edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Connell Brian: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
Connell Brian: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11120] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have been warning Government members for the last 12 months that if they continue with this type of anti-business legislation they will be history at the next election. However they have been so entrenched in their views that they would not listen to what members of the Opposition have been telling them; they have been so in bed with their union mates that they could not or would not listen. And what has happened? They are now coming down like a pack of cards. It is not just their race-based policies that have got up people’s noses; it is also their anti-business socialist claptrap and people have suddenly said: “Enough is enough!” Raft after raft of this type of anti-business legislation has been directed at the very people who generate the money those people so irresponsibly spend. 
Now the party is over. I say to members of the Government that they should dust off their CVs because they are out of a job—or they soon will be—and they will certainly be out of luck. I could also ask those of them who have a job to stand up but that would embarrass them. For some of this crowd dusting off their CVs will not help. I have gone through a few of them: union stirrer union stirrer failed lawyer union stirrer Government gofer history teacher union stirrer and so on. Boy employers will be lining up to employ that crowd! 
Phil Heatley 
: That’s just the front bench. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That was just the front bench. They will be lining up to take on this crowd will they not? The great irony is that when these people come knocking on the door with their hands out asking: “Will you give me a job please?” employers will remember that they were the crowd who tried to bring down their businesses with the type of anti-business legislation they are trying to foist through with this bill. That is why I said right at the beginning of this speech that the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill is garbage. It is ill considered and has not been thought through. The relationship between employer and employee should end on the day the pay cheque stops and the relationship between a fair-day’s pay and a fair-day’s work should not be forgotten. It will force employers to become risk-averse. 
There is a view on the Government side of the House that the employers are the bad guys. They are essentially the mums and dads who risk everything who mortgage their houses to give hard-working New Zealanders a job. But this crowd is trying to force them out of business. That is why I say that this type of legislation will do more harm than good and it must be brought to a stop. The National Party is very strongly opposed to the bill.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15588] 
10.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What data has he received on the contribution that small to medium enterprises have made to employment in the economy? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 I am advised that of the net 193980 full-time employment positions created between 1997 and 2063 162150 of those positions will have been created by enterprises employing 19 or fewer fulltime equivalents. This data will be included in a report produced by the Ministry of Economic Development and Statistics New Zealand which will be released next week. The report is entitled  
SMEs 
 in New Zealand: Structure and Dynamics 
. 
Mark Peck 
: What other evidence has the Minister seen of strong growth in the small to medium enterprise sector? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: According to the National Bank’s July  
Small Business Monitor 
 small business growth has exceeded that for the economy as a whole for eight quarters in a row. Annual average growth for the small business sector was estimated at 4.7 percent compared with 3.6 percent overall. This wealth of evidence runs contrary to yesterday’s claims by the Auckland chamber of commerce—the bow-tied one—that small to medium enterprises appear to be passing up growth opportunities because of their inability to meet red tape and compliance tasks. I am yet to receive any concrete evidence to support this claim. 
Paul Adams 
: Is the Minister concerned given the large contribution small to medium enterprises make to employment about the effect their high failure rate of approximately 75 percent has on workers’ feeling of job security or lack thereof; if so what does he intend to do about it? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I would be grateful if the member could listen to the answer to the original question in regard to the number of full-time employment positions being created by small businesses. They are going forward in leaps and bounds in the engine room of the economy. More particularly I would like to table a note after this question which indicates a number of difficulties in jumping to his conclusion that there is a so-called 75 percent death rate. That is not correct. 
