edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Dunne Peter: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9954] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is just a very quick point of clarification: does that decision therefore mean that I cannot move the motion again at the time that that order of the day is called? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will consult and come back to the member on that.
Hawkins George: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hawkins George: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Visitors — Uganda—Parliamentary Delegation 
Visitors — Uganda—Parliamentary Delegation 
[Volume:609;Page:6329] 
Wednesday 18 June 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Uganda—Parliamentary Delegation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from Uganda led by the Hon Zachary Olum is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish they be welcomed.
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4589] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand what you have explained to us. But the dilemma I have now is that with the feeling of dissatisfaction that I have and it has now been supported by the member from the ACT party— 
Sue Kedgley 
: And the Greens. 
RON MARK 
: And the Greens now have also expressed the same concern. I know that behind the scenes there are discussions and arrangements between the Government whips and the various Opposition whips and unofficial and informal agreements are entered into in the Business Committee but I have not been part of any such discussions. 
What I see right now is a situation that will lead to great dissatisfaction. If we are now to stick to the relevance of the schedule there is no opportunity for the new material that has been introduced to be addressed on either the Government or the divided Opposition side of this debate. It leaves one in the position in order to seek satisfaction of possibly recalling the Speaker because we in New Zealand First feel that our right to debate this issue fully and formally to a sensible conclusion has been rushed. To receive an arrogant response which basically stated “Read 139 and sit down” to my expression of concern is totally unacceptable if this is truly a House of Representatives and a democratic environment. I ask you to consider that and give me a sensible explanation before I am forced to consider my final option which is to recall the Speaker.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Sir Edmund Hillary—50th Anniversary of Ascent of Mount Everest 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Sir Edmund Hillary—50th Anniversary of Ascent of Mount Everest 
[Volume:608;Page:5816] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future also wishes to support with pleasure the motion that has been moved by the Prime Minister. During the 20th century just about every possible achievement that a human being could make was made yet amongst all of those achievements the conquest of Everest stands out as probably the greatest—be it scientific literary or whatever. Getting to the top of that mountain said so much. It was highly appropriate that it was a New Zealander who was first to achieve it. It is doubly appropriate that a man of rugged features simple sincerity a bluff but amiable nature and genuine affection for his fellow human beings in this country and elsewhere in the form of Sir Edmund Hillary was the person to make that climb. 
The Prime Minister made reference to the greatest living New Zealander. I do not think we can ever begin to imagine the inestimable value of Sir Edmund and his contribution to our country. It is certainly appropriate that this Parliament celebrates and recognises this achievement and it is certainly appropriate that all New Zealanders join in the commemorations on 29 May to recognise this seminal event in the foundation and history of our country. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16911] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Beyer Georgina: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10425] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am delighted by the member’s request in offering me this opportunity to give an explanation. However I am defeated because the honourable member has indeed answered the question himself. I can confirm that he is correct in his assumption as to why this amendment has been put. It is due to a drafting error because of the striking out by unanimous decision of clause 8(1)(b) as it was. So this amendment refers to clause 8(2). It precisely states: “To omit the words ‘together with the amount of distributions made under subsection (1)(b)’—lines 14 and 15 on page 4 of the bill.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Are you going to answer my question? 
Simon Power 
: Answer Ken Shirley’s question about the inconsistency of the philosophy behind this bill. 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: It is my understanding that the Government does not perceive that there is an inconsistency in its particular policy with something that is a local bill and is a local desire. I think the Government agrees that ideally these kinds of bills would be decided at a local level and given that the new Local Government Act would provide for less of this kind of legislation going before the Local Government and Environment Committee for example. So in answer to Mr Shirley’s question I think the difference is something that he obviously perceives to be there.
