edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20521] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Parliament functions well and Government functions well in this country when we all accept the premise that the Government has the right to advance its business and we accept that the Standing Orders are structured so that a Government can get its business done. But part of Government is accountability and the role of the Opposition is in a public way to hold Ministers to account. 
So I want to make it very clear that we are most unhappy that a Minister who is presiding over a portfolio—the police portfolio—and who is currently coming under considerable public scrutiny is not in the Chamber today to answer questions set down to him. We note that neither is the Prime Minister present when it might reasonably have been expected that a confidence question would be asked of her and nor is the Deputy Prime Minister present who normally fills in for her. For that matter nor are the third fourth and fifth-ranking Ministers in Cabinet present today. 
So we have a couple of options open to us. The first is to seek leave to defer the questions to be put to those Ministers perhaps until tomorrow or Saturday or maybe Sunday afternoon when they might have some time in which to be accountable to the public of this country or we could equally decide to use the Standing Orders just as the Government is using them—to its own ends—which would of course deny legislative time and therefore opportunity to the Government. Neither of those two options should be seen as desirable. 
Given that the Government it would seem has used the Standing Orders today to try to avoid Ministers—particularly the Minister of Police George Hawkins—coming under scrutiny and given that that Minister has fled the capital along with the Prime Minister and most of the Labour front bench at a time they are in a tight situation I seek leave for the questions set down to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Police to be held over until the next sitting day that those members are able to be present in the House to answer them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought—[ 
Interruption 
] The member would like clarification?
Hartley Ann: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17558] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clauses 17 and 18 have been ruled out of order because they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 313 in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 18 be agreed to.
Adams Paul: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Adams Paul: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16042] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Can I amend the United Future vote on Wayne Mapp’s amendments? I should have called “abstention” on the first two instead of “for”. I seek leave to amend the vote. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want clarification. Dr Mapp had a number of amendments and I am wondering which ones the United Future member is referring to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: My understanding is that he is referring to both the amendments to clause 2A. Maybe the member would explain. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Our abstention vote would be for all of Wayne Mapp’s amendments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You have abstained on one of them to clause 3. The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want an assurance from the member that he genuinely did intend to abstain all the way through and that he did not have a flash of inspiration as the voting was going on because in that case it would be improper for him to ask for the record to be changed. One cannot change one’s mind. If he could tell members that he had an instruction to abstain all the way through that is a different matter. But I think members need to have that explanation made to the Committee. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: That is correct. I did have instructions to abstain all the way through. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We will take the member at his word. The leave has been agreed so the voting list will be changed. For the first vote on Dr Mapp’s amendments to clause 2A the Ayes are now 49 the Noes are 62 and the Abstentions are 8. For the second vote the Ayes are 49 the Noes are 62 and the Abstentions are 8.
Tizard Judith: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6908] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: I move  
That the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. I thank the House for the support that it has given to this legislation. The main purpose of this bill is to strengthen the level of consumer protection provided by the Fair Trading Act by reducing the incentives for traders to offend and reoffend. It achieves that purpose by increasing the general penalties and creating a new penalty system for pyramid selling schemes that is designed to render those schemes profitless. The bill also extends the Commerce Commission’s search power so that it can enforce the new pyramid selling penalty and it removes procedural barriers to effective enforcement. Finally the bill updates the Act to reflect modern business practices but it will not materially alter business compliance costs. 
I thank the members of the Commerce Committee for all their work on this legislation. I particularly thank the officials who have done so much work to address the great need to protect innocent New Zealanders from unscrupulous traders in this context. 
A number of issues were raised during the Committee stage. There was concern for example that the definition of pyramid schemes should not include franchise schemes. But members had read the new provisions in isolation because there are wider definitions of pyramid schemes in the main Act. There was a question about the fines. We are bringing the fines up to date as they have not been changed since 1986. I just want to tell the House that the equivalent Australian penalties are $200000 for individuals and $1.1 million for companies. Of course the Ministry of Justice was consulted on the levels of penalties and is very happy with this progression. Given the nature of the offending that we are trying to address I do not think that the penalties are at all unreasonable. They are a sign to the courts that we expect the new range of penalties to be taken very seriously and applied in all possible cases. Some concern was expressed about the notice power for the production of information. The Commerce Commission already has a powerful search warrant power and this is actually a less intrusive power because it can be used where voluntary compliance is likely rather than going to the full extent of going to court to obtain a search warrant. So we are actually seeking a more moderate power in this legislation than the power that exists already. 
Good contributions were made on this legislation. As I said I thank the select committee for its work. I particularly thank the officials and the House for its speedy passing of this legislation through its last stages tonight. I thank the Opposition for its cooperation.
