edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
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:20951] 
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 following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in its appropriate alphabetical order the following definition: 
restricted period 
 means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2010 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first.
Yates Dianne: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Yates Dianne: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14996] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Whenever I am looking at fisheries legislation I am glad that I live in a landlocked electorate because I think these issues are quite difficult to get one’s head around. I compliment the Minister David Benson-Pope on the work he has done. He took over the portfolio in the middle of the process and has had a good deal to sort out and work through. I thank him for the work he has done in this regard. 
I am a member of the Regulations Review Committee and I feel somewhat overwhelmed when we get fisheries regulations and have to understand how the quota management system works. I thank members of the Primary Production Committee—although there is a lot of banter going on here tonight—for the work they have done. I am sure other members of the House are very grateful because those of us who are not involved in fisheries find that some of the terminology and discussions about the quota management system tend to make our eyes glaze over. The select committee has done a good job on this extremely difficult issue for an industry that is very important for New Zealand. I say a big thank you to those involved.
Donald Rod: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
Donald Rod: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3931] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill. The Greens are very pleased to see this bill take another step forward. In particular I would like to comment on the significant improvement to the tax rules for Maori organisations. It is fair and logical for Maori authorities to be taxed at 19.5 percent given that 90 percent of their beneficiaries are on that tax rate. The old rules created a severe disincentive for Maori authorities to retain earnings and it double taxed them. I am pleased therefore that we have changed the rules in relation to Maori authorities and that the select committee has agreed to a fair definition of a Maori authority. It is wider than some submitters sought and narrower than others requested. 
In particular as the previous speaker mentioned the committee decided to exclude wholly-owned subsidiaries of Maori authorities from the lower tax rate. That was a sensible decision because it removes what could be seen as an unfair competitive advantage but I also acknowledge that beneficiaries of a Maori authority are unlikely to be penalised because the authority will be able to arrange its affairs to achieve the lower tax rate in any case. 
We are also pleased to support the widening of the definition of charitable purpose. At the moment no person related by blood can be a beneficiary of a charity and this bill changes that definition to recognise that beneficiaries of a trust or members of the society or institution who are related by blood can be a beneficiary. The bill also includes marae that do not have charitable status in their own right that are situated on land defined in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act as being charitable providing the funds are used for administration and maintenance of the marae or for regular charitable purposes. 
This change is not only a practical one but it is also a change that is very important in principle because it is a recognition of the treaty partnership and it is an acknowledgment that Maori society is not only a communal society but one that predated the arrival of Europeans and a society that does not fit neatly into the British charity and tax structures. Therefore it is quite a significant step forward for this Parliament to recognise that through the change to the definition of charitable purpose.
Hobbs Marian: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18926] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Many very interesting issues have been raised and I think that we could prolong this debate for a long time. But we will not because I want to point out again that the issues about the Department of Conservation etc. are really outside the immediate scope of this very local bill. That applies to such issues as if we are doing this for a regional reserve why we are not doing it for the department and the issues about multiple land use. Without going into the Department of Conservation side of matters because it is right outside the scope of this bill I will just remind members that the reason that this particular bill was brought in was local legislation: the Wellington Regional Water Board Act of 1972 enacted at a time when I think the focus really was on the single use of land. The Act did not authorise any development of wind farms or of any other kind of renewable energy on this land which was previously owned by the Wellington Regional Water Board. So the council found itself utterly blocked by legislation that had been passed through this Parliament and the only thing it could do was to ask for another piece of legislation to go through. That raised a point that Jim Peters raised which I found quite interesting and I could take up but I will not. 
I will just make one point about the haphazard development of wind farms. I totally take the point and the New Zealand Wind Energy Association has been meeting with the Ministry for the Environment. At the moment we have only guidelines but it is possible that we will look at a national environment standard that may help regional councils as they start to address issues around noise visibility and other issues outside this bill. Regarding the question of renewable energy I think it was pointed out to Ken Shirley as he sat down that renewable energy is as defined in section 2 of the Resource Management Act. That will make the whole issue easy when dealing with that Act and the Local Government Act. 