Tisch Lindsay: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20955] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a further point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that the member needs to be seated rather than standing in the aisle which is where the member was when he was confused about which way he was actually casting the vote. I would like a ruling on where he should have been positioned when he cast his vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is sufficient for tonight. I thank Mr Tisch for again enlarging on that matter but I accepted the member’s vote. Members should be seated. That is the requirement but it is entirely up to the Chair. I did accept his vote. I knew where it came from I knew what he intended and I will let the matter rest there. Thank you.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5570] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 46 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 3(7) be agreed to: 
to omit this subclause and substitute the following subclause: 
(7)Section 2(1) of the principle Act is amended by inserting after the definition of the term heritage protection authority the following definition: 
historic heritage 
 means those natural and physical resources that possess architectural cultural historic scientific or technological importance together with any associated contents and surroundings; and includes historic sites structures places and areas historic gardens archaeological sites and sites of significance to Maori.
Connell Brian: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12416] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Prior to the dinner interval I drew the attention of the Committee to the signing and distribution of financial statements and I read the section that said that if that did not happen then the society and every officer of the society who was in default would be guilty of an offence. That is really the notion of vicarious liability and I pose the question of how fair and reasonable it is. I can understand that senior officers of the society and the boards of directors have to shoulder that responsibility but to make every officer liable seems to me a little tough. I put it to the Committee that some officers in junior positions working in such a society would have very little idea about the financial management of the society and for them to be penalised in that manner would be unreasonable. 
I also turn my attention very briefly to the proposed section 97A of the Act “Distribution of copies of financial statements and reports”. I agree that they need to be distributed but I pose the question of why we think we need to legislate that. I would have thought that was sensible commercial practice in the first instance. I know that there would be a defence in that some depositors or members could claim that they did not know about the financial structure of the organisation they were investing in and I can understand that they might have an action if this measure was not done but I fail to see how this section will change the practice that has been taking place prior to this legislation concluding its passage through Parliament.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Points of Order Raised out of Time Debate on Iraq 
[Volume:606;Page:3786] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Firstly of course 2 weeks ago we had a 14-hour-plus debate that included those matters. Secondly instead of having the Budget Policy Statement debate which is likely to take 2 hours next Wednesday—the Government is quite happy to spend 2 hours talking about its fiscal position and the state of the economy—the Opposition might be happier to spend 2 hours debating Iraq.
Gallagher Martin: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5585] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter John: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12364] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that there is some uncertainty as to whether the leave that was granted carries on to the third reading. National has a split vote so I seek leave for a split vote on the third reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11086] 
6.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What recent reports has he received on tourism’s contribution to economic growth? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 The year 2003 was another record year for tourism. Statistics New Zealand figures released just today show a 3 percent increase over 2002’s all-time high of over 2 million visitors. International visitor expenditure represents 15.7 percent of export earnings—second only to dairy. Overall the sector comprises 9 percent of the country’s gross domestic product—over $15 billion per annum. The latest accommodation figures show that tourism continues to drive growth in our regions with nine out of 12 showing an increase in guest nights. In a year marked by international conflict by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) and by other challenges to the industry I think the New Zealand tourism sector has to be congratulated on still showing world-beating growth potential. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister received any forecasts regarding tourism’s future value to the economy? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Tourism Research Councilforecasts show that international visitor numbers are forecast to grow by 5.7 percent annually through to 2009. But better than that expenditure will increase at nearly double that rate—nearly 10 percent. That does not happen by accident. From day one this Government has worked in partnership with the sector to build a sustainable yield-driven industry. Together we put in place the strategy and—clearly—the results are outstanding. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Given the glowing tourism figures the Minister has just given to the House does he agree that the opportunity for stronger growth in tourism was missed when he failed to agree with New Zealand First’s view that tourism should be recognised for its export potential during the formation of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Not only as a Minister but as a member of the Government I think this Government has demonstrated the value of getting alongside and working with this key industry. We see the benefit of that work built out of the rubble left behind by the McCully years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last phrase can be withdrawn. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I withdraw. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of proving who might have created New Zealand—not the Labour Government—I seek leave to table the book of Genesis. 