I seek leave to table a document created for me that explores the difficulty people would have in jumping to conclusions wrongfully. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12483] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 It is 2 minutes to 6—just prior to the dinner break—which is not a great time to start one’s speech but nevertheless. It has not taken long has it? It seems just like 2002 when we were in this House debating what the Hon Chris Carter said was great well-thought-out well-drafted legislation that would see local bodies and communities well into the future. Here we are back again just 2 short years later patching up the mess. This is an omnibus bill as the Minister alluded to and it is purely designed to patch up the mess the inappropriateness and the oversights that occurred during the drafting of the bill. The Opposition constantly pointed out at the time in 2002 that the passing of the bill was too quick and too rushed. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present Parliament Buildings—Media Access Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present  
[Volume:624;Page:19683] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I thank members for their contribution. As has been noted Standing Order 38 sets out the procedure for the Speaker to follow if no Ministers are present in the Chamber. That procedure was followed. If members wish to criticise the Government for the action it took then they are perfectly entitled to do so. If members think that the Standing Order is defective they can raise that with the Standing Orders Committee and I suggest they do that. 
I further note on the question of quorum that there are no quorum requirements today except in so far as that for the House to function there must be a Speaker and a Minister present. I also note that it is not for the Speaker to comment on the appropriateness of the Government or Opposition parties utilising the rights that are open to them under the Standing Orders.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17051] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7135] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I support Mr Peters on his point of order. We have found that the only way to get a question to the Prime Minister in the New Zealand Parliament is to ask about a confidence issue in respect of a Minister. Even questions that include direct quotes from the Prime Minister are shuffled off to other Ministers particularly if they are about anything controversial. That is the situation we are in. The advice I would give Mr Peters is that the only way he can get a question to the Prime Minister is in the form in which we now habitually have to put down questions. That is absolutely without precedent in this Parliament. There has never been a Prime Minister who has put more effort into dodging the questions put down to him or her.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:612;Page:9262] 
10.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What opportunities does the public and the tourism industry have to influence the location and standard of visitor facilities in New Zealand’s parks and reserves? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Every opportunity. Comprehensive consultation is under way on how the Government’s major funding boost for outdoor recreational facilities on conservation land will be allocated. Enjoyment of the outdoors is an essential part of our New Zealand way of life and we intend to keep it that way. 
David Parker 
: Will any huts or tracks be closed? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes. Some huts and tracks that are little used or are poorly sited will be closed. However opportunities are given to community groups to help with their maintenance. There will also be many more new huts and about 250 kilometres of new track built. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In considering the need for facilities and impacts of visitor activity on the conservation estate what work is the Department of Conservation conducting to assess the visitor-carrying capacity of different areas so that we do not allow the destruction of New Zealand’s most popular places? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The department is undergoing a major review of visitor numbers in locations. It is doing that by consultation and monitoring. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Noting that under the recreation opportunities review a number of category 4 huts are to be closed—the ones for which no payment is required to use them—can the Minister assure the House that the decisions to close or downgrade these huts owe more to the state of repair and lack of use of the huts than to any consideration to maximise the earning capacity from overseas visitors or elsewhere from using some of the more popular huts and tracks? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Duplication in use will be our criterion in deciding whether a hut remains open. I repeat there are opportunities for recreational groups to work in partnership with the department to keep open particularly popular huts that may be used by just a small group of people.
Turner Judy: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5378] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I do not want to take long on this call but I want to remind the House of some of the issues we are facing tonight. 
I recently had a very interesting briefing from representatives of the Alcohol Advisory Council on some of the problems that have been raised and discussed tonight about premixed drinks and the ability for young people to pool their money and buy spirits—all the issues that go with teenage-drinking problems. But a new problem had come into the equation which the council representatives had come to brief us about. It was separate from the issue of premixed drinks or the ability of young people to pool their money and buy spirits. Out of his briefcase one representative pulled a 750 ml bottle of spirits that the industry has very cleverly given 23 percent alcohol by volume. That is below the existing banding and therefore that bottle does not come under the existing tax regime. Young people can buy that bottle of spirits of 23 percent proof alcohol for from $8 to $10—the money that their mum and dad give them in good faith for a meal at McDonald’s. 
