic voice that international research showed undoubtedly that alcohol consumption by young people was price-sensitive. What could be more obvious? But there he is sitting in the chair; perhaps he could stand for the first time this evening since that mysterious and moralistic edification and tell us about that research-based evidence. I think it is quite relevant to what we read in the explanatory note: “The 14-23% range of products predominantly consists of light spirits fortified wines and sherries. Light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption …”. 
I say to Mr Anderton that he should not talk mysteriously and moralistically about that ethereal international research but take a cue from the Hon Dr Nick Smith who used his common sense went down to one of the local establishments in Wellington and found out for the Committee what young people really are drinking. We find that they are drinking Vodka Teaser Ruski Archers Peach Schnapps Vodka Cruiser and Smirnoff Ice.
Simich Clem: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15930] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment is to clause 33 in the name of Judy Turner. It is a typescript amendment to add a new paragraph (g) and subclause (4)(a). It replaces the amendment to clause 33 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Judy Turner to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (4)(f) the expression “; and”; 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(4)(g) 1 or more members with the ability to articulate the interests of children.; and 
to insert after subclause (4) the following new subclause: 
(4A) Any person appointed by virtue of subsection (4)(g) must at the time of his or her appointment hold the office of Children’s Commissioner or be a representative or employee of the person who holds that office.
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5151] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
Clause 2 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 245 agreed to. 
Noes 40 
Clause 2 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 245 agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8.
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
[Volume:607;Page:4425] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the basis that I think we have just heard a flash of leadership potential I seek leave for the member’s speech to be extended. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot seek that under  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 or the Standing Orders.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19750] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The verification is of my answer. The figures are of total police staff. I could give the member other figures showing that sworn staff are up by 500. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: With that clarification leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I want to complete this point of order. The clarification has been given. Is there any objection to tabling that document? Yes there is. The document will not be tabled.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7800] 
A party vote 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the words “except Dr Ashraf Choudhary”.
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10735] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have any argument on this. I have made my ruling. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you telling me that in previous years on the question of a debate on the report of the Standing Orders Committee there has been only one speaker from any other party?
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7314] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16036] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been seeking the call for some time. I have been standing to seek the call even though you may not have noticed. I would certainly like to participate in this very important debate for National. With your indulgence I seek a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should wait and see what I am going to do. He well knows I indicated to him that I intended to call him next anyway. But first I have called Martin Gallagher.
Tisch Lindsay: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Tisch Lindsay: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:624;Page:19544] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is more a request for clarification. We appreciate that the Minister has come down here. He mentioned that he was advised about sections 410 and 363 in January. Then the Minister said that on 9 March he learnt of other aspects. I would like clarification of what the other aspects were because that is a pretty wide statement. Is the member able to tell us what other aspects he became aware of on 9 March?
Pettis Jill: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:13744] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9095] 
12.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What is Statistics New Zealand doing to reduce compliance costs incurred by small businesses in completing requests for statistical information? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Statistics New Zealand has been doing a huge amount in recent years to reduce the time and effort required of small businesses to provide statistical information. It is estimated that extended use of sampling and administrative data will mean that in the year 2004 60 percent of New Zealand’s smallest businesses will receive no questionnaires at all from Statistics New Zealand and a further 17 percent will receive only one simple request to update basic descriptive information. 
Mark Peck 
: What feedback has the Government received on the need to reduce statistics compliance costs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs made a number of recommendations in this area. On the Government side of the House we listen to small-business people. We know that completing statistical returns is time consuming and frustrating for them so we have done something about it. Statistics New Zealand’s initiatives in this area are just another example of this Government’s commitment to take action to reduce compliance costs rather than just talk about it.
Brown Peter: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18605] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would not have raised this point but my colleague saw fit to raise a point of order on the commentary. The commentary lists the select committee membership as the standard committee. However on this particular bill the Rt Hon Winston Peters was replaced by my good self. I do not know whether that is important in the scheme of things. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No it is not; that is a matter for the select committee to record. I will just repeat that the minority view is the view of the select committee member; it does not bind his or her party in any way.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3730] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18846] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make a few comments particularly with regard to the rationale for putting property in the name of an ancestor. I can well understand the reason for that particularly if one were wanting to ensure there was no likelihood of any future alienation of that property. But the bill also permits the agreed governance entity to act on behalf of that ancestor so I wonder whether we do not include in the bill a provision for all property to be in the name of Awanuiarangi II. However I appreciate that this has been the request of Ngati Awa. I want to make clear that I understood what the honourable member Wayne Mapp said when he was advised that Te Rangihouhiri—or was it Awanuiarangi I?—was an ancestor who lived in Hawaiki. Which one was it—Awanuiarangi II or Te Rangihouhiri? [ 
Interruption 
] Well is it not strange that the one member who raised the issue is not showing courtesy by way of explanation as to what happened to Rangihouhiri I? That is the first point. 