Document not tabled.
Robertson H V Ross: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19123] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise members that by leave the Committee agreed that a number of schedules would be grouped together for the purposes of voting. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 15 be agreed to.
Mahuta Nanaia: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8292] 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Alexander Marc: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12322] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I just want to make a couple of observations as this bill progresses and one is this. The Labour Party which traditionally has always stood by the working man and working woman of this country refuses to stand up for the rights of the representation of the working people of the orchestra—the players themselves who have been denied a voice by this Labour Government. Why one has to ask? They are talented individuals who ought to have representation on a board. They are not a bunch of idiots whose sole claim to fame is the fact that they can play beautiful music. They have brains and they have the right to have representation. 
For a party that prides itself on giving voice to minorities to now turn around and deny that voice to the players it reeks—it absolutely reeks. How National can come aboard and jump into bed with Labour on this I have absolutely no idea. When all the other parties are trying to work constructively to allow the very players to have their right to be represented on the board why deny representation? That is what I ask National. Who is National answerable to in terms of support—is this where it is coming from? Are those members scared of somebody on the board—is that who they are answerable to and is that why they want to deny representation to the players? Who are they afraid of that they would rather climb into bed with Labour than work constructively alongside all the other parties? It is absolutely shameful. 
The players would add quite a lot to the board. They would provide a players’ perspective and a voice for the legitimate concerns that players want addressed. This would promote understanding of orchestral issues. Giving players a voice on the board would allow them to advance artistic experience from an artistic point of view which is something Labour is deciding not to provide and something that National—for some obscure reason—is deciding to go along with Labour and agree with it on. 
The one question I have to ask both parties is why they do not trust the players. Why do those parties not trust players to have a voice on the board to allow them to say what needs to be said for their own interests? Those members want to hear their music but they do not want to hear their voices and that is utterly shameful of both of those parties.
Speaker’s Statements — Questions for Written Answer 
Speaker’s Statements — Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4130] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Questions for Written Answer 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I move to question No. 4 I just want to say to Katherine Rich that the replies will be supplied before the House sits tomorrow. 
Question time resumed.
Goff Phil: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Goff Phil: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9370] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I shall answer a couple of points made by members and will start with a concern raised by Keith Locke. He said this legislation empowers the police to require assistance from a person where necessary—such as providing the password to access a computer. I put it to Mr Locke that this provision no more infringes upon a person’s rights—for example the right to silence or the right not to self-incriminate—than it does to require a person when the police appear with a search warrant to actually open the door. This provision is not a dangerous breach of rights. It simply applies the law to meet the needs of modern technology 
A recent case about 3 years ago involved the police physically picking up the computer of a lawyer and taking the entire machine etc. out of the office block. It would be much more satisfactory if the police when exercising a search warrant under the law to access a property to look for a particular product can access the material on the computer. It is warranted; it is protected. 
Mr Locke also raised a concern about tracking devices. I am not sure why he is so concerned about this legislation because at the moment it is not unlawful to put a tracking device on a vehicle; not at all. It is unlawful if the police have to enter on to premises or if they have to break or open or interfere with something to do that. That constitutes trespass. If anything this change in law places limits and clear safeguards on the police’s exercise of their authority. So this is hardly a matter of great moment for civil liberties either. In fact it goes some way towards protecting civil liberties in a reasonable way. 