The Alcohol Advisory Council was extremely concerned about that new phenomenon. It was concerned about the irresponsibility of the alcohol industry in producing that product wilfully knowing that it falls just under the higher rate of duty. The industry’s toe is up to the line if not slightly over it. It is trying to bring into the problem of alcohol addiction young people who at that stage do not necessarily have the understanding required to set their own personal safe standards of drinking. Those young people are still learning. They are still at the point of being educated and are still experimenting. The council’s concern was that this particular move by the industry was bringing a whole new ingredient into play that young people had not previously had to deal with. That move was made possible by the banding of drinks of between 14 percent alcohol by volume and 23 percent; that provided the opportunity the loophole which the industry was taking full advantage of. What is happening tonight is an attempt to push those drinks to a pricing level above the price of a burger—the price range of young people.
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10500] 
8.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What are the implications of the Commonwealth decision on the suspension of Zimbabwe? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The decision to maintain Zimbabwe’s suspension emphasises that observing the fundamental principles of the Commonwealth is a prerequisite to continuing participation within it. Those principles set out in the Harare declaration include maintaining free and democratic political processes the rule of law independence of the judiciary just Government and fundamental human rights. Those principles were agreed to by all Commonwealth countries in Harare in a meeting in 1991 that was ironically chaired by Mugabe himself and reiterated at subsequent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting communiqués. 
Tim Barnett 
: What is the significance of the division of opinion within the Commonwealth countries at Abuja over continuing Zimbabwe’s suspension? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Commonwealth’s tradition is to endeavour to work by consensus in reaching decisions. In the event this was not possible at Abuja over either Zimbabwe or the election of the Secretary-General. Decisions in Abuja were however reached by proper democratic processes and by a very strong majority which encompassed countries from all parts of the Commonwealth. The message to the Mugabe regime was all the stronger given the breadth of opposition to its actions across the diverse community that makes up the Commonwealth. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister think that comments by Matt Robson that New Zealand should not support Don McKinnon’s candidacy for the position of Secretary-General of the Commonwealth undermined New Zealand’s position on Zimbabwe and that mixed messages from this Government contributed to New Zealand not being included in the six-nation group considering Zimbabwe’s position in the Commonwealth? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. In fact New Zealand was the prime advocate for Don McKinnon as Secretary-General who secured the support of all countries of the Pacific Forum. The Prime Minister wrote to every member of the Commonwealth and New Zealand was always at the forefront both in support of Don McKinnon as Secretary-General and for the continuing suspension of Zimbabwe. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What implications are there for New Zealand other than just rhetorical arising from President Mugabe’s criticisms and threats against this country both during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and in the light of the removal of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand really does not give a damn what Mugabe has said about our country. The fact that he singled New Zealand out for criticism was an indication that New Zealand in fact had been at the forefront of opposition to actions taken in his country against the rule of law against democracy and against human rights.
Beyer Georgina: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Beyer Georgina: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5024] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17948] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5475] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 It is a long time since this House has heard such a theatrically performed piece of fiction by a member of Parliament. What is more it is a very long time since this House has heard from Mark Peck the obscure member. Therefore I seek leave for Mr Peck to be granted one more slot of 5 minutes to extend the general debate today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for that Mr Brownlee but if Mr Peck wished to speak any longer he could ask for leave himself. Leave has been sought.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16356] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to add new subparagraph (v) to clause 72(1)(a) be agreed to.
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14561] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Clause 66 the interpretation clause is an interesting little clause that was slipped in at the last minute when the bill was tabled in the House for the first reading. I will read it out for members who may have forgotten their glasses: “Section 2(1) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the definition of scallop spat the following definition: “scampi” means any fish of the species  
Metanephrops 
challengeri 
”. That is Latin and only those like myself who know Latin will recognise it. I will interpret it for members. It means “scampi”. 