Secondly I ask why it is that 20 years ago it was quite acceptable to have an ancestor who lived in Hawaiki included in legislation made by this Parliament. All of a sudden 20 years later it is not acceptable. 
Stephen Franks 
: It’s pure xenophobia. That’s all. 
PITA PARAONE 
: It may be so—whatever the member may think. There has to be some consistency and that is why New Zealand First since the debate on Part 2 has risen to object to those parts we have discussed. There has to be some certainty in terms of the definition of the words and phrases we use. If there is no certainty as to what they mean then we are certainly condemning ourselves to revisit this whole issue sometime in the near future. 
During the course of the debate on this bill we have an opportunity to ensure that we do not have to revisit this issue so I would like to make that point in discussing this part.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Prime Minister's Statement—UnparliamentaryLanguage 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Prime Minister's Statement—UnparliamentaryLanguage 
[Volume:615;Page:10861] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 During the course of the debate following the Prime Minister’s statement to the House yesterday afternoon I raised a series of points of order with the Speaker at the time and in so doing I consider that I used language that was unparliamentary and put the Speaker in a position that I would consider to be somewhat invidious and unacceptable. I have apologised to the Hon John Tamihere who was speaking in the debate at the time and I now apologise to the House for any poor reflection that that comment and the raising of that question may have brought on other members of Parliament. I have apologised to my own caucus. I wish to assure the House that in no way does the questioning line that I pursued yesterday indicate my usual intent on those matters. It is out of character for me to resort to that sort of behaviour. Once again I sincerely apologise particularly to the Maori members of the House who could easily be in a position of taking offence and indeed to all members on whom that matter could reflect poorly.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Minister for Foreign Affairs 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Minister for Foreign Affairs 
[Volume:621;Page:16215] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that Sir RabbieNamaliu Minister for Foreign Affairs Papua New Guinea is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
Sir RabbieNamaliu accompanied by the Hon Phil Goff entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Carter John: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Carter John: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9119] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We seem to have an odd occurrence. The convention of the House is that speakers alternate. Given that we have just had a Labour speaker it is now the turn of the Opposition to get the call. There has been no prior arrangement or notice that any change should take place. There is a schedule set down and if the Government did not want to take its calls in order that is not the Opposition’s fault. As convention has it the Opposition now should get the next call. That has been the way of this House for years and years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance on this matter. I determined the list in consultation with quite a lot of members at the start of this debate. I said that this was the last third reading under the system we have because I have just announced a change to the Business Committee that will come into force as from the next bill. But as far as I have allocated calls here the Government of course has the right to have its calls and this call has been allocated to the Government.
Benson-Pope David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17713] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I make no apology and neither does the Government—nor would I think most New Zealanders—for including in this bill statutory powers for the Minister of Conservation and also for local government to ensure that those privileges—and privileges they are to have use of the public domain and public common space—are properly safeguarded. Having said that I know the previous speaker is only too aware that much of what he is saying is not quite as close to actual fact as it might be given his familiarity as the chair of the Primary Production Committee with a lot of the issues. 
In terms of what is happening around this legislation I can do no better than to read out the statement that was released today by the chairman of the New Zealand Aquaculture Council Callum McCallum who stated among other things that: “The bill as reported back now is a summary of a huge amount of effort from industry Government and officials and from regional councils. Industry has sought law changes that will support and encourage existing investment in New Zealand aquaculture and will create the right environment to allow sustainable development of New Zealand aquaculture towards the industry targets of $1 billion export annually and so on.” 
I am delighted that the industry has the vision that is so palpably lacking on the Opposition benches. I am delighted that because of the extensive cooperation between the parties involved such as the Ministry for the Environment the Department of Conservation the Ministry of Fisheries local government the industry and also some members in this Chamber—though notably not from the National Party—we are now in the position to take the moratorium off as the National Party asked me to at the start of the year and to unleash the amazing potential that exists in this industry.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5184] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to a comment made by Annette King who said of Mr Nick Smith’s analysis of the material that it was “tarted up to sound like fact when it is mere fiction”. I want to know whether that was an accusation of lying or what it was.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22324] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to.