With regard to Mr Franks’ proposed amendment I am sure he is sincere in what he is trying to achieve. I have consulted on his amendment. I have talked to parliamentary counsel and I have talked to the Ministry of Justice. Neither the Police nor theCustoms Service raised any of the concerns that the member has. I am advised that this legislation would not require any special act on the part of the police with regard to surveillance cameras. The cameras are not covert. They are there; they are open. Everybody knows they are there. The police do not have to enter on to premises that do not belong to them. They do not have to break and enter to put them up. I am told there is not a problem; that the definition is deliberately kept reasonably broad to take into account technological changes in the future and that this is modelled on international law—specifically Canadian law. No concern has been expressed by any of the parties that have some expertise in the matter that the implications of the legislation as it is worded and as tracking devices are defined would be problematic for the Police or the Customs Service. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Jill Pettis.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5828] 
10.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has he received on the enforcement of the Land Transport (Street and Unauthorised Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Several police operations have seen 86 boy racer cars impounded nationally with last weekend’s blitz in Auckland resulting in 17 cars being impounded 23 defective vehicles being ordered off the road one stolen car being recovered 42 traffic notices being issued one arrest for pouring diesel on the road and 133 infringement notices being issued. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister heard somewhat curious claims that the legislation is “so broad it gives police the power to pick up anyone they don’t like and threaten them”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes. The legislation targets people who break the law intimidate people pour diesel on the road and drive dangerously. Counties-Manukau police inspector Dave Simpson put it best when he said: “These people take over the roads and the aim is to reclaim those roads on behalf of the people”. That is something this Government really agrees with. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree with Judge Edward Ryan that the police already had sufficient powers to confiscate vehicles from boy racers before that legislation was passed; and what proportion of the offences caught in the weekend crackdown in Auckland were against learner and restricted licence provisions rather than breaches of the boy racer legislation? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police are delighted with the new legislation because it is curing a problem. I have had people contact the police to say that they can now sleep in their homes over the weekend without having to put up with the noise and that has to be good for ordinary New Zealanders. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have previously invited Ministers to have another look at how they answer questions. I put it to you that that answer did not even begin to address the question put to the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did address that question. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister have any concerns about a report in the  
Dominion Post  
this morning that stated that no cars had been confiscated in the Wellington area by the police unlike Auckland where there has been quite heavy policing of boy racers; could that possibly be because we are still under-staffed and the police simply do not have the people on the ground to continue to clean up that mess ? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I want to tell the member that the Wellington Mayoral Forum formally congratulated the Wellington police on “the excellent work done on progressing solutions to the issue of boy racers.” The police have the numbers and are getting the results and I think everyone should support them.
Jones Dail: Business of the House 
Jones Dail: Business of the House 
[Volume:614;Page:10722] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave that the proceedings of the House be suspended before item No. 5 on today’s Order Paper—should that item on the Order Paper be reached tonight—and that the House be resumed at 2 p.m. on Wednesday when it may debate the Government’s announcement tomorrow on the foreshore and seabed issue. In effect that would be a 2-hour timed debate as required. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is objection.
O'Connor Damien: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
O'Connor Damien: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6757] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to get up and support my colleague Lianne Dalziel and congratulate her on her management of this legislation which is not driven as Mr McCully would claim by any High Court ruling. It is driven by something that he may lack—his party certainly does—and that is vision. This is legislation to drive— 
Ron Mark 
: Where was your vision during the election? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: —vision in this country where skills and industry are matched where immigration and industry are matched and where immigration and community are matched so that we achieve some positive outcomes for this country from immigration and where we match the aspirations of those coming into this country with the opportunities and needs of industry in New Zealand. It is as simple as that and this Government is prepared to make the calls that are necessary and to bring into this House legislation that achieves those visionary goals. I know that it is hard—if not impossible—for any of the parties on the other side of the House to understand that we can guide some vision for this country and put in place some legislation that helps achieve that and in the end produce a better country than when we started—because we took over from a miserable National Government supported by New Zealand First at one stage and then by ACT as well that had created policies that misled many immigrants to this country. They were brought into the country in the belief that they would walk right into jobs because they had skills. We are aligning their skills with job opportunities. I am happy to be part of a Government that has developed sound legislation and I look forward to its passage through the House.