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:612;Page:9141] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Medicines Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Bill read a third time.
English Bill: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
English Bill: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13236] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not questioning any of your rulings but I am looking for a full explanation of the circumstances the House finds itself in. I presume as a member of the House that the Business Committee had some discussion about the scheduling of this debate. 
John Carter 
: Not to any large extent. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Did it or did it not? Not to any large extent. Someone somewhere decided to schedule this debate at a time that required the leave of the House to debate two reports that have not been completed. Mr Speaker had I been aware of that when you put the leave I would have refused it because I believe that the House ought to stick to the process of debating reports when they are completed. 
I would like an explanation as to why this debate was commenced before the select committees have finished their job. Mr Speaker you have made it clear that it is not because of a deadline. The deadline of 6 months has not expired so there must be some other reason. I would also like an explanation from you as to whether this will be regarded as a precedent—the precedent being that the Government or the Business Committee can choose a time to have this debate regardless of whether select committees have finished their job. This puts the Opposition in particular in the position whereby it is reliant on the leave of the House to do a job that is absolutely at the heart of the function of Parliament. We should not be required to get the leave of the House to debate financial reports on Crown entities. There is no other job more important to this Parliament than that one. We need this process cleared up. We need to be sure that there will not be precedents set that limit the opportunity for the House to do the job that an Opposition in particular is meant to do.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4260] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand and support this bill.
Brown Peter: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17519] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I draw the Chairman’s attention to the fact that if I am correct nobody has taken more points of order than the honourable Simon Power over aspersions cast against the leader of the party he belongs to when National’s leader has not been in the Chamber.
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15703] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Usually it is appropriate at this time that you announce who had the call when the bill was last being debated and how much time that member has. This debate does go back a couple of weeks—the Government’s programme is a bit shambolic—and I myself am struggling to remember but I understand that I was on my feet and I want to know exactly how much time I have left. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is quite correct. He has 30 seconds remaining. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It will be 30 seconds that the Committee will not want to miss. I start by reminding members that this is a bill that National is totally opposing. It is a bill that every single electricity company—be it a lines companies or a generator be it Government owned or private sector—opposes. It is a bill that some of the brightest New Zealanders who have been involved in the structure of Government issues around State sector issues oppose. It is a bill that only Labour members seem to favour. It is a bill that sets up a structure that the Government has ignored.
Obituaries — John Lancelot Lithgow 
Obituaries — John Lancelot Lithgow 
[Volume:615;Page:11417] 
Tuesday 2 March 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
John Lancelot Lithgow 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 1 March of John Lancelot Lithgow who represented the electorate of Palmerston North from 1975 to 1978. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15243] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the judgment which unfortunately put Mr Peters in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6862] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 10.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7635] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Speaker. I thank you for that last point and I thank my colleague the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his explication of the process but you are quite right: it is you who decides that a vacancy exists. I am afraid—and I want to put this in as nice a way as I can—that it looks as though the Speaker is waiting for the Government legislation before he decides whether a vacancy exists. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had two interjections from one member. Yesterday I threw members out for doing precisely that. I warn members that there are to be no interjections during points of order at all. I want to hear what Mr Hide has to say; he has a perfect right to be heard. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you for that. The situation is that it has been your job—not that of the House—since 2002 to decide whether a vacancy exists. The Solicitor-General has advised that a vacancy has existed since 11 June. The Privileges Committee to which you referred the matter has confirmed that view by a majority. It seems to me that it is not the House’s job but yours to decide that and it seems to us on the Opposition side of the House that you are awaiting legislation before you rule in order to protect a member from the forces of the law. That has to be wrong and I ask you when you will decide a vacancy exists because that is not a matter for the House.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18039] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Overseas Investment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 85 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 32 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Mackey Janet: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mackey Janet: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11663] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16598] 
3.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he agree with the statement provided in the Vote Local Government estimates examination responses for 2003-04 that “The critical current issue faced by Government in Vote Local Government relates to the successful application of the STV (single transferable vote) election method in the Local Authority Elections to occur in October 2004.”; if so does he think the Government has done a good job of dealing with that critical issue? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes and yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister possibly tell this Parliament that the Government has done a good job of introducing STV when 26 days after the ballot 144 candidates do not know whether they have been elected particularly when we compare that delay with the election results in the United States which has just counted 119 million votes and given a result within 24 hours? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The facts of this sorry situation are that a computer system has failed and it has taken time to fix it and to ensure that the results it produces are absolutely correct. The computer system is not one that Ministers were involved in selecting designing or testing. Contrary to the notion that the member is putting out the Government does not run local elections. Councils do that and they have done so since the 1860s. 