This is an important clause because if one mentions scampi to the average punter walking up Queen Street— 
Shane Ardern 
: Or Lambton Quay. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: —or Lambton Quay for that matter—all that he or she will think about is corruption and mismanagement. People will think of commercial fishing in bad terms sadly and of all sorts of issues including free lunches. But scampi is a commercially fished species caught mainly off the east coast of New Zealand so it is clearly important to put the definition of scampi in this bill given that the fishery is coming into the quota management system. 
I have a picture of a scampi here should members like to come over and chat to me. I know that Judith Tizard wants any excuse to sidle up to me and chat. [ 
Interruption 
] She has one. She can come over to this side of the Chamber to see a scampi picture that I have here. Interestingly enough a scampi is not a prawn; it is a lobster and it looks more like a lobster. When people ask me what a scampi is I generally say that it is a fish species that is halfway between a prawn and a rock lobster. It roughly is in size. It is about a foot long and is part of the lobster family strictly speaking. It has the Latin name  
Metanephrops 
challengeri 
. I was quite intrigued by the last part of the name “ 
challengeri 
”. I thought it might indicate where scampi was originally found which is in the Challenger Area fishery—area 7 as members will know. Apparently it is not particularly prevalent there but interestingly that is part of its scientific name. 
National will be supporting the Minister on this clause simply because it is important to put a definition of scampi into the bill—certainly into a bill that is about that specific fishery. It is intriguing to me that the Minister has seen fit to put the definition “scampi” after the definition “scallop spat” given that alphabetically “scampi” comes after the term “scallop spat”. That will help members his Labour Party colleagues librarians and others to find it quickly. We support that definition. I mentioned before in Italy it is also called scampi. In Spain it is called cigala and in Germany it is called the kaisergranat. Here in New Zealand we call it scampi.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Moving of Closure Motion 
[Volume:613;Page:10015] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ruled when I came back into the House that the motion had been properly moved and accepted by the then chairman of the Committee.
Collins Judith: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9891] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The Children’s Commissioner Bill has undergone a change of name during the course of debate. It is fitting that at this time when we are focusing on the rights of children we have changed the name of the bill from the Commissioner for Children Bill to the Children’s Commissioner Bill. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Is that plural? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is plural. The only thing is that it is a bit of a mouthful and I am not too sure we should not just call it the “Kids’ Commissioner Bill”. It would probably be slightly more understandable to most people. I am happy about this particular name of the bill because what we have done—apart from the fact that it is a huge mouthful and somewhat difficult to say in a rush—is very similar to what we did in relation to what was the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind which became the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. It is an emphasis change away from someone who is for the children and saying that that commissioner is the children’s commissioner rather than the other way around. I believe that that is a good thing and the National Party is happy to support it. We are happy to see that that particular change has taken place in favour of children. 
Part of the purpose of this debate is to look at how suitable the name is. Apart from the fact that we like that particular name and the change in emphasis the purpose of this particular part of the debate is to look at how appropriate it is. Should this bill be called the Children’s Commissioner Bill given its content? One of the things I think possibly we could talk about is the fact that quite a substantial part of the bill is taken up with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child yet the bill makes it quite clear that it does nothing more than append that convention to the bill. One wonders why when no action is being taken as I said in relation to the convention other than what was taken back in 1993 by the then National Government which ratified the convention. So for some reason the attachment has been made but it does not form part of the bill. I have to wonder whether maybe it should have in the title “Children’s Commissioner Bill” plus the attachment of “United Nations Convention for Children”. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It tidies it up. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It does tidy it up but we then have to wonder why it is added on. I think it is just possibly added on to add to the weight of the bill and to make it look as though it really is more about the children than it actually is. But in summary the National Party is happy with the change in emphasis towards children and away from the actual framework of the commissioner.
Gosche Mark: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Gosche Mark: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21373] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am very pleased to see this legislation finally reach this point. It is good law. It deals with some very serious issues. It makes sure that our punishments for those who drink and drive and those who speed at the upper end of the scale are much harsher so that we actually deal with the repeat offenders and with those who are going extremely fast in a less tolerant way than the law currently allows. 