Hide Rodney: Motions — New Zealand Cricket—Tour of Zimbabwe 
Hide Rodney: Motions — New Zealand Cricket—Tour of Zimbabwe 
[Volume:627;Page:21949] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to condemn Robert Mugabe his tyrannical regime and the oppression of Zimbabweans for years now. We opposed Robert Mugabe from day one because it was clear that he was a socialist dictator and a tyrant. What we do not agree with is this motion. We will oppose this motion because it is all a bit precious for this Parliament to stand up and call upon New Zealand Cricket to abandon its “proposed tour”. Well actually the team has gone. It is on the tour now. 
We go back to fundamental rights that every New Zealander should have. The first is that New Zealanders should be free to travel wherever they choose. The second is that New Zealanders should be free to play sport with whomever they choose. New Zealanders have those freedoms which set us apart from tyrannical regimes where Governments tell people what they can and cannot do. 
Mr Peters is quite right. If Parliament and our Government are to start deciding who can play sport with whom because we do not like the particular policies of a tyrant where does it end? I am sorry to inform the Prime Minister that Mr Mugabe’s regime is not the only one in the world we have trouble with. Many many regimes are oppressive and take away the individual rights of their citizenry. 
The ACT party says that it is up to New Zealand Cricket to make the decision about whether to tour and it is in the best position to do so. We should remind ourselves that the 10-year tour programme was developed and made public 4 years ago. Everyone knew that this tour was on the cards. It was only at the last minute—heading into an election—that it became a political issue that politicians here in New Zealand thought they might make some hay over. 
 We should think very carefully about the costs we have imposed on New Zealand Cricket by throwing the tour into uncertainty; and not just on New Zealand Cricket because other sporting codes hoping to host tours here to New Zealand when they go to win the rights to host a sporting event will have the concern that our Parliament or our Government might decide that one of the potential participants is not to be allowed here. So yes the ACT party condemns Mr Mugabe and his regime but we oppose this motion for the reasons outlined.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21408] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Connell Brian: Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Connell Brian: Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19217] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to take a relatively short call on this legislation because I have just two or three points to make. The first is that although the National Party is supporting this legislation and I know that the dairy industry is supporting this we are doing it somewhat through gritted teeth. The reason we have been told that this is the sort of legislation that the dairy industry wants is that it will facilitate trade into European markets. As someone who has been involved in the industry over a number of years I have to say that I do not necessarily buy that. We should understand and members of the dairy industry do understand that the customers in the European markets appreciate cheap quality goods just like everyone else. Members of the industry are concerned that we will create a bureaucracy that is bloated with red tape which will affect that competitiveness somewhat. I am sick and tired of a Government that dances to the tune of European markets day in and day out without giving due recognition to the dairy industry and the sterling work that that industry has done over the last 20 years. 
Opposition Member 
: Fourteen thousand hard-working dairy farmers. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The 14000 hard-working dairy farmers in this country should get more support and recognition than they do from this Government. The other point I want to make—and this really raises the hackles on the back of my neck—relates to the Food Safety Authority. Here is an organisation that has a reputation for being full of zealots. It is hard to deal with—it is pretty much “Do it our way or no way.”—and I say that that is not an acceptable way to conduct business across this country. Industry after industry has felt the torch of this authority and they find it very difficult and unreasonable to deal with. What it is promoting is that this industry must be self-regulating. It must have risk management programmes in place we have been told. Well hello! Wake up and smell the roses is what I say to the Food Safety Authority because here is an industry that has been regulating itself for a long time and has been doing it to exacting standards. It should get some credit for that. 
My final advice to the Government is this: if it is not broke then do not try to fix it. What the dairy industry is most alarmed about—when I talk to individual members and to the industry as a whole—is that this will end up in a bureaucratic nightmare as this Government its consultants and its food safety henchmen drive around the country and put in place bloated regulation after regulation which is simply not necessary.