David Parker 
: What did the Government do to assist with the implementation of STV? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Government was responsible for coordinating the development of the STV calculator and a publicity campaign both of which it did very successfully. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the Minister reconcile the statement made by Helen Clark as Leader of the Opposition in 1999 when she damned National Ministers for the 2-hour delay in election results stating: “Ministers must take responsibility.” with his refusal to take any responsibility for this 26-day delay or is this just like the situation of John Tamihere and the golden handshake—saying one thing in Opposition and applying a different standard when in Government? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer the first part of that question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member still fails to grasp the fact that although central government is responsible for running general elections local elections are run by local government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister tell this Parliament that he has no responsibility when his own department in the estimates for the financial year for which he was responsible clearly stated that it was the critical current issue for that year; is he saying the department is wrong or is he wrong? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I repeat to that member that the Government was responsible for developing the STV calculator which worked perfectly. It was also responsible for a publicity campaign which also seemed to be very effective.
Choudhary Ashraf: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8940] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cunliffe David: Third Readings 
Cunliffe David: Third Readings 
[Volume:613;Page:10165] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Revenue 
: I move  
That the Taxation (GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2003-04) Bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The Taxation (GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill introduces a number of major tax reforms. By introducing bilateral legislation it brings into effect New Zealand’s part in a landmark agreement with Australia to remove a tax obstacle to trans-Tasman investment. The bill makes it possible for Australian companies to join New Zealand’s imputation credit rules for which corresponding legislation has been recently enacted in Australia. The legislation also introduces a better alignment of GST treatment of the financial services sector with that of other sectors. Banks credit unions life insurers and other financial institutions will be able to recover GST on purchases related to the supply of services to other businesses which will reduce possible overtaxation of that sector.  
The legislation introduces a GST reverse charge to tax certain imports of services to alleviate the distortion in favour of imported services which are not currently subject to GST. It introduces an anti-avoidance measure to combat aggressive tax arrangements that have resulted in investors receiving more in tax deductions than they put up in investment. It enables employer contributions to superannuation funds on behalf of lower-income employees to be taxed at lower rates and to remove a disincentive for them to save for their retirement. This omnibus bill also introduces an extensive number of amendments to current tax law ranging from measures to reduce compliance costs to measures to protect the revenue base and includes a range of remedial amendments intended to produce better more effective tax law. The Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2003-04) Bill confirms the income tax rates that will apply for the 2003 and 2004 years.  
I am pleased that the bills have arrived at their third reading. May I take this opportunity to thank all of those who contributed to their passage—the many people and organisations who made submissions on the proposed legislation the officials who worked on the bills and supported their passage and the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its careful consideration and thorough report. I commend the bills to the House.
Ministerial Statements — Army—Vehicle Accident 
Ministerial Statements — Army—Vehicle Accident 
[Volume:619;Page:14875] 
Ministerial Statements 
Army—Vehicle Accident 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yesterday afternoon two Burnham-based soldiers were killed in a vehicle accident on Banks Peninsula. A third soldier was seriously injured and is at present in a stable condition in Christchurch Hospital. The soldiers were on a driving training course when the accident happened. These two tragic deaths happened during an exercise to prepare our personnel for the often dangerous situations they face overseas. I can tell members that a court of inquiry is already under way and as is normal in such circumstances there will also be a police inquiry. Obviously therefore it is inappropriate for me to comment any further on any details relating to the accident. At this time our thoughts are with the families of the two soldiers who died and with the injured soldier as well as with their colleagues. I know that all members would join me in expressing their deepest sympathy to the families and loved ones of those involved in this tragic accident.
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:21015] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
House resumed.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20122] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 1 be agreed to.
Mackey Moana: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Moana: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19763] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. What an extraordinary speech we just heard from Katherine Rich! Speaking as someone who actually graduated from university with an honours degree in science I can say that all my friends who left this country to do science overseas did so under a National Government after Labour had left office. The most important thing to them was that they had low employment conditions or wages that were not worth staying for and the institutes that they worked for were severely underfunded. So it is a bit rich to hear the National Party complaining about the brain drain. 
We are talking about an area of science that we as a Government are still not convinced should go ahead. We are talking about experimentation on human beings. I find it interesting that Dr Paul Hutchison is very quick to attack the Government about the efficacy of testing pharmaceuticals but is saying that we should be injecting animal cells into humans right now without ensuring that firstly the technology will work and secondly it will not cause the transmission of infections or viruses that at their very worst could cause a pandemic. If a pandemic had occurred that might have been caused by a retrovirus Katherine Rich in her former life in this Parliament would have been the first to attack this Government and ask how many more invalids beneficiaries there would be as a result of this Government allowing the use of techniques that were not tested and that we were not sure of. 