The point that I think is really interesting—and I say to Mr Sowry that I do not actually know how to deal with it—is the waste of time on repetitive local bills. I really do not have an answer to that. In a sense we are trying to correct legislation that has been passed in this Parliament before. I have found a couple of times that people from an older city in particular have had to correct legislation that was passed in 1890 and that somehow has never been repealed or gathered in. During my career in this Parliament I have had to spend several Wednesday nights in this Chamber taking Wellington bills through. I certainly will take up that issue and have a look at it. 
Preamble agreed to.
Swain Paul: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7049] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Biosecurity 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate —  
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7186] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next set of votes is in the name of the Hon Phil Goff. They are the Foreign Affairs and Trade Justice and Pacific Island Affairs votes. I intend to take those as one debate as has been the practice throughout this debate. However there will be three separate votes at the end unless there is any objection to that course of action being taken.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3438] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It has been drawn to my attention that in answering question 7 I inadvertently misled the House when I said the panel leader’s work is also not checked. In fact it is checked.
Dunne Peter: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dunne Peter: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6265] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I listened with some interest to the speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat. I can relate to the history lesson he gave us because at various times I was part of it. I began my working career in the Department of Trade and Industry doing import licensing in the days when it was as corrupt as the member described. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It made the member go grey. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Absolutely—and prematurely I might add. I was subsequently involved in the Government that established the Ministry of Commerce. Indeed I had a role in that ministry as part of the executive at that time. 
This bill is called the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill That title is descriptive of what the bill actually does which is to integrate the two organisations. I take the rather simple view that because the title states what the bill actually does it is probably about right as the title of the bill. Some of the more fanciful titles that have been suggested this afternoon are not as accurate in terms of what the bill does as the bill’s actual title—surprise surprise! 
I want to take issue with another point that the member who preceded me raised. He was correct to say that the fundamental question this bill raises is what the role of Government is in this area. Where he and I diverge is that he seemed to assume that the act of integrating Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand into a new organisation somehow made for a bigger super-bureaucracy and a much more activist new organisation than is currently the case or is proposed by this legislation. I do not believe that any member of this Committee wants to see Big Brother or Big Sister out there trying to dictate the way we operate in the international marketplace. However there is a place for an agency that integrates both the level of Government assistance to industry in the domestic market with the work we do to facilitate our export opportunities overseas and that is what this bill attempts to do. Members will be well aware of the constant complaints about the amount of money we invest in export promotion and development not matching the actual needs of the exporters themselves. The link from the domestic economy to the international economy simply has not been addressed before. 
The integration of Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand into the new New Zealand Trade and Enterprise organisation that the bill establishes is entirely proper and for that reason the title proposed is entirely consistent. Some of the other concerns that members have raised will no doubt be debated during the remaining stages of this Committee debate but I cannot think of a more logical title for the bill than the one that has been proposed.
Gosche Mark: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
Gosche Mark: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19777] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am pleased to support the first reading of the Rail Network Bill. This is yet another piece of legislation that this Government has put into place that adds to its record of revitalising the transport infrastructure in New Zealand. I remind members in the House that this Government is about to spend $18.7 billion on transport over the next 10 years to fix up the terrible mistakes of the past—as Peter Brown indicated in his speech—that saw our rail system almost at the point of extinction. We have picked it back up and bought it back for $1. We are putting in $200 million to fix up the rail system which was badly neglected by the private sector. 
It was extraordinary to hear Maurice Williamson say the National Party wants to remove a monopoly from the situation. Is National proposing to build another railway line next to the current one so that there is choice? Anything is possible with the National Party and of course that is the kind of nonsense we would expect from it. The competition is transport on the roads and transport on the sea. Rail has to be a vital part of transport competition. That is why the Government has stepped back in—to make sure that we have a rail system. We know that in some circumstances the roading system would cost a lot more to fix up than the rail system. The options have to be left open. 