Hughes Darren: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19132] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Ewen-Street Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ewen-Street Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8660] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Agriculture but I note that neither the Minister nor his deputy are in the House. I seek the leave of the House to have my question deferred. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer it. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4420] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document  
Ethnic Perspectives and Policy: Helping Ethnic People Be Seen Heard Included and Accepted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:5053] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise with pride to speak to the first reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill and in doing so follow on from the member for Port Waikato who I do not think believed what he had to say when it came to the approach this Government is taking with accident compensation. He knows that we are putting a huge emphasis on rehabilitation and injury prevention. We have reshaped the entire model around those principles and it is another good example of the Government bringing legislation to the House that ties in very closely with strategies the Government has put in place. For example the injury prevention strategy that the Hon Ruth Dyson announced last year and the New Zealand transport strategy that has also come out have very clear goals. Here we have legislation that puts those high-level goals into something practical for the New Zealand people. When it comes to the tax increase of course that is controversial with regard to roading funding but it was well signalled from December last year. The Government is making great progress on injury prevention and this is a bill we can vote for with some pride.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:609;Page:6197] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the main items of business for the House will be the Committee stage and third reading of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill the second reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill the second reading of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) and the supplementary estimates including the second reading of the Imprest Supply Bill.
Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3496] 
Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2001/02 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Apology to the House Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Apology to the House Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Points of Order 
Rodney Hide—Apology to the House 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday before question time began Rodney Hide sought leave of the House and it was granted to apologise for misleading the House with regard to statements he made about Mr Hemana Waaka and Maori Sportscasting International. I now seek leave for Mr Hide to offer his apologies kanohi ki te kanohi to Mr Hemana Waaka and his whanau. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot seek leave for anybody else. 
Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Through you Mr Speaker yesterday the Minister of Maori Affairs said he would answer a question and get back to me directly. I am sorry to report to the House that the Minister has yet to get back to me with the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to be seated. It is up to the Minister as to when he gets back to the member. The member cannot enter into a debate about that.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16920] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Benson-Pope David: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:622;Page:17322] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That Standing Order 259 be suspended to permit the introduction of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill to amend the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Electricity Act 1992 
. Standing Order 259 relates to omnibus bills and requires that except as otherwise permitted by the Standing Orders a bill must relate to one subject area only. I propose that the Standing Orders be set aside on this occasion so that the bill may be introduced as an omnibus bill. 
The purpose of this bill is to improve the Resource Management Act and to make two amendments to the Electricity Act. Changes to both Acts relate to decision-making processes for infrastructure and it makes sense to consider them together. There are no other obvious upcoming legislative vehicles for amendments to the Electricity Act and this is the most rational path to follow. 
The changes to the Resource Management Act focus on improving the quality of decisions and processes by increasing certainty and by reducing delays costs and the incorrect use of process whilst ensuring appropriate public participation and meeting environmental objectives. The proposed amendments to the Electricity Act will simplify the decision-making process for electricity operators wanting to work on high-capacity electricity lines as the process will no longer be different from that for lower-voltage lines. The amendments mean that a road-controlling authority must allow high-capacity electricity lines—that is those greater than 110 kilovolts or 100 megavolt amperes—to cross roads or level crossings subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by the road-controlling authority. Currently the Electricity Act allows such access rights only to works operating at a voltage below 110 kilovolts and a capacity below 100 megavolt amperes. Associated statutory appeal rights and time frames apply. The amendments as drafted would not allow transmission operators to put pylons in the road corridor. That would still need to be directly negotiated with the road-controlling authorities. 