We need to be secure about this technology because it will not help the New Zealand scientific community if something goes wrong and we do not take all the necessary precautions. Biotechnology of which this area is a very small part is also a very small part of science. I am sure that many scientists who are out there working very hard get sick of the focus on this area. Science in this country needs to have an international standard that is recognised overseas. Sure our scientists will go overseas—and a lot of them will come back because that is the nature of the international science community. It does this country and the biotechnology industry absolutely no favours to push ahead using technology that has not yet been proven safe and that we as a Government are not yet prepared to go ahead with and see used on humans. As the Minister of Health says we do not do it with pharmaceuticals and we certainly should not be doing it with xenotransplantation.
Barker Rick: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21728] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly to this part in particular to the Supplementary Order Paper amendments and in particular new clause 30AA. This clause was put forward because there have been some significant problems in the collection of fines because of the quality of information. This came to my attention when I read in the Auckland newspaper the mayor of Auckland complaining about the courts department owing money to Auckland City and not paying its debts. I made inquiries into what this was. It was simply that Auckland City would issue parking infringements and the like and because they were uncollectable—no one would pay them—they were forwarded on to the courts department for enforcement. The department was unable to collect them. 
I went through these and I saw that in large part the department did not have the information. For example a parking ticket or infringement notice might be issued to Mr John Smith Balmoral Road. Well it would be very very difficult to track down J Smith on Balmoral Road—no registration number no date of birth nothing. Effectively that fine was uncollectable. By the time one gets halfway down Balmoral Road the people at the beginning of Balmoral Road have changed addresses and so on. One could go up and down Balmoral Road for the rest of one’s life and never find any J Smith. So we have a large number of fines that are uncollectable. 
Elsewhere in the Supplementary Order Paper it provides that there will be a minimum data set that people have to supply—date of birth and so on. If it is not supplied the fines or infringement notice will not be accepted by the department for collection because it is simply uncollectable. But this amendment was to tidy up some of those cases currently in the system and it was supposed to be about information about identity and location. On examination of it more closely I can see that there is a problem. It seems to me that if we know the identity of the person—for example my full name and my date of birth—if we are convinced that we know who the person is it should not matter how long it takes to locate him or her; the fines should remain. But by having the 3-year limit on locating a person the identity issue falls by the wayside. 
My point is that the wording as it is would enable the registrar to wipe fines—even if the identity of the person was known—if the person was not able to be located within 3 years. That is not acceptable and I withdraw new clause 30AA on that basis.
Woolerton R Doug: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17731] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I just offer New Zealand First’s cooperation. We would be happy to put Parts 3 and 4 without debate.
Simich Clem: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8420] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am going to deal with Mr Peters now. I require Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise to the House.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:610;Page:7553] 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On the vote on the first reading of the Railways Bill on 31 July the United Future party was recorded as voting against the bill when in fact it voted for it. The corrected result of the vote is therefore Ayes 109 Noes 8.
Pillay Lynne: Border Security Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Border Security Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6832] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: I have been waiting in anticipation to speak in support of this bill. It provides the New Zealand Customs Service with greater powers over people and their property who cross our borders illegally and undeclared. It also allows early and timely access to information for managing the risk that people planes ships boats and goods may pose as a terrorist threat. I commend Rick Barker for this bill. It comes from a Minister who cares and a Government that cares about the security of our country.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3761] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
New clause 10 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (a) of subclause (1) after the word “name” the words “other than by the authority of an Order in Council expressly providing for such sale”.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18737] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 1 March priority will be given to the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day and it is anticipated that on Thursday the House will be considering the election of a new Speaker.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15356] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19064] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22263] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Dunne Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21634] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I think that the Minister’s contribution and Mr Jones’ earlier contribution were particularly useful and I just simply want to acknowledge Mr Jones’ withdrawal of his amendment and the Minister’s restatement of the assurance that he gave in his second reading speech. 
The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee was concerned about making it absolutely clear—and this is almost one of those cases where one has to make it absolutely absolutely clear—that the sentiment we all thought was being captured by this provision was in fact the reality that the innocent unwitting genuinely motivated person who feels a sense of compassion for those who are suffering and who decides to give support to campaigns designed to alleviate that suffering does not then find himself or herself entrapped by the subsequent revelation that the organisation to whom he or she is giving support might have links to terrorist organisations. The select committee has no sympathy for the terrorist but a lot of sympathy for the genuine donor. 