We also deal with some quite small but significant issues in the bill. Some are very important particularly to those who drive for a living. We are allowing people who are currently disqualified from driving say buses to have the chance to go for a limited licence if they have not offended while driving their buses. We know that there is a shortage of truck drivers and bus drivers in this country so some of these minor changes actually help people. People might not be able to continue to drive a passenger service vehicle but they can drive a truck. At the moment they are prohibited from doing both and that does not make sense. 
Visually impaired and blind people who are great users of taxis for obvious reasons will benefit from a small but significant change. The bill will put Braille signs in taxis for their safety so they can identify who has been driving them which company etc. Surprisingly the National Party opposed the provision that has just made the law on taxi signage safer simpler and better. The National Party’s position is to make it harder and much more expensive. National members say that the taxi companies should go through the courts and use competition law to do that which shows people that they have no understanding of small businesses and the costs that apply to them. 
Changes to liability through the chain of responsibility say that one cannot design a contract that actually makes the driver break the law. One cannot overload and do the things that are being done out there at the moment and get away with it. The Road Transport Forum asked for that change and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Government are very pleased to be able to deliver it. 
We have also taken some regulation away from the smaller end of the industry—the courier driver type of operations. The law is much simpler now with lower compliance costs. It is a sensible law and I support it fully. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17286] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended 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 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16671] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Adams(P) 
Copeland   
Mark  
Smith L (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Dunne(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith M 
Ardern(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Awatere Huata  
English(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks(P) 
Perry(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Wong(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Power  
Carter J 
Jones  
Rich(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Mapp  
Scott  
Collins  
Noes 75 
Anderton(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sowry  
Barker  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey M 
Stewart(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Newman  
Tanczos(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
te Heuheu  
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Tizard  
Chadwick   
Hawkins(P) 
Parker  
Turei 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora  
Peck(P) 
Turia(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide  
Pettis(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hobbs  
Pillay  
Wilson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Cullen  
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui  
Yates 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hunt (P) 
Robertson(P) 
Dalziel  
Hutchison   
Robson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
King  
Samuels(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Teller: 
Dyson(P) 
Locke  
Simich(P) 
Hughes
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17102] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 60 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Cosgrove Clayton: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10604] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The bill is very important and attempts to address a number of key issues. At the very least it deserves and will get very close scrutiny from this side of the House.
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14478] 
1.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: Did he initially claim that leave was not required for the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee to sit after 6 pm last evening; if so why? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the tight time constraint to hear submissions is he as chairman advising submitters that it is their prerogative as to how they spend the 10 minutes allocated to them and can we therefore assume that select committee members’ opportunity to question submitters is a secondary consideration? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the chairman of the committee assure the House that submitters will get adequate time to get their points across and that the 10 members of the committee will also have adequate time to tease out the points that they wish with those submitters? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Yes.
O'Connor Damien: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
O'Connor Damien: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9616] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The Horticulture Export Authority was established in 1987 under the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural products. It has achieved that very effectively. In the last financial year around $125 million of horticultural products were exported under the Act. Squash avocados and summer fruit were the major contributors to that $125 million of exports. 
The bill we are dealing with was introduced into the House in March 2003. It went to the Primary Production Committee for consideration where a large number of submissions were heard. The bill has three objectives as stated. The first was to enable the export of kiwifruit for consumption in Australia to be facilitated under the Act. Because the export of kiwifruit comes under the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 there was a requirement to adjust the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act to enable the Horticulture Export Authority to regulate the collaborative marketing of kiwifruit into Australia. The submissions from the kiwifruit industry demonstrated a clear mandate to the Primary Production Committee for amendment to this Act. 