The proposed amendments to the Electricity Act together with amendments to the Resource Management Act will clarify that the environmental effects of high-voltage electricity works are better managed under the Resource Management Act than by road or rail-controlling authorities negotiating duplicate conditions with electricity operators under the Electricity Act. This approach is entirely consistent with the goals of the review of the Resource Management Act which are to reduce delay eliminate unnecessary costs and ensure full opportunities for participation by affected parties.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18812] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11282] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert in clause 4 new sections 112V and 112W in clause 4 be agreed to.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time 
[Volume:610;Page:7438] 
9.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What progress has he made in building a climate change partnership with the United States? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Very good progress. Last week I met a United States delegation and we agreed on a number of new climate change partnership projects. These include work on climate change science; technology development; greenhouse gas accounting in forestry and agriculture; engagement with business; cooperation with developing countries; and climate change research in the Antarctic. 
David Parker 
: Will these partnership projects with the United States include any work on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. The list of projects agreed with the United States includes further research into measuring and mitigating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This reflects the fact that the United States like New Zealand recognises the significance of agricultural greenhouse gases and the importance of finding ways to reduce them. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Government consider joining the climate action partnership between the United States and Australia as an alternative way of addressing climate change in the event that Russia fails to ratify and the Kyoto Protocol collapses; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The partnership to which the member refers is a research partnership between the US and Australia. New Zealand has a research partnership between itself and the US and it has a research partnership between itself and Australia. We kind of are in there anyway. 
Rod Donald 
: What exactly is the value of signing a protocol with a country that refuses to commit to the Kyoto Protocol because it might hurt its economy—even though a viable economy would not be feasible if there were runaway greenhouse gas emissions—and that is prepared to see low-lying Pacific islands become submerged simply because it wants to maintain its present lifestyles? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The United States and New Zealand of course have a different view on the Kyoto Protocol. The United States has decided not to ratify it. New Zealand already has along with I think 101 other nations. However the fact is the United States science base is very strong very well informed and very keen to collaborate with New Zealand especially in addressing certain gaps. There is a bunch of oceanographic work in our southern oceans that needs to be done. There is a bunch of work that can be done with and for Pacific Island nations to help them manage mitigation.
te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15599] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to make some comments about MetiriaTurei’s Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the huge control that Te Ohu Kai Moana Trust Ltd has over mandated iwi organisations which ultimately are the iwi bodies that hold and manage the assets. The absence of any time limits on the period when that power can disappear is a real issue. I noted that John Tamihere seemed to be in favour of this Supplementary Order Paper. If the Government were to support the amendment that would be a big change on its behalf. 
It is just these kinds of processes structures and powers that make Maori very fearful of being so far removed from their asset. Although they get part of the asset as mentioned earlier by myself and other speakers the other significant part remains out of their reach. With the potential for the asset to be sitting in Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd Maori fear that it could be managed in ways that are contrary to their own interests. It is not good if there is any residual power that allows any organisation above the mandated iwi organisations to keep on saying: “Well we want to change this. We’re putting in some more criteria.” If members think about it they will realise that such a practice flies in the face of managing an asset that is commercial and therefore as far as possible should be managed on a commercial basis. 
I turn to the review period. The Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee was able to make some changes to minimise the feeling on the part of the owners of the asset that they are in the dog box that someone is always standing over them and that they are always at the butt end of everything. That environment is no good for the proper management of such valuable assets. Although the select committee worked collectively to try to bring about better provisions around the review provisions—and National Party members did—we still have reservations about how long the review period will be even though it is proposed that the original period be cut down slightly. We have reservations that a significant proportion of the asset is sitting with the top dog Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and we wonder how long it will be before the iwi are freed of this constraint. 
National has also tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that tries to minimise that period to enable these iwi who are capable and competent to break free. However it is a real issue. I have to ask what other organisations of a commercial nature are subject to the kinds of controls that are in this bill. I know that the Minister endeavoured to answer some of the questions put to him but I have not found the answers at all satisfactory. To say that basically this is legislation that iwi wanted is not really the case because they are tired of the litigation too. They want their economic asset and they want to be able to move forward economically. Frankly the Maori record of managing their own assets over the last 20 years is not too bad at all and they develop more every day as they go forward.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5072] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 87 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 23 
New Zealand National 23. 
Amendment agreed to.