It is also extraordinary to have the ACT party saying it is opposed to international investment in the form of Toll NZ coming in to help fix up the rail system. Toll NZ will be scratching its head wondering whether the ACT party is the party that is supposed to be for private enterprise. One of its members criticised Richard Prebble; well I criticise him for everything he has done in his time in Parliament but I would not be so ungracious as Deborah Coddington one of his mates has been in doing so. 
Anyway this is a good bill. It is very necessary. The Government Administration Committee is a wonderful committee that has always considered this type of legislation. I am sure that all those members who want to be part of the consideration will be able to get on that committee if they wish.
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:611;Page:8636] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of this bill.
Chadwick Steve: Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12689] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to add my support to Labour’s opposition to this bill. I was a district councillor and I am absolutely astonished that the initiative for this bill comes from the ACT party. I find that a complete conundrum as ACT supports the approach of civil libertarians and letting people make decisions for themselves. It is a little bit like the situation with the Building Bill but here ACT is saying that we should reregulate rebuild centralise and take control. It just does not fit with its central platform of allowing people to make decisions about their own future. It also shows me that nobody in the ACT party and nobody Mr Hide would have consulted has any idea about rate-setting policies on local authorities. 
It is a very complicated process and yes we do require them to consult. I am glad we do because in the end we hit a bottom line where a community agrees that it simply cannot afford to carry out its projects below the line of what is a financially sustainable threshold of rate-take and agrees that those capital projects have to be deferred for the out-years. Communities make quite sensible decisions through their local councillors and this bill simply imposes over that right of elected district councillors to make those sensible decisions on behalf of the communities they represent. We certainly will not be supporting this very bizarre rate cap.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18624] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Tabling of Documents — Achieving Health for all People Wally of the Week" Poster 
Tabling of Documents — Achieving Health for all People "Wally of the Week" Poster 
[Volume:606;Page:3699] 
Tabling of Documents 
Achieving Health for all People 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document  
Achieving Health for all People 
 which I referred to in question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
"Wally of the Week" Poster 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my “Wally of the Week” poster. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
"
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:613;Page:10220] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On 20 October this year I asked a written question of the Minister of Justice outlining my concern that an 18-year-old Korean male student charged with threatening to kill sexual violation indecent assault and other serious charges had been granted legal aid. On 24 October 2003 the Minister replied saying that his agency had not been provided with sufficient details to confirm whether the student referred to in the question was in receipt of legal aid. Given that I had identified the school that the student attended I was surprised at the inability of the ministry to identify the student given the extremely serious nature of the charges he is facing. But I attempted to oblige the Minister in a follow-up question on 30 October by providing the name of the alleged offender. By way of response on the same day I was advised that my follow-up question was out of order because I had not provided evidence by way of authentication that the alleged offender was of that name. 
My point of order is that the parliamentary process is being deliberately frustrated here and the New Zealand public is being denied information pertinent to the use—or in this instance misuse—of its taxes. I am seeking your assistance: I want the blockage to my questions regarding this matter being answered to be removed. In summary I asked a question I was asked for more detail I provided more detail yet I was still denied an answer. That is wrong and I request your assistance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will give the member my assistance and I promise him I will have a look at the matter and give him a fuller ruling. Under Standing Order 365(1)(a) names of persons are not to be used in a question unless they are strictly necessary and can be authenticated. No authentication with regard to the person named by the member has been received but I will have another look at the issue as he has asked me to do. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand the Standing Order but it plainly becomes ridiculous when the name is not of any great particularity other than as it relates to this case. I think I am suffering from obfuscation delay and bloody-mindedness. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will have a look at the matter as I said.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6271] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act 2003” and substitute the words “Investment New Zealand Act 2003”.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15862] 
A party vote 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.
Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9393] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed.
Hereora Dave: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hereora Dave: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11413] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill and I suppose it is with a slight disappointment that I have heard the comments from the ACT member especially those surrounding ACT’s position which is that this is another step along a foolish pathway. That suggests to me that the ACT member does not support well-established climate change and energy policies. More important he does not agree with a platform or basis for the national coordination of controls on greenhouse gas emissions. I think that is a must in our society today. The bill also ensures that the efficient use of energy the benefits of renewable energy and the effects of climate change are flagged for the attention of those working with the Resource Management Act and importantly provides for national leadership clarified roles and reduced administration compliance and participation costs related to energy and climate change matters. Furthermore it gives greater weight to the value of renewable energy and clarifies that energy efficiency should be a consideration regardless of the energy source. I commend this bill to the House.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:608;Page:5761] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2003 (B.7). I move  
That that paper be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9349] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19716] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was very clear that following my point of order in respect of Sue Kedgley’s bill you ruled quite clearly that no objection had been raised by Government members. No Government member jumped to his or her feet and took a point of order so my view is that the proper item at the top of the House’s agenda is—quite properly—the bill in the name of Sue Kedgley which is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill.
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:7801] 
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 the Hon Dr Michael Cullen”.
Prebble Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4391] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 While I am sympathetic to the point that the member has raised it is not actually a point of order. The Government can pass and often does bills that are nonsense. Mr Mark drew the matter to the Minister’s attention and so did others. If the Government wants to pass a bill whereby the director’s pay is to be determined by an organisation that has been abolished that is not a question of order; it is just a question of good sense. 
Rod Donald 
: The director won’t be happy. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I know the director will not be happy. For all I know the Government does not like the director. However the matter is not a point of order and no doubt at some point when Helen Clark comes back we will have this provision recommitted and we will all draw it to your attention. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Prebble for pointing out that the matter was not a point of order. I agree with him. It is a drafting issue and it is something the Government will have to address.
Peck Mark: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11575] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Companies Amendment Bill and the Insolvency Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 192.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16024] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(2)Part 2 is deemed to have come into force on 5 October 2004.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates Membership 
[Volume:607;Page:4953] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Nandor Tanczos to be a member of the Law and Order Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Corrections Bill but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17218] 
5.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many industry partnerships have been established to address skill and labour shortages and assist people to move off a benefit and into employment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Work and Income has established job partnerships with seven major industry groups: hospitality road carriers or road haulage retail master plumbers roading the Bus and Coach Association—that partnership was launched by the Hon Rick Barker last week—and the meat industry. The latest of these partnerships with the New Zealand Industry Training Organisation Inc. and the Meat Industry Association was launched yesterday and will see up to 1500 unemployed people trained for jobs over the next year. This will help to push unemployment even lower. 
Jill Pettis 
: What has been the reaction of industry to the job partnership initiative? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As one might expect industries have warmly welcomed the industry partnership approach because it means that training is industry focused practical and gets people straight into productive jobs. As Carl Ammon of the New Zealand Industry Training Organisation Inc. noted the partnership approach leads to improved selection shorter lead times and a more practical focus in helping fill vacancies and keeping industry producing. The next industry partnership to be launched on Friday with Transfield Services New Zealand will see currently unemployed people trained for work in rail and track maintenance giving more New Zealanders an opportunity to gain a decent paying job and ensuring industry labour needs are met. I congratulate those industries on taking a practical approach to meeting their skill and labour needs. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of his answer has he any concerns that the number of people granted a sickness benefit because of depression has increased by over 3000 since he has been the Minister—from 2179 in 1999 to 5222 today; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I am concerned about the number of people on the invalids benefit and the sickness benefit. I have been concerned since the 36 percent increase took place during the middle of the 1990s. We have been concerned to make sure that unemployment goes down and it is now the lowest it has been in 17 years. Against that backdrop we have now introduced world-leading policy relating welfare to health and I will be launching another part of that policy later this week which I am sure the National Party will come around to endorsing as it does every other policy the Government introduces.
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10735] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for the point of order but that is exactly as it has been for every report of a similar nature we have had before this Parliament in previous years. I have made my decision and that is it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8079] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Carter Chris: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17285] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
[Volume:616;Page:12367] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I am happy to. The member makes a very interesting point but he will discover that State asset sales had to be authorised by legislation—had to go through this House. We had to have approval to do them. In this particular case—[ 
Interruption 
] I think the member should reflect between now and Wednesday. Here is a major piece of legislation and the Government says that it will have a lock-up—that in secret it will inform the media—and it does not want to advise members of Parliament of the legislation until it is tabled on Thursday. Surely the Leader of the House can see that that is not parliamentary.
O'Connor Damien: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14353] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call but I cannot sit here and see the Food Safety Authority accused of being dishonest. That is absolutely outrageous and the sooner that member is more honest in her criticism—and she is entitled to criticise the operations of the Food Safety Authority—the sooner New Zealanders will know what is going on. The authority was established in 2002 and has been in place since then. It has been formulating policies and systems to ensure that the food that we consume and process in this country and the food we export as well is safe. 
I would like to tell the member that lead is a naturally occurring substance and that there are probably minute trace elements and particles of lead in most of the things that we consume. The issue here is the level. Clearly the level found in the cornflour was above—in fact in some of the samples it was estimated to be 100 times above—what we consider to be a safe human consumption level. Indications at this point are that the contamination has occurred not from the corn itself but from some process of transportation whether it be from the ship a truck or whatever. But somehow there has been contamination. The fact that we identified that and were able to move on it quickly says that the systems put in place by an organisation that has only been up and running since 2002 are very very good. The authority has moved to eliminate any risk to the New Zealand public and consumers because the systems have identified and told us the product lines that we have to test and those that should be withdrawn. That has occurred and I would like to congratulate the staff of the authority—not sit back and allow them to be accused time and time again by the Green Party and Sue Kedgley who misleads or attempts to mislead the New Zealand public into believing that the Food Safety Authority is working against them. That is not true. It is there to protect the consumers of this country. It is also there to ensure that we as an economy are able to export quality safe food around the world. 
I just ask the Green Party once again to be more honest in its criticism and assessment of what is happening with regard to the Food Safety Authority.
Wong Pansy: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15635] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 My very hard-working and learned colleague Dr Wayne Mapp has just raised the issue of the Maori Land Court being called upon to decide the identity of a people. I will follow on with this line because it is a serious issue. 
Every 5 years in New Zealand we have an official census. But even in that very official process a person’s choice of ethnicity is left entirely to the individual. So if people feel an affinity to Maori Pacific Islanders or Asians then they can identify themselves by ticking one of those boxes. Some will put “New Zealander” because they resent the fact that there is no box giving that definition. It has always been accepted in New Zealand that people can decide their ethnicity themselves. The Labour Government—a minority Government I emphasise—has consistently found it difficult to be specific. [ 
Interruption 
] If the Hon. Dover Samuels wants to make a statement or answer some of these questions then I invite him to take the next call. I am sure the Maori community would love to hear one of their representatives speaking on their behalf and answering some of my questions. 
I come back to my point. The minority Labour Government has made an art form of kicking difficult issues off to a court or a select committee for an inquiry rather than being fair. After the Government has kicked these contentious difficult issues off to the Maori Land Court there are not many parameters guiding the court on how it should come to a decision. Then if the court makes a decision and suddenly public opinion is against it it will be accused once again by the minority Labour Government of judicial activism. The Government will then blame the court when it makes decisions that may prove to be unpopular with the public. If the Government kicks this difficult problem to the Maori Land Court to decide who would constitute a separate iwi then the Minister or some Maori member of the Labour Party should take calls and explain what the parameters are and what the guidelines are. When would the court know that it is actually carrying out the spirit of this legislation? The Minister should take a call. 
I posed another question in relation to Part 6. I asked the Minister whether he could give the public and the Maori community an assurance that the Maori Land Court which has suddenly been assigned so much additional responsibility will have enough funding. Will that court be properly funded to carry out the additional responsibility that is conferred upon it by this legislation? The Minister should take our questions seriously. Everybody knows that this issue has taken 14 years to come to this Parliament and we should not leave too many loose ends. I think the Minister owes it to the public to answer this very serious question that we pose to him.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6871] 
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 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words after the word “Consumer” and substitute the words “Extension of Definitions of Goods and Services”.
Chadwick Steve: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13371] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am proud to support this bill and I would like to congratulate the Minister Ruth Dyson today on the introduction of a very significant piece of legislation that hasactually been 44 years in the waiting. It is a delight to see the dreadful Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act being repealed. I would like to mention the transitional provisions very quickly. It is critical that we manage the transition of 3000 people with disability currently working in sheltered workshops out into the employment sector. We have been advised to do it once do it right and take our time to move these people into the sector so that they can robustly remain there and contribute to productivity in this country. This is a wonderful bill. It is the right instrument. I am proud to support it.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17583] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker  
Ewen-Street 
Locke(P) 
Simich(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Coddington  
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English (P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland  
McNair 
Sowry(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Jones  
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19586] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 16 
ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Simich Clem: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Simich Clem: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17986] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. The issue is quite clear. Under Standing Order 282(1) the Minister must indicate in the first reading speech whether it is intended to impose a different reporting date or whether there are any other instructions. I am told that such instructions were not included in that speech so to achieve that course it can only be done by the seeking of leave.
Sowry Roger: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9029] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have to ask how we get into a situation whereby the largest Opposition party has two members seeking the call who have been on the select committee but we end up with a member of a junior Opposition party getting the call.
Mallard Trevor: Motions — Michael Campbell—2005 US Open 
Mallard Trevor: Motions — Michael Campbell—2005 US Open 
[Volume:627;Page:21737] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I move  
That the House congratulate Michael Campbell on his stunning victory in the 2005 US Golf Open at Pinehurst 
. This is the sort of sporting victory that makes us all proud to be New Zealanders; the story of the Kiwi kid from Titahi Bay playing on a golf course so rough that if one can succeed really well there and become a champion one can succeed anywhere. Winning the US Open is probably the equivalent of winning a gold medal at the Olympics as far as New Zealanders are concerned. This is a stunning victory and for it to be by someone who did so well for a while had some really rough spots and fought back is I think absolutely appropriate and we all admire him.
Smith Nick: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15422] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I notice that the senior Government whip made some rude comments about my grandmothers who are deceased. What is more the member was interjecting while away from her chair. I ask for some order in the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I was not aware that the member was referring to anyone in this Chamber and for that reason I let it lie.
Ririnui Mita: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ririnui Mita: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20630] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 I stand along with my colleagues on this side of the House to support this bill going to a select committee. I congratulate the Minister in charge of this bill on bringing it to the House. It is a long-awaited bill and I am sure that the legal profession has been waiting some time for it. I heard earlier on—if I am not wrong—that Dr Richard Worth and his colleague Wayne Mapp would ordinarily support a move of this kind had it not been for National Party policy. 
I also feel it necessary to respond to the previous speaker’s comments about the Supreme Court and the Privy Council. He said that the Supreme Court would be a lot more expensive to run than the Privy Council. But I am sure he is aware that the cost of administering the Privy Council is met by British taxpayers—his countrymen. I think that he would not want the British taxpayer to meet the cost of access to our highest court of appeal and I am sure that he was not being very serious in making those statements.
Hartley Ann: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17616] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I put the questions we have a number of amendments. The first is to clause 1 and is in the name of Richard Worth set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314. It has been ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16482] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15243] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the ancillary document of the three High Court judges at the time who said that there was no case at all of ticks and crosses—the kind of nonsense Mr Prebble was saying. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled.
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Hunt Jonathan: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10003] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the honourable member to Standing Order 51 which deals with this matter absolutely precisely. The chairperson did accept the closure motion and commenced to put the question. It does not matter how far he got; under Standing Order 51 the time to report progress is deferred until the closure is determined and any consequential questions are determined.