The second aim of the bill was to ensure consistency with New Zealand’s international obligations. It was achieved through the bill by preventing export marketing strategies from imposing quantitative restrictions on exports under the Act. The committee improved the clarity of the bill in that respect through proposing amendments that have now been incorporated into the bill. The first of the amendments was the insertion of the words “market development” into the bill to ensure that an export marketing strategy while not imposing quantitative restrictions on the Act would indeed allow sensible consideration of market developments and long-term market access. 
The third aim of the bill was to improve the administrative provisions in the Act by applying hearings and appeal provisions to the licensing decisions of the Horticulture Export Authority. There is also now an ability in the bill to allow the Horticulture Export Authority to cancel redundant export licences. That will assist the authority in keeping an up-to-date roll on those who are exporting. 
Finally I would like to thank the Primary Production Committee under the chair of David Carter. It has done an excellent job in making some minor amendments to the bill. That was necessary and it will certainly ensure that we get good solid and consistent value—the best value we can—from the Australian market which does not undermine exporters’ efforts in that area. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21707] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 38 
New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of Hon Rick Barker to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Ward Mike: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ward Mike: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19904] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are supporting the bill. The process in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was good. It took some time to get our heads round the measure because what we have now is an industry with a great many players and there is scope for overlap and therefore scope for gaps between responsibility. This legislation provides measures to ensure responsibilities are met and things do not fall into gaps. 
Rail does not have a bad safety record. The problem is that when things go wrong they can go horrendously wrong and the accidents can be of a horrific nature. Trains are very large and very unstoppable and it is important that we do have really good processes in place as Mark Gosche has said. It is up to the operators to write out their safety procedures. But they are not left on their own. They then have to have those safety procedures approved by the Director of Land Transport New Zealand as it is now. 
The mechanisms in place are first of all the safety case and the safety mechanisms. The safety case provides the overarching framework of processes and mechanisms and the safety systems are the more detailed procedures for the day-to-day operations. The removal of the position of safety manager is interesting the reason for it being that it is believed that all operators have to take a measure of responsibility. The words in the bill provide that the buck actually stops at the highest level. There are a whole range of operators from access providers to infrastructure owners rail vehicle owners premise owners rail traffic controllers and maintenance providers. It is important that in each of those areas there is sufficient funding in place to make sure that the operators have the funds and the expertise in place to meet their safety obligations. 
Deborah Coddington made a good point about the amount of costs met by rail operators. Of course those costs are higher for rail operators than they are for other transport operators. In the case of road transport we have warrant processes that are administered by somebody else. In the case of rail transport the expertise lies with the rail operators. They have to supervise their own safety processes to make sure they are done day by day because they are the ones who know about the matter. 
The Greens are pleased to support this legislation.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
[Volume:613;Page:9656] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like Judith Tizard to withdraw and apologise for the remarks she made when she was leaving the Chamber during question time.
Burton Mark: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Burton Mark: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22320] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member opposite Nick Smith cannot make the claim against the Chair that he made. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It wasn’t against the Chair; it was against the Government. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson. The member has been here long enough to know the Standing Orders. He directed the words “Keep on cheating.” at the Chair. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No at the Government. You know all about it.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7650] 
8.  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he aware of any new initiatives to promote teamwork leadership and hard work as part of the school curriculum; if so what? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. Tomorrow I will be launching “The Hillary Challenge” which is an interactive online social studies programme for students in years 5 to 10. “The Hillary Challenge” retraces Sir Edmund’s quest to Mount Everest and encourages students to learn the skills and values he has demonstrated throughout his life—teamwork leadership hard work altruism and his love of adventure. 
Mark Peck 
: Why is it important to encourage the development of those skills within the school context? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Those skills are vital for unleashing the creative potential of tomorrow’s leaders.