As members of the select committee will recall we certainly agonised for some time about how effective the provision in the bill would be in giving that protection. We became satisfied that the test was sufficiently high in a number of cases to give that assurance. We then thought it would be critically important for the Government to restate the obvious in fact so that anyone looking at the bill as it is eventually passed the select committee’s report and the content of the debate in this House—and the judiciary have been known to do that on many occasions—would be left in no doubt as to what the true intent of the bill was. 
I think Mr Jones has done us a useful service by moving an amendment that actually focused our attention on the particular provision. That made us not only consider it but also debate it here this evening and place on record the absolute assurance and clarity that we feel about what this provision means in reality. I do not think it can be restated often enough that those who are genuine well motivated and innocent in terms of their intent have nothing to fear from the provision contained in this bill that we are about to pass. And I think that is where I should end this contribution because it really is the nub of the issue. 
The bill’s intent is a genuine one. It does protect the innocent but it also makes clear our abhorrence of the activity that people are concerned about.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12185] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment as amended agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:5058] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I support the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I support the Minister in her introduction of this bill and I take this opportunity to commend the previous speaker for a well-reasoned contribution in which the sort of political opportunism that we see from one of the Opposition parties on that side of the House was totally absent.
Power Simon: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15426] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the risk of offending my good colleague the member for Whangarei I want to say that my understanding is that there is a loose convention that would have you at least allow the senior member of the Opposition present to take the first call on a part. Given that the deputy leader of the National Party is present in the Chamber and sought the call I would think that perhaps in those circumstances and with no disrespect to my colleague Phil Heatley Mr Brownlee should be—if I could be so bold—offered the call in the first instance.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9210. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 11; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 2; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to.
Simich Clem: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
Simich Clem: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—System Breakdown 
[Volume:622;Page:18096] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Absolutely. That information will be given as soon as we can which will be in the not too distant future.
Ririnui Mita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ririnui Mita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5610] 
11. JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 on behalf of  
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the results of students participating in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 National statistics on the achievement of students who did level 1 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement last year are now available online. They provide a rich source of information that can be used by schools to identify weak spots in students’ learning and to make targeted changes in teaching to strengthen those areas. 
Jill Pettis 
: Has this level of information been available in the past? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. This is the first time we can look at students’ achievement patterns by gender ethnicity and school decile and on a school-by-school basis look at the specific detail on strengths weaknesses and places to target changes in teaching practice and track whether those changes are working. That is the sort of information I think that could make a big difference to teaching and learning and I am pleased the committee convinced me to put in the computer resources to provide it.
Hartley Ann: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7767] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Speaker’s ruling 15/2 (Supplement) states: “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.”
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15242] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a speech made by Mr Prebble in May of 1979 when he accused the three High Court judges in the Hunua trial of not being able to read. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3823] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 8.
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5573] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am trying to assist because I think you have come clean and said that you had made a mistake and that is fine. In my view the correct way forward would be for you to seek leave to put the vote again. I do not think that any Chair can sit there and declare a vote then decide that he or she got it wrong and just change it particularly after the vote was finished. We can get into an argument about whether we had moved on but clearly the voting had finished. You had called “The Ayes have it.” That is when we move on. In fact I think you had even started your next sentence but had not actually put the next vote. I think the proper way to do it is by leave because I would hate us to get into a situation where we created a ruling—and I think it would be quite improper to create a ruling at this level—that the Chair having put the vote and declared the vote can then say: “I’m going to change it.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not actually need to seek leave.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10230] 
6.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What funding increases if any has the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society had since 1999? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Since we became the Government the Plunket Society’s funding has risen from $17 million in 1999 to $26 million this year rising again to $28.5 million next year. This represents a 64 percent increase under this very good Government. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has she seen any reports falsely claiming that funding has been steadily cut by this Government? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have. The ACT health spokesperson falsely said there had been steady cuts in Government funding to Plunket a claim that was refuted by the Plunket Society president. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In addition to the extra funding that has been provided to Plunket will the Minister be issuing a directive to district health boards to say that where Plunket identifies cases to them that require the attention of the services it provides Plunket will not be told that doing things beyond its contract is not its business? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is no need to issue a directive to district health boards. Plunket has two contracts. It has the contract that we fund and then its own contracts which it has developed over many years and which are not funded by the Government—including the car seat rental schemes and so on. What Plunket decides to do with its money is its business.
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7053] 
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 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to and clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3742] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15425] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7064] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton to Part 1 be agreed to.
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20386] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.