Smith Nick: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Smith Nick: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16641] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is one of the most important bills to be considered in the term of this Parliament. It is well known that I have made a number of public statements about the importance of this bill including court proceedings. I find it outrageous having sought the call on four occasions that you have disallowed me even being allowed to participate in this important debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There will be plenty of opportunity to participate. All those in favour please say aye— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Bloody outrageous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that remark to the Chair. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3494] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That  
all the words after the words “this House has no confidence” be omitted and the following words substituted: “in the Labour-led minority Government because of its determination to allow the release of genetically engineered organisms exposing our health our environment and our economy to significant risks; because despite there being some positive elements in the Government’s programme its economic policies fail to address poverty and inequality; because it has failed to demonstrate any significant leadership in its programme of action on sustainable development fails to invest in our young people with a tax funded tertiary education system continues to perpetuate treaty grievances in areas such as Ngawha; and continues to erode New Zealand’s sovereignty by using New Zealand forces to support US-led operations in the Gulf by trading away New Zealand’s rights through secret GATS negotiations and by supporting corporate globalisation policies which endanger our unique identity and that this House opposes the sale of shares in Air New Zealand by the Government to Qantas.” 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment as amended not 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:14039] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8276] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8712] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Donnelly Brian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11767] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 In referring to the title of the bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill we have to say that it probably is an accurate description of what the bill tries to do. But I would like to bring something to the attention of the Committee in order to help answer the question asked by the previous speaker—will the bill enable the transfer of all existing hazardous substances by July 2006? 
I am quoting from the departmental report which states: “There are two groups of substances that warrant further explanation in answer to this question. These groups are: the notified toxic substances or NOTS and the non-hazardous compressed gases.” We have talked about the non-hazardous compressed gases which are dealt with within the bill but this is what the report has to say about the notified toxic substances which I think is pertinent to what we have been talking about: “There are approximately 70000 hazardous substances that are not presently controlled.” Therein lie some of the issues around the statements made in that select committee report back and also in the speeches made during the second reading. “These are known as the NOTS. In order to achieve the completion of transfer by July 2006 the bill must enable transfer of the NOTS in groups. Groups are based on the controls needed to manage the risks of these substances as it is the controls that enable achievement of the purpose of the Act.” In other words section 160A and section 160B actually deal with some of the issues about whether the deadline will be met. I just rise to bring that to the attention of the Committee so that we clarify some of those issues around the numbers.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11298] 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Coordinating Minister Race Relations 
: Can he explain what is meant by the Prime Minister’s reported comments “Mr Mallard will also take responsibility for general issues concerning the Treaty of Waitangi such as the place of references to the treaty in legislation. There has been no clear ministerial responsibility in this area at all.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Coordinating Minister Race Relations) 
: 
 My understanding of the Prime Minister’s comment is that while there was some responsibility within the Maori affairs portfolio for the treaty issues from a Maori perspective and there was responsibility for settlement of historical grievances with the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations there was no Minister with clear overall ministerial responsibility in respect of the place of the treaty. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will he accept the offer—given the absolute mess that Labour and National have created in this area—of New Zealand First to apprise him of the questions that we have asked in this House on countless occasions over many years and the offer to sort out the legislation now? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Minister is always happy to have all reasonable assistance. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When the Prime Minister said that Mr Mallard’s responsibility would be for general issues concerning the Treaty of Waitangi such as the place of reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation did she tell him that she had previously delegated that specific role to the Hon Tariana Turia and I quote from the previous delegations under the name of Tariana Turia: “Responsibility for treaty clauses in legislation”; did she also tell him why Tariana Turia was being replaced and can the Minister confirm that that was for a degree of incompetence in that role? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of questions there. I think the key point I want to make is that Ms Turia’s delegation was from a Maori affairs perspective as a delegation from the Minister of Maori Affairs. I think the Prime Minister described my view as an overview—a helicopter view. Anyone who thinks that Ms Turia is not good at putting her point of view is just very very foolish. But it does not surprise me that Gerry Brownlee thinks that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker are you going to let that go? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Since the member has taken offence I will ask the Minister to withdraw that very last